Now after her deposition Aaron should interview Fiona Hill. I would like to see how she would lose all the feathers of her cocky
"I am Specialist in Russia" stance. She a regular MIC prostitute (intelligence agencies are a part of MIC) just like Luke Harding. And
probably both have the same handlers.
Brilliant interview !
Harding is little more than an intelligence asset himself and his idea of speaking to "Russians" is London circle of Russian emigrants
which are not objective source by any means.
He's peddling a his Russophobic line with no substantiation. In fact, the interview constitutes an overdue exposure of this pressitute.
Notable quotes:
"... He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. ..."
"... This interview is a wonderful illustration of everything that is horribly wrong with corporate media. I hope it goes viral. ..."
"... Very well put! Everything that is labeled as "conspiracy theory" when aimed towards the West, is "respectable journalism" when aimed at Russia. ..."
"... Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman "all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil. ..."
"... Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises '' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling the postal service company for transportation costs. ..."
"... Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate to The Real News. ..."
"... GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC server was hacked. ..."
"... Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking. ..."
"... NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election. Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller? LIAR!!!! ..."
"... Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here. ..."
"... His logic seems to be: Putin does things we don't like -> Trump getting elected is something we don't like -> Putin got Trump elected. ..."
That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence
(something like Russia's Richard Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch
of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. That's not how you're going to
get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on
"oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season.
Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really,
its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations
of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding
for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be involved in murdering
journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course
if someone here discusses he death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian were
to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
That is the video about fire arm legalization "cockroaches ", even if you are not Russian speaking it's pretty graphic to understand
the idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ILxqIEEMg
And FYI - Central Asian workers do the low-wage jobs in Moscow, pretty like Mexicans or Puerto Ricans in US. Yet, that "future
president" is trying to gain some popularity by labeling and demonizing them. Sounds familiar a bit?
"definitelly ddissagree with that assertation about Alexei he's had nationalist views but he's definitely not far right and
calling him a tool of US intelligence is pretty bs this is the exact same assertation that the Russian state media says about
him."
I disagree that there is any evidence of Navalny being tool of US intelligence, but you are wrong for not recognizing
that Navalny is ultranationalist. His public statements are indefensible. He is a Russian ultra nationalist, far right and a racist.
Statements about cockroaches, worse than rats, bullets being too good etc - there is no way to misunderstand that.
Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman
"all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always
cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil.
Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises
'' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling
the postal service company for transportation costs.
@trdi I am a Russian. And I remember the early Navalny who made me sick to my stomach with absolutely disgusting, RACIST, anti-immigration
commentaries. The guy is basically a NEO-NAZI who has toned down his nationalist diatribes in the past 10 or so years. Has he
really reformed? I doubt it.
MrChibiluffy, Navalny became relatively popular in Russia precisely at that time, especially during the White Ribbon protests
in 2011/2012. I remember it very well myself.
I am Russian and I lived in Moscow at that time and he was the darling of the Russian opposition. He publicly defined his views
and established himself back then and hasn't altered his position to this day.
What's more important is that around 2015 or so he made an alliance with the far-right and specifically Diomushkin who is a
neo-nazi activist. I understand that people change their views, it's just that he hasn't.
Nikita Gusarov it still feels like the best chance for some form of populist opposition atm. Even though they just rejected
him he has a movement. Would you rather vote for Sobchak?
Lets not forget that one reason many voted for Trump was his rhetoric about improving the peace-threatening antagonism towards
Russia, especially in order to help resolve the situation in Syria. It's not like it was secret he was trying to hide. He only
moderated his views somewhat when the Democrat-engineered anti-Russian smear campaign took off and there was a concerted effort
to tie him to Russia.
Is it crime surround yourself with people that will help you fullfill your pledges?
Yep, when he talked about murdering journalists, I paused the video and told my girlfriend about the murder of Michael Hastings.
Oh an PS the USA puts journalists in Guantanamo. We play real baseball.
Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths
or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate
to The Real News.
GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other
issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC
server was hacked.
Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know
if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever
you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase
that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking.
NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would
not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election.
Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller?
LIAR!!!!
Wow Aaron Matte NICE JOB. I'm only half through, I hope you don't make him cry. Do u make him cry? Did I hear this guy say
he's ultimately a storyteller? Lol.
It may seem like Trump has an alarming amount of associations with Russia, because he does.. that's how rich oligarchs work.
But it's all just SPECULATION still. Why publish a book on this without a smoking gun to prove anything? Collusion isn't even
a legal term, it's vague enough for people to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. People investigating and reporting on
this are operating under confirmation bias. Aaron, you're always appropriately critical and you're always asking the right questions.
You seem to be one of the few sane people left in media. Trump is a disgrace but there still is no smoking gun.
Omg a bunch of unproven conspiracy crap.. Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here..
How would anyone in the years before his candidacy have thought Trump would gain any political relevance. I mean even the pro
Hillary media thought until the end, their massive trump coverage would only help to get him NOT elected, but the opposite was
the case. This guy is a complete joke as are his theses. Actually reminding me of the guardian's so called report about Russian
Hacking in the Brexit referendum. Look here if you want to have a laugh
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/12/how-097-changed-the-fate-of-britain-not.html
Collusion Rejectionist! Ha Ha. Funniest interview ever. Well done Aaron. The Real News taking a stand for truth. So what's
in the book if there's no evidence? Guardian journalism? Stop questioning the official narrative, oh and have you heard of Estonia.
:)) ps that smiley face was not an admission of my working for the Kremlin.
Best interview ever. Aaron held him to his theories and asked what evidence or proof he had and he didn't come up with one
spec of evidence only hearsay and disputed theories. What a sad indictment this is on America. 1 year on a sensationalized story
and still nothing concrete. What a joke and proof of gullibility to anyone who believes this corporate media Narritive. I guess
at least they don't have to cover policies like the tax theft or net neutrality. This is why we need The Real news.
I'd rather have American business making business deals with Russia for things like hotels, rather than business deals with
the Pentagon to aim more weapons at the Russians. When haven't we been doing business with Russians? We might as well investigate
Cargill, Pepsi, McDonald's, John Deere, Ford, and most of our wheat farmers.
"... IMO it also became more apparent when the Deep State f*cked up by no bringing Russia on-side after the end of the Cold War while continuing to assist China's "peaceful rise". That caused the dislocation known as Trump. There's gonna be some turbulence when you turn a massive entity like USA. ..."
Mueller plays his criminal hand of innuendo until the end. Were he ever to submit to questions in a Congressional setting,
Mueller would be out-Giancana-ing Sam on taking the Fifth. The Special Counsel format is at this stage a superseded footnote.
The ball's now in Barr/Durham's court now and the theme is Hunt for Red Predicates.
Breaking news. The Russia Collusion time-zero may in fact lead to Rome as all roads are wont to do. Italy is not a Five Eyes
member. However that did not prevent Obama and Brennan from treating it like one. Both spent a lot of time there at opportune
moments.
As it turns out the oft-cited, oft-profaned Steele Dossier was the barest of predicates that was always meant to be hopped
over anyway. The Mother of all Predicates was a a failed effort on the the part of Italian intelligence and the FBI to frame
Trump in a stolen (Clinton) email scandal. How did the Italians get hold of these emails and who thwarted the frame-up attempt?
Hmm.
Just when you think the transnational plot is thick enough, it gets thickerer, and if Obama's Milan itinerary's any indication,
it may well reach the tippy-top.
Nine Days in May (2017) is where 90% of the action is.
@29 bruce... everyone here at moa is saying much the same which is why some of us are saying the cia is running the usa at this
point.. that and a confluence of other interests... mueller - ex cia... so, basically the mueller investigation was more cover
up and b.s. for the masses... it seems to have worked to a limited degree..
Some think the CIA has been running the show since the Kennedy assassination. But with the rise of the neocons and the
end of the Cold War, it became more apparent.
IMO it also became more apparent when the Deep State f*cked up by no bringing Russia on-side after the end of the Cold
War while continuing to assist China's "peaceful rise". That caused the dislocation known as Trump. There's gonna be some turbulence
when you turn a massive entity like USA.
Last thing that as become 'apparent' is this: the vast majority of people in the West (including many smart people in
alt-media) can't dislodge their thinking from the MSM narratives. Despite being skeptical of MSM and USA, they just can't bring
themselves to see the degree of manipulation that leads to the logical conclusion: "cia is running the usa".
Some think the CIA has been running the show since the Kennedy assassination. But with the rise of the neocons and the end
of the Cold War, it became more apparent.
IMO it also became more apparent when the Deep State f*cked up by no bringing Russia on-side after the end of the Cold War
while continuing to assist China's "peaceful rise". That caused the dislocation known as Trump. There's gonna be some turbulence
when you turn a massive entity like USA.
Last thing that as become 'apparent' is this: the vast majority of people in the West (including many smart people in
alt-media) can't dislodge their thinking from the MSM narratives. Despite being skeptical of MSM and USA, they just can't
bring themselves to see the degree of manipulation that leads to the logical conclusion: "cia is running the usa" .
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call
the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a
brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he
would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the
corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he
wanted to during the campaign.
Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion
with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of
paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which
the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe
or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him
to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by
all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the
zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.
The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine
with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have
been there anyway.
No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The
Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they
have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful
way
The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a
threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.
The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The
rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was
really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion
on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was
hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people."
All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were
the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present.
A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated
the 98% poor, to stay rich.
When there were insurrections federal troops restored order.
Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It
is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from
it.
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America
and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and
Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.
Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and
unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident
Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story
after another would achieve the desired result "
But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out
neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions
fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.
I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's
not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of
brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and
facts don't matter!
Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about
intimidating them.
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then
devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no,
the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in
the less-mainstream fake news media.
So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too
stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The
US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the
WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or
cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.
By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose
of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and
most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which
means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite
Mohammedans.
So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of
hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an
attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.
The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the
Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless
lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was,
and that means as bad as Hell itself.
Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable
approach for a book.
Here's the problem.
Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The
custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of
photoshopping.
OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had
made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist
wouldn't be paid.
Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the
60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major
role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally
flawed. I would say more so.
All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The
triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind
and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..
America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution
and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the
greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side
of American history is taught.
"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate
this level of panic."
You continue to claim what you cannot prove.
But then you are a Jews First Zionist.
Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of
"Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a
straight face
Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually
coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and
permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.
Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks
from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.
The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys
Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were
the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.
After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with
the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924,
despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.
Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil
fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they
should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad
today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else
wanted.
'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" --
Michael Kenney
Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the
catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1)
by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by
NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.
It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans.
OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do
Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a
half.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration.
I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration.
While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The
second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by
Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling.
Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American
public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.
The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst
has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton
gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.
This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.
The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the
Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of
these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.
[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held
views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist
line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign
policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also
long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.
Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of
state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not
appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on
Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with
Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete
withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.
Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it
would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling
Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third
major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who
has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel
Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016,
donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in
Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]
Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It
means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources
and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital
the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US
debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will
steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in
Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple
Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington
must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate
their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain
its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to
success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.
American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency,
and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state –
particularly the Chinese.
First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists
defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army
conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic
ambitions.
The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.
Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news
gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who
dictates what they can and can't say.
They are given the political line and they broadcast it.
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with
the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for
the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is
that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by
factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people. That can only lead to trouble.
At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the
media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet
Bolshevik model.
On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the
Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's
Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt,
compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most
people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of
mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into
something much worse.
The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are
maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with
neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources
in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last
events show – with acceleration.
It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for
those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free"
population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the
free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start
one.
All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.
The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not
improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.
Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the
deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy"
narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they
were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and
CIA-trained.
Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign
nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's
that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six
month actions – they go on and on.)
Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the
grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these
politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave
office.)
Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are
we attacking with drones? Where is congress?
Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it
goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them
more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!
9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various
peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.
We are being exceptionally arrogant.
Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.
"... "Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said. "Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue." ..."
Sen. John McCain admitted Wednesday that he gave the FBI a dossier detailing claims of a Russian blackmail plot against President-elect
Donald Trump.
The Arizona lawmaker, a longtime Trump critic, made the public statement as questions piled up about his alleged role in spreading
an unverified and error-riddled document that Trump has denounced as "a complete and total fabrication."
"Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said.
"Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director
of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue."
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies
if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
Notable quotes:
"... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
"... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
"... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel
debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate
those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely
clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.
Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most
articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy
theory, and has published in The Nation some of the
clearest
arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian
where he has been
writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of
New
York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald
Trump Win.
In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of
this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy
Scahill accurately described as "brutal".
The term Gish gallop
, named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a
fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in
rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the
opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the
Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a
deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by
Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.
In this part here , for
example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the
back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's
happening here:
Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or
the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most
recently when President Macron was elected ? -
Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ?
-
Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed
didn't happen?
Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?
Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just
claimed actually is not true?
Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive,
but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European
states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.
Maté: Where else?
Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was
crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and
former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the
time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing
thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does
the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was
different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public
space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a
matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.
Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently
presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world
prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot
of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's
plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no
Russian hack in Germany.
In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually
admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more
flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a
completely
false example .
That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the
fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that
Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté
just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite
obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.
The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim,
Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom
things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact
that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that
Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding
has.
jeremy scahill 0
@jeremyscahill
This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to
defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' -
YouTube
11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
Q 131 11597 C? 1,148
The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of
the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive
government it is, after which the following exchange took place:
Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir
Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the
topic of your book.
Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort
of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing
would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.
At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up
the show and promote Harding's book on his own.
You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy
it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a
cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate
conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of
trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.
The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many
suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for
there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their
conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as
Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain
zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the
appearance of a legitimate argument.
Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History4
days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right
nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard
Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is
to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western
intelligence agencies.
That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority -
Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read
my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin
is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long
history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around
of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when
it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know
about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be
involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not
explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he
death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian
were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
"... "Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said. "Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue." ..."
Sen. John McCain admitted Wednesday that he gave the FBI a dossier detailing claims of a Russian blackmail plot against President-elect
Donald Trump.
The Arizona lawmaker, a longtime Trump critic, made the public statement as questions piled up about his alleged role in spreading
an unverified and error-riddled document that Trump has denounced as "a complete and total fabrication."
"Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public," McCain said.
"Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director
of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue."
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
Finally an opportunity comes to offer B and MoA commenters a nice little Christmas present,
courtesy of ZeroHedge who have in the past reposted some of B's articles on their site.
True, ZH reposted this priceless gift from Caitlin Johnstone's own site but she seems to
have given her permission for the reposting.
Why priceless? - well who doesn't want to see the ever smug Luke Harding and his idiotic
and baseless arguments about Russian intrigue and inteference in US and European politics
taken down in a well-deserved thrashing by Aaron Mate?
Priceless to read the transcript and priceless to watch.
Luke Harding gets exposed for the fraud he really is and in such a way then!
If b has time I think he should make a post just about that interview/harding because he
seems to fool alot of people with these claims he is making.
I did watch the Luke Harding interview, largely as a result of Caitlin Johnstone, who I
have enormous respect for. However, I do not do Twitter. Incidentally, Julian Assange of all
people, brilliantly exposed Luke Harding (and the Guardian) in 2015. You can smell the sense
of betrayal.
The man who says he acted as a "go-between" last year to inform Sen. John McCain about the
controversial "dossier" containing salacious allegations about then-candidate Donald Trump is
speaking out, revealing how the ex-British spy who researched the document helped coordinate
its release to the FBI, the media and Capitol Hill.
"My mission was essentially to be a go-between and a messenger, to tell the senator and
assistants that such a dossier existed," Sir Andrew Wood told Fox News in an exclusive
interview with senior executive producer Pamela K. Browne.
Fox News spoke to Wood at the 2017 Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia,
Canada. As Britain's ambassador to Moscow from 1995-2000, Wood witnessed the end of Russian
President Boris Yeltsin and the rise of Vladimir Putin.
Just after the U.S. presidential election in November 2016, Arizona GOP Sen. McCain spoke
at the same security conference. Wood says he was instructed -- by former British spy
Christopher Steele -- to reach out to the senior Republican, whom Wood called "a good man,"
about the unverified document.
Wood insists that he's never read the dossier that his good friend and longtime colleague
prepared. It was commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and funded by the
Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
In August 2016, "[Steele] came to me to tell me what was in it, and why it was important,"
Wood said. "He made it very clear yes, it was raw intelligence, but it needed putting into
proper context before you could judge it fully."
August 2016 is a critical period, just after the FBI opened the Russia meddling probe, and
after then-director James Comey recommended against prosecution for Clinton's mishandling of
classified information.
Wood said Steele had "already been in contact with the FBI" at the time.
"He said there was corroborating evidence in the United States, from which I assumed he
was working with an American company," Wood said.
British court records reviewed by Fox News as well as U.S. congressional testimony
revealed that Steele was directed and paid at least $168,000 by Fusion GPS founder Glenn
Simpson to push the research that fall to five American media outlets. According to British
court documents, Steele met with The New York Times (twice), The Washington Post (twice),
CNN, The New Yorker and Yahoo News (twice).
"Each of these interviews was conducted in person and with a member of Fusion also
present," according to the records associated with separate civil litigation against Steele
and Fusion GPS.
Wood said he'd heard of Fusion GPS, as the group Steele was working with, but had "never
heard of Mr. Simpson."
Three weeks after Trump won the presidential election, at the Canadian security
conference, the details were finalized for the dossier hand-off to McCain.
Along with the senator, Wood and McCain Institute for International Leadership staffer
David J. Kramer attended the Canadian conference.
British court records state McCain ordered Kramer to get a personal briefing from Steele
in Surrey, just outside of London, and then return to Washington, D.C., where Fusion GPS
would provide McCain with hard copies.
In January, McCain officially gave the dossier to the FBI, which already had its own copy
from Steele.
Of note, listed in the official program for the 2016 November Canadian conference as a
participant was Rinat Akhmetshin -- the same Russian lobbyist who was at Trump Tower five
months earlier in June for a highly scrutinized meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and others.
The senator's office noted to Fox News that McCain said in January 2017 he had no contact
with Akhmetshin. "Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made
public. Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy,
I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my
contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue."
It is not known whether Akhmetshin had any contact with Kramer. Fusion GPS and Kramer did
not respond to requests for comment from Fox News.
Doesn't this make McCain guilty of offenses under the Logan act; the very offense that was
commonly levelled against Trump and called "collusion" in the press.
This confirms that Congressional Senators and Congressmen should operate under time limits
as well as be harshly punished for treasonous activity, meaning they are policed.
Exactly, as this will go on forever just to escape any scandal and other involvements of a
dubious nature. The US "justice" system is obviously primitive enough to allow this kind of
nonsense to continue.
"According to British court documents, Steele met with The New York Times (twice), The
Washington Post (twice), CNN, The New Yorker and Yahoo News (twice)."
Right there are your "fake news" propaganda sources. What do you want to bet they are all
Jewish owned...yet Trump kisses judea'sass?
Well, at the least it makes John McCain a total stooge who let his bias against Trump
override his ability to use good judgement, which by the way is already lacking.
"... Comey FBI also used the largely debunked Trump dossier, which alleged Russian ties to the President's campaign associates, to convince a judge to grant them a FISA warrant, allowing them to secretly monitor Trump campaign official Carter Page. ..."
"... Remember..."It is honourable to deceive the 'infidel'." This is just an 'inkling' of how far our mainstream media and 'establishment politicians' have waded into this 'cesspool'.... ..."
Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson spoke with US House investigators in a closed-door
meeting Tuesday, and confirmed what many in the non-establishment media already knew that
Fusion GPS never verified the Dossier claims before passing on the ridiculous document to the
corrupt establishment press.
According to
The Gateway Pundit , Herridge also said that her source told her that Glenn Simpson was
"upset" when Comey re-opened Hillary's email investigation at the end of October and wanted to
push back.
And he did
On October 31st, 2016 with just days to go until election day, David Corn of Mother Jones broke the story of a 'veteran spy' who gave the FBI information on
Trump's alleged connections to Russia. Christopher Steele, British spy and author of the
garbage dossier was not named in this Mother Jones report. Only hints of the dossier were
published; the salacious claims were omitted.
Hillary Clinton was disappointed the entire dossier hadn't been published in full prior to
the election. After all, she paid millions of dollars for the smear document.
The author of the dossier, Christopher Steele was also desperate to get the salacious
document out to the public. He told David Corn of
Mother Jones, "The story has to come out."
A week later, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were in utter shock when Trump won the
presidential election. Desperate to delegitimatize him,
BuzzFeed published the entire dossier on January 10th, right before the inauguration.
According to the Washington Post , the FBI agreed to pay the British Spy who
compiled the garbage dossier after the election to continue to dig up dirt on Trump and
Russia.
The FBI pulled out of this arrangement once the author of the dossier, Christopher Steele
was publicly identified in media reports.
Comey FBI also used the largely debunked Trump dossier, which alleged Russian ties to the
President's campaign associates, to
convince a judge to grant them a FISA warrant, allowing them to secretly monitor Trump
campaign official Carter Page.
Totally BUSTED ! Scam artists that they are. So how much money is the wild goose chase
going to cost American taxpayers. When are they going to start indicting some of these
scumbags, this is getting old already.
Remember..."It is honourable to deceive the 'infidel'." This is just an 'inkling' of how
far our mainstream media and 'establishment politicians' have waded into this
'cesspool'....
The alleged Russian computer Hacker named Guccifer 2.0 whom the Democrat National Committee
has publicly blamed for hacking its emails and giving them to WIkiLeaks before the Election in
order for Russia to help Donald Trump, was really a fiction created by an Obama White House
Staffer in order to prevent the exposure of why DNC Staffer Seth Rich was murdered and also try
to pin the exposure of DNC emails on Russia and Trump.
Democrat operatives had pushed the fictional Guccifer 2.0 story as the supposed Russian
hacker who broke into DNC servers and downloaded thousands of emails, then sent them to the
Russians, who then sent them to Wikileaks so Hilary Clinton could be defeated.
Never mind that it has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the download speed
was far too great to have been done by anyone but a DNC insider like Seth Rich. Because
Internet speeds are not nearly sufficient to support download speed that the meta data,
embedded in the emails, reported.
Never mind that the same meta data shows that the download came from the eastern time zone
of the US, not Romania or Russia.
A five minute video (below) proves Guccifer 2.0 was an invention of someone using a version
of Microsoft Word that was originally registered to a DNC / White House Staffer named Warren
Flood.
Here are two screen shots from warren floods Facebook page. Notice that warren worked for
"Obama for America," the DNC, and the White House . He lives in LaGrange, GA.
The video below does a great job explaining who is behind the original Trump opposition
research leaked via WikiLeaks AND the later (same) document allegedly obtained by Guccifer 2.0
by "hacking."
EVIDENCE OF DNC/WHITE HOUSE STAFFER BEING "RUSSIAN HACKER GUCCIFER
2.0″
If you have ever accidentally tried to open a Microsoft Word document in a simple text
editor like Notepad, you can see the meta data behind each word document, including WHO that
copy of Word belongs to.
The video below explains who the author of the original opposition research document was and
how we know:
. . . it also includes who the AUTHOR of the document of is. It gets that information from
the name that was entered when you installed your copy of Microsoft Office. Inside the
original trump opposition research, the document later released by WikiLeaks, the author of
the document is listed as Lauren Dillon , DNC Research Director.
This is Lauren Dillion from the DNC:
The metadata in the WikiLeaks release of Trump Opposition research shows that it was created
by Lauren Dillon, as show below:
_______________
HOWEVER, that same document later released by Guccifer 2.0 shows a CHANGE in who authored
Document; this later copy showing the Author as Warren Flood . . . . who worked in the White
House!
Thus, the entire claim by Guccifer 2.0 that he was a Russian Hacker who stole the DNC
emails, was a deliberate deception attributable to a staffer in the Obama White House: Warren
Flood.
Here's the kicker, the version of Trump's opposition research file that was originally
released by WikiLeaks, and later released to the Main-Stream-Media (MSM), was never attributed
to the DNC, it was attributed to the Russian Hacker "Guccifer 2.0 -- A man jailed in Romania
for hacking.
THE DNC/WHITE HOUSE "FATAL MISTAKE"
It just wouldn't do, to have the head of research for the DNC be the Leaker to WikiLeaks or
to have the later Guccifer 2.0 release to come from a White House staffer, it had to
be attributable to someone connected to the Russians. The Romanian guy was the FALL GUY.
The one fatal mistake the DNC and the Obama White House made was that no one remembered
about the Microsoft Word metadata which reveals the owner of that particular copy of the Word
software. So, according to the evidence, Guccifer 2.0 was actually DNC/White House Staffer,
Warren Flood.
Yes, you read that correctly: EVIDENCE. Not speculation, or rumor, or innuendo. Actual real
life, hard copy EVIDENCE.
Guccifer 2.0 was an invention of the DNC/White House to cover-up who the real leaker was;
and at the same time start the Russian Hacking rumors that persist today.
INTERESTINGLY, the Wikipedia entry for Guccifer 2.0, describes an interview he did with
MotherBoard via an online chat. Guccifer 2.0 insisted he was Romanian but, when pressed to use
the Romanian language in an interview with an Interview with Motherboard via an online chat, he
used such clunky grammar and terminology that experts believe he was using an online
translator.
Bottom line: The Obama White House invention of Guccifer 2.0, apparently through its Staffer
Warren Flood, accomplished three things:
1) It covered DNC research director Lauren Dillon. Whatever sort of opposition research she
authored was later claimed by Guccifer 2.0.
2) It covered for Seth Rich. This is the BIG ONE, because he was killed in an obvious
assassination staged to look like street robbery -- the only problem is, the robbers didn't
take anything. He still had all his cash and his Rolex watch when police arrived. And Guccifer
2.0 took also credit for the Podesta emails which were actually downloaded by Seth Rich and
given to WikiLeaks.
AND;
3) It created the conduit to "Russian Intelligence" to fortify the claim that it was the
Russians who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, and therefore Trump "was in collusion with the
Russians" to defeat Clinton.
The whole claim of "Russian Hacking" and "Trump colluding with Russians" has come unraveled
because it was ALL a complete fraud.
What remains is how this fraud is STILL affecting our nation to this very day, and how the
Congress of the United States, acting late last month upon this totally FALSE "Russian Hacking"
claim, has now enacted further sanction upon Russia – sanctions that will very likely
lead to war.
VIDEO EVIDENCE
Here is the video containing the EVIDENCE that the Wikileaks original Trump Opposition
document was created by a user whose Microsoft Word software was registered to DNC Research
Director Lauren Dillon, and the later exact same document, allegedly hacked by "GUccifer
2.0″ was done by DNC/White House Staffer William Flood
So nations participates in the witch hunt, because they do not like Trump. Nice... The level of degradation of the
remnants of US left is simply incredible.
And they cite "intelligence community conclusion" (a group of hacks personally selected by Brennan for hactchet job which, as
we now know, included Peter Strzok)
"... Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win ..."
"... Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far from a partisan "witch hunt." ..."
"... I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton. The stakes are much larger. ..."
Luke Harding's new book, Collusion:
Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win , doesn't claim
to have definitive proof that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to win the election.
Still, Harding, who served as The Guardian 's Moscow bureau chief for four years
before being thrown out of the country for his critical reporting on Vladimir Putin's
government, presents a powerful case for Russian interference, and Trump campaign collusion, by
collecting years of reporting on Trump's connections to Russia and putting it all together in a
coherent narrative.
It's the sheer breadth of connections, many of them dating back 20 years or
more, between Trump and his associates and Russians with close ties to the Kremlin that put the
lie to Trump's repeated claims that he has no ties to Russia.
If all of these dealings were on
the up-and-up, Trump and his crew wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to obscure them. Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures
campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently
staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far
from a partisan "witch hunt."
In an interview with The Nation , Harding was quick to acknowledge that there's a
lot that we don't know. "I think when it comes to following the money, we only have maybe 10 or
15 percent of the story," he said. "I think 85 percent of that story is still submerged."
Nonetheless, he says that what we do know so far is significant.
I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's
bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another
set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically
contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton.
The stakes are much larger.
I think [Vladimir] Putin has kind of done this quite cleverly. He's not some kind of evil
villain in a cave flipping red switches. He's essentially an opportunist who has very
adroitly taken advantage of problems in the West, and divisions in American society --
whether they're cultural or racial or political -- and he's sought to exploit and
instrumentalize them for his own purposes.
There are also really interesting questions about how far back Russia's relationship with
Donald Trump goes. One thing my book makes clear, or seeks to make clear, is that the
Russians play a very long game. They've been interested in Donald Trump for a very long
time.
"... Well, they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't. ..."
"... He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. ..."
"... Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser ..."
"... Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news. Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA stooge. ..."
"... Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding? ..."
"... Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA? ..."
"... In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read. When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part. ..."
"... Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border crossing with a Russian aid convoy ..."
"... Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a Russian tank. ..."
Luke Daniel Harding
(born 1968) studied English at University College, Oxford. While there he edited the student
newspaper Cherwell . He worked for The Sunday Correspondent , the Evening
Argus in Brighton and then the Daily Mail before joining The Guardian in
1996. He was the Guardian's Russia correspondent from 2007-11.
Aside from his more publicly known achievements, it's worth noting Harding was accused of plagiarism by Mark Ames and Yasha
Levine of the eXile for publishing an
article under his own name that lifted large passages almost verbatim from their work. The
Guardian allegedly redacted portions of Harding's article in response to these accusations.
According to his own testimony , Luke
Harding is the guy who realised he was in the siloviki cross hairs one day when, during his
stay in Moscow as the Guardian's bureau chief, he came home and found one of his bedroom
windows open.
A less situationally-aware person would have made the fatal mistake of thinking one of his
kids or his wife had done it, or he'd done it himself and just forgotten, or that his landlord
had popped in to air the rooms (a bit of a tendency in
Russia apparently). But Luke was sure none of his family had opened the window. So it
had to have been the FSB.
You see, Luke isn't confined as we are by the constraints of petty mundanity. That was why
it had been so clear to him, even
without any evidence , that the FSB had murdered Litvinenko. And that was why Luke took one
look at that open window and realised the entire Russian intelligence machine was out to get
him .
The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher:
take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had
vanished like ghosts.
And that was only the start of the vicious campaign that was to follow. Tapes were left in
his cassette deck, when he knew he hadn't put them there. An alarm clock went off when he knew
he hadn't set it. Luke was filled with " a feeling of horror, alarm, incredulity, bafflement
and a kind of cold rational rage."
Things developed rapidly. Luke went to visit a woman called Olga who warned him to take
care, because he was "an enemy of Putin." He was sure someone had hacked his email account.
Whenever he said the name "Berezovsky" his phone line would go dead, so he started using the
word "banana" instead. A person from the Russian president's office called and asked for his
mobile number. Unable to imagine a single good reason why a Russian government official would
need a cell phone number for the Guardian's Russia bureau chief, he refused.
That wily Putin wasn't going to catch him that easily. The game of cat and mouse had
begun.
A middle-aged woman with a bad haircut knocked at his door at 7am, and walked away when he
opened it. Had she just gone to the wrong door? Of course not, it was the FSB taunting him. At
the airport on his way back to London a man with a Russian accent (in Moscow!) tapped him on
the back and told him there was something wrong with his jacket. Noticing the man was wearing a
leather coat, which meant he must be from the KGB, Luke immediately rushed to the gents and
took off all his clothes to find the "bugging device" the man had planted on him. He didn't
find one, but that didn't mean it wasn't there.
When the Russian government launched its prosecution of Berezovsky for fraud, someone from
the FSB phoned Luke and asked him to come in and make a statement about the interview he'd
conducted with the man a short time before. They also advised him to bring a lawyer, which
seemed sinister to Luke. A man called Kuzmin interviewed him for 55 minutes. Luke got quite
thirsty, but wouldn't drink the fizzy water he was offered, because he was pretty sure it had
been tampered with. Surprisingly Kuzmin didn't interrogate him as expected, but Luke decided
this was because the FSB were trying to intimidate him. They probably didn't need to do an
interrogation, thought Luke, since they'd been breaking in to his flat almost every day for
like – ever , switching on his alarm clock and probably also bugging his
phone.
After the western-backed Georgian invasion of South Ossetia Luke was amazed to note there
was widespread antagonism toward western journalists in Moscow. And the FSB just would not
leave him alone. Worried by this "campaign of brutishness" he decided to keep a log of the
dreadful things they were doing. Reading this we find not only did they continue to regularly
open his windows, they once turned off his central heating, made phantom ringing sounds happen
in the middle of the night (Luke couldn't find where they were coming from), deleted a screen
saver from his computer and left a book by his bed about getting better orgasms.
All this would have broken a lesser man. But Luke didn't break. Maybe that's why in the end,
they knew they'd have to expel him like in the old Soviet days. Which is what they did. Well,
they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he
didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his
kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because
Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't.
He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke
was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at
him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible
experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. But just when he thought all his espionage
problems were over, they started
up again when he began his book about Edward Snowden.
This time it was the NSA, GCHQ and a host of other western agencies stalking him. The PTB
obviously realised that Luke's book would be much much more of a threat to national
security than even Snowden himself, and did everything they could to try to stop him writing
it. They followed him around (he knew they were agents because they had iPhones) and even used
spy technology to remote-delete sentences from his computer – while he was typing
them. Especially when he was writing mean things about the NSA. But after he typed "I don't
mind you reading my manuscript but I'd be grateful if you don't delete it", they realised
they'd met their match and stopped.
He wasn't sure if the culprits were NSA, GCHQ or a Russian hacker, but one thing it
definitely wasn't was a glitchy keyboard.
I mean that would just be stupid.
NOTE: In case any of our readers are (understandably) inclined to think we must be
making this up or exaggerating, we encourage them to read about it here and here
in Luke's own words. You'll find we have merely summarised them.
Yes, he really does believe everything attributed to him in this article. He really does
think the FSB were opening his windows. And he really did run to the public toilet and take all
his clothes off because a man tapped him on the back in an airport.
We also recommend you take in this opinion
piece by Julian Assange, and this one by a Brit ex-pat
in Moscow.
After that feel free to complete the following questionnaire:
Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic
paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an
intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser
Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the
Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news.
Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA
stooge.
The force once again fails to materialise for Luke as TheRealNews Aaron Maté sends him
scurrying back to his conspiracy theories safespace during this brutal interview on Luke's
latest fictional release titled "Collusion".
Luke Harding's article on Grozny and Chechnya is a classic of the sour grapes variety. "The once war-torn country has been transformed, but change has come at a price"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/russia To the best of my knowledge, Chechnya is still enjoying its peace and prosperity –
totally unsupportable.
You have to remember that without old Luke we'd not have as much fun reading pages like
this!!! That's likely the only positive outcome of what he writes but a very important one.
In this 'insane asylum' light relief coupled with 'some decent perspectives' is a god
send. For those that like this page / the humour you might like this site: http://ckm3.blogspot.co.uk/
So, the time has come. Surrounded by the KGB (they no longer exist Ed) Surrounded by the KGB
(they no longer exist!! Ed) i, Luke Harding pen this my last will and testament. For though
the end has come, (Hurrah! Ed) my enemies made one final mistake, by thinking they could take
me alive. They left me the Book, the noble karma sutra
No Walter Mitty I, I carry no arsenic pills about me for such a mournful deed as this. No, I,
a writer, a cavalier of the epistolary kind, shall use The Book they left me on my bedside
table, the noble Kama sutra. And now, gently removing the cellophane – to my children I
bequeath my writing talent, to Pussy Minor disturbance (here he seems to be attempting to
outwit the KGB Ed.) my gift for self promotion, and to my wife, Phoebe, my greatest
possession, my reputation. And now, gently removing the cellophane, (you see, phoebe, your
bootless cries at bedtime fell not on deaf ears, I will use it once, as I promised) and
turning the page, I see the very position with which to foil my enemies (who must almost be
upon me, for I heard the catflap flap) – "Chicken Butter pasanda, also known as the
headless chicken". (How ironic, Ed.) Like the chicken, my head also shall be hidden from
view. Here goes! England, though I never knew you (very true, Ed) perhaps you will vouchsafe
me a place among the poets? Here goes again! Butter? Tick. Dilate? Tick. Bloody hell, I never
realised I had such a big head! Push! Push! They shall not catch me alive!
Like a candle in the wind .oooff! I really shouldn't have had extra beans. England, I do it
for thee! But hold, what's this I see? Tracks? Caterpillar tracks? Tank tracks?!! My god!
Wait till Shaun sees these, it's the biggest scoop of all time! And it's mine! I must stop
this foolshness now. KGB, be damned! Maybe they'll now take me back at the Daily Mail. I must
remove my head from my .
(at this point, the recording ends Ed. he will be missed Ed the world will be a sadder place
Ed there will be less laughter in the world without him. Phew. Got it. Ed)
Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and
The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another
guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics
course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other
work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding?
Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York
Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't
spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks
quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA?
I ventured out the next morning. My laptop was in the unlocked safe. (It didn't contain any
secrets; merely a work in progress.) A tall American immediately accosted me. He suggested we
go sightseeing. He said his name was Chris. "Chris" had a short, military-style haircut, new
trainers, neatly pressed khaki shorts, and a sleek steel-grey T-shirt. He clearly spent time
in the gym. Tourist or spook? I thought spook.
I decided to go along with Chris's proposal: why didn't we spend a couple of hours
visiting Rio's Christ the Redeemer statue? Chris wanted to take my photo, buy me a beer, go
for dinner. I declined the beer and dinner, later texting my wife: "The CIA sent someone to
check me out. Their techniques as clumsy as Russians." She replied: "Really? WTF?"
Shortly before I was banned from Komment Macht Frei, Mr. Harding popped up in the CiF column
in which I had just made a comment ridiculing his "journalism" to state that he believed that
I am probably a member of the FSB.
Luke Harding is not a journalist; he is the perennial centrefold in an imaginary magazine
called "Smug Prick". There is an irreconcilable gap between the Luke Harding he sees in the
mirror and the chowderhead we all know and mock. The Guardian keeps him on because it does
not give a tin weasel why you read, just as long as you read. It does not care if you do so
with gritted teeth, murmuring obscenities.
In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the
worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read.
When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were
insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside
opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part.
It did not take long for readers to start pointing out the hilarious lies, half truths and
smears in Mr Harding's articles.
How did he/they respond ?
Not only did he start moderating comments himself, he (and Shaun Walker) had readers
banned for highlighting the "inconsistency" in their reporting. Ha! Good luck with that.
It was quite pitiful to see him yesterday on the Grauniad's 'Troll Factory' story
maoaning, whining and blaming the readers for not beliveing his "truthful" reporting on
Russia haha.
It's going to be fascinating to see how he and his pals report the upcoming battle in
Syria between Russia/Syria/Iran/China VS America/ISIS/Israel and Saudi Arabia.
"The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher:
take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had
vanished like ghosts."
That there is just pure gold, it was written as a serious piece but even if it wasn't it
would still be brilliant piece of comedy and sarcasm, but the fact that it's unintentionally
funny and not a sarcasm is what makes it one of the greatest arrangements of words ever. Man
sees an open window and "deciphers" that it was secret agents who opened it for the whole
purpose of leaving him a "message" and then "vanished like ghosts". A whole script from an
open window. Perhaps next time they will make an offer he can't refuse? Brilliant sketch,
someone mentioned Inspector Clouseau in the comments but I have to say that Clouseau has
nothing on this level of deduction skills, self importance and delusions of grandeur, or
delusions in general. I read that thing many times now and its still hilarious as first time
"The dark symbolism of the open window .."
There is a video of Carl Sagan where he explains how not to do science and logic and uses
clouds on Venus as an example how to get a grand and completely wrong conclusion out of
nothing, now know as The Venutian Dinosaur Fallacy:
"I can't see a thing on the surface of Venus. Why not? Because it's covered with a dense
layer of clouds. Well, what are clouds made of? Water, of course. Therefore, Venus must have
an awful lot of water on it. Therefore, the surface must be wet. Well, if the surface is wet,
it's probably a swamp. If there's a swamp, there's ferns. If there's ferns, maybe there's
even dinosaurs. -Observation: we can't see a thing on Venus. Conclusion: dinosaurs."
I think that Harding perhaps gave us even better example.
Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border
crossing with a Russian aid convoy. Despite there being a 5000 foot elevation between where he
actually was to where the border crossing was.Despite there being EU monitors at the border
crossing who did not see any tanks.When I pointed this out to Luke,as a comment on his
Guardian article,the article comments section disappeared and the placement of Russian tanks
at the border changed to a different border crossing.All of my previous comments were
purged,any other comments were moderated meaning an effectual ban and Luke carried on as if
nothing had happened.Something did happen,he stopped saying he personally saw Russian tanks
because he had been busted.In my opinion he is paid handsomely to post,anything,negative
against Russia and sometimes he just makes shit up when his wife needs a new kitchen
appliance.He is obviously a tosser to boot.
Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible
invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a
Russian tank.
Yeah that was good old shaun. shaun also saw a Russian vehicle somewhere in ukraine with peacekeeping symbols from
Chechnya. there was actually a photo of that one. unfortunately it was impossible to verify where and when the photo was taken and no other
such vehicle with those markings has ever been seen before or since in ukraine. the woman who supposedly took the photo had a long history of photographing Russia
vehicles in Chechnya.
Luke wouldn't even have taken any photos of the Russian tanks. He would have thought the
tanks were sent after him and he would taken off like a rabbit. Even if the tanks were going
in the other direction.
BTW Luke's wife Phoebe Taplin (also a journalist) wrote a series of books about walking in
Moscow at different times of the year according to season and exploring the city's parks and
open spaces on foot while they were stationed there. Folks, make of that what you will.
I think he has survived as a journalist which is in a way commendable. However, he irritated
Glenn Greenwald, when he interviewed him because Glenn could see the details Luke was
interested in writing about were literally going to be the material for a book, and I think
Glenn had not finished his own at that point! So a bit exploitive to say the least. It's an
irony that the Snowden film produced/directed by Oliver Stone is going to be based on Luke's
version not Glenn, guess who gains financially for example.
On the other hand, you have to give him credit for foresight – moving from the Daily
Mail to the Guardian before it was fashionable. Maybe his talents alone explain the lack of
substantive difference between these two organs of State.
If I didn't know that Luke Harding was a journalist, I'd have thought he was a comedian in
the tradition of Peter Sellers overdoing Inspector Clouseau in too many Pink Panther sequels.
Mr Harding is a huge threat to the ruthless Russian government due to his fearless
journalism, but rather than off him with some polonium tea or crumpets they decided to leave
a sex manual by his bed.
Was the idea that Mr Harding would die from over exertion?
Even the sudden appearance of the Kama Sutra in English by the bedside table would have
aroused LDH's suspicions. What, he would have wondered, were the terrifying secrets encoded
in the manual?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a really interesting player as for DNC leak... This Anan brothers story is simply incredible
and probably hides some really nasty staff related to DNC espionage over congress members.
Notable quotes:
"... To briefly recap, our report from last week , the Awan family - which was employed by quite a number of House Democrats, had full access to highly sensitive Congressional computer systems , both on-site and remotely from Pakistan , with which they are suspected of committing a variety of crimes - including brokering classified information to hostile foreign governments. ..."
"... would frequently simply go across the street to longstanding dealership called AAA Motors and get one. ..."
"... While Imran and Abid Awan ran their car dealership in Falls Church, Va. in the early part of the decade, Drug Enforcement Agency officials a few miles away in Chantilly were learning that the Iranian-linked terrorist group frequently deployed used car dealerships in the US to launder money and fund terrorism , according to an explosive new Politico expose. - Daily Caller ..."
"... "Based on the modest way Awan was living, it is my opinion that he was sending most of his money to a group or criminal organization that could very well be connected with the Pakistani government ," said Wayne Black - a private investigator who worked in Janet Reno's Miami public corruption unit, adding " My instincts tell me Awan was probably operating a foreign intelligence gathering operation on US soil." ..."
"... In February, the Daily Caller dropped two bombshells: that the Awans were under criminal investigation after being caught accessing congressional computers without permission, and they had borrowed, laundered, and never repaid $100,000 from a shady Iraqi expat physician – Dr. Ali al-Attar , a Hezbollah-linked fugitive who led a group of other expats which regularly advised the Bush administration on their plans to invade Iraq in 2002-2003 ( source ). ..."
"... Al-Attar's license to practice medicine was revoked by the Maryland State Board of Physicians and he had to pay a $50,000 fine for unprofessional conduct, healthcare fraud, and failure to cooperate with an investigation. ..."
"... It's not clear where the dealership's money was going, because it was sued by at least five different people on all ends of a typical car business who said they were stiffed. ..."
"... CIA didn't pay the security deposit, rent or taxes for its building, it didn't pay wholesalers who provided cars, and it sold broken cars to people and then refused to honor the warranties, the lawsuits say . ..."
"... Moreover, when the Awans' shady car dealership ran into money troubles, Florida Congressman Theo Deutch began paying a monthly salary to a man who had threatened to sue the Awans . ..."
"... The brothers had numerous additional sources of income, all of which seemed to disappear. While they were supposedly working for the House, the brothers were running a car dealership full-time that didn't pay its vendors, and after one -- Rao Abbas -- threatened to sue them, he began receiving a paycheck from Rep. Theodore Deutch (D-FL), who like Wasserman Schultz represents Florida. - Daily Caller ..."
"... " It was in the garage. They recycled cabinets and lined them along the walls. They left in a huge hurry," the Marine said. " It looks like government-issued equipment. We turned that stuff over ." ..."
"... If the Awans cut a deal , one might speculate that a liberal prosecutor and a DNC-friendly court might be conducting a dog-and-pony show. For months, rumors swirled that brother of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Wasserman was handling the prosecution - however court filings reveal that assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Marando is handling the case. Marando is married to JoAnna Wasserman - an employee of the U.S. Holocaust Museum in D.C. ..."
"... While the notion that Imran Awan cut a deal based on his name vanishing from the court calendar, Federal prosecutors certainly have enough evidence against the Awan clan to put them away for a long time. Perhaps they've decided they like the outside of a prison cell better than the alternative. ..."
Luke Rosiak of The Daily Caller pointed out a mysterious twist in the case of Pakistani national and long-time DNC IT contractor,
Imran Awan - who was arrested in July at Dulles Airport while trying to flee the country after having wired nearly $300,000 to Pakistan
.
Awan's court date on four counts related to bank fraud, which had already been reschedule twice, has disappeared from the docket
altogether:
Which begs the question - did Imran Awan cut a deal with Federal prosecutors?
Of note - Imran's wife, Hina Alvi - who had fled to Pakistan in March with the Awan children,
struck a deal with federal prosecutors in September to return to the U.S. and face charges. One wonders why Alvi would willingly
leave the relative security of her family in Pakistan to face arraignment in the United States?
To briefly recap, our
report from last week , the Awan family - which was employed by quite a number of House Democrats, had full access to highly
sensitive Congressional computer systems , both on-site and remotely from Pakistan , with which they are suspected of committing
a variety of crimes - including brokering classified information to hostile foreign governments.
Of note, the Awans had access to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - whose members have top secret clearance
and are looking into Russian election interference.
The Pakistani nationals also operated a shady used car dealership in Falls Church, VA operating under the title "CIA" which Luke
Rosiak of The Daily Caller reported has all the signs of a money laundering operation .
On its Facebook page, CIA's "staff" were fake personalities such as "James Falls O'Brien," whose photo was taken from a
hairstyle mode l catalog, and "Jade Julia," whose image came from a web page called "Beautiful Girls Wallpaper."
If a customer showed up looking to buy a car from Cars International A, often referred to as CIA, Abid Awan -- who was managing
partner of the dealership while also earning $160,000 handling IT for House Democrats -- would frequently simply go across the
street to longstanding dealership called AAA Motors and get one.
While Imran and Abid Awan ran their car dealership in Falls Church, Va. in the early part of the decade, Drug Enforcement Agency
officials a few miles away in Chantilly were learning that the Iranian-linked terrorist group frequently deployed used car dealerships
in the US to launder money and fund terrorism , according to an explosive new
Politico
expose. -
Daily Caller
"Based on the modest way Awan was living, it is my opinion that he was sending most of his money to a group or criminal organization
that could very well be connected with the Pakistani government ," said Wayne Black - a private investigator who worked in Janet
Reno's Miami public corruption unit, adding " My instincts tell me Awan was probably operating a foreign intelligence gathering operation
on US soil."
The money which the Awans borrowed was moved from Ali Al-Attar through accounts intended for Fairfax County real estate. Both
Imran Awan and Khattak -- who also put up $200,000 in cash as an investor in CIA -- had realtors licenses.
Dr. Ali al-Attar
Al-Attar's license to practice medicine was revoked by the Maryland State Board of Physicians and he had to pay a $50,000 fine
for unprofessional conduct, healthcare fraud, and failure to cooperate with an investigation.
It's not clear where the dealership's money was going, because it was sued by at least five different people on all ends of
a typical car business who said they were stiffed.
CIA didn't pay the security deposit, rent or taxes for its building, it didn't pay wholesalers who provided cars, and it sold
broken cars to people and then refused to honor the warranties,
the lawsuits say .
Moreover, when the Awans' shady car dealership ran into money troubles, Florida Congressman Theo Deutch began paying a monthly
salary to a man who had threatened to sue the Awans .
Rep Theo Deutch (D-FL), Awan Benefactor
The brothers had numerous additional sources of income, all of which seemed to disappear. While they were supposedly working
for the House, the brothers were running a car dealership full-time that didn't pay its vendors, and after one -- Rao Abbas --
threatened to sue them, he began receiving a paycheck from Rep. Theodore Deutch (D-FL), who like Wasserman Schultz represents
Florida. - Daily Caller
The Awans were also turned into the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by two renters occupying a home they owned , after
they found "wireless routers, hard drives that look like they tried to destro y, laptops, [and] a lot of brand new expensive toner"
in the garage.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity over concerns for his wife's naval career, the former Marine told the Daily Caller:
" It was in the garage. They recycled cabinets and lined them along the walls. They left in a huge hurry," the Marine said.
" It looks like government-issued equipment. We turned that stuff over ."
If the Awans cut a deal , one might speculate that a liberal prosecutor and a DNC-friendly court might be conducting a dog-and-pony
show. For months, rumors swirled that brother of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Wasserman was
handling the prosecution - however court filings reveal that assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Marando is handling the case. Marando
is married to JoAnna Wasserman - an employee of the U.S. Holocaust Museum in
D.C.
While JoAnna Wasserman shares a maiden name with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, her parents are named Mark and Donna, while Debbie
Wasserman Shultz's parents are Larry and Ann Wasserman. Plus, if there's any relation, JoAnna Wasserman got all of the family's good
genetics.
US Attorney Michael J. Marando and wife JoAnna Wasserman (top). Steve Schultz and wife Debbie Wasserman Schultz (bottom)
While the notion that Imran Awan cut a deal based on his name vanishing from the court calendar, Federal prosecutors certainly
have enough evidence against the Awan clan to put them away for a long time. Perhaps they've decided they like the outside of a prison
cell better than the alternative.
The alleged Russian computer Hacker named Guccifer 2.0 whom the Democrat National Committee
has publicly blamed for hacking its emails and giving them to WIkiLeaks before the Election in
order for Russia to help Donald Trump, was really a fiction created by an Obama White House
Staffer in order to prevent the exposure of why DNC Staffer Seth Rich was murdered and also try
to pin the exposure of DNC emails on Russia and Trump.
Democrat operatives had pushed the fictional Guccifer 2.0 story as the supposed Russian
hacker who broke into DNC servers and downloaded thousands of emails, then sent them to the
Russians, who then sent them to Wikileaks so Hilary Clinton could be defeated.
Never mind that it has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the download speed
was far too great to have been done by anyone but a DNC insider like Seth Rich. Because
Internet speeds are not nearly sufficient to support download speed that the meta data,
embedded in the emails, reported.
Never mind that the same meta data shows that the download came from the eastern time zone
of the US, not Romania or Russia.
A five minute video (below) proves Guccifer 2.0 was an invention of someone using a version
of Microsoft Word that was originally registered to a DNC / White House Staffer named Warren
Flood.
Here are two screen shots from warren floods Facebook page. Notice that warren worked for
"Obama for America," the DNC, and the White House . He lives in LaGrange, GA.
The video below does a great job explaining who is behind the original Trump opposition
research leaked via WikiLeaks AND the later (same) document allegedly obtained by Guccifer 2.0
by "hacking."
EVIDENCE OF DNC/WHITE HOUSE STAFFER BEING "RUSSIAN HACKER GUCCIFER
2.0″
If you have ever accidentally tried to open a Microsoft Word document in a simple text
editor like Notepad, you can see the meta data behind each word document, including WHO that
copy of Word belongs to.
The video below explains who the author of the original opposition research document was and
how we know:
. . . it also includes who the AUTHOR of the document of is. It gets that information from
the name that was entered when you installed your copy of Microsoft Office. Inside the
original trump opposition research, the document later released by WikiLeaks, the author of
the document is listed as Lauren Dillon , DNC Research Director.
This is Lauren Dillion from the DNC:
The metadata in the WikiLeaks release of Trump Opposition research shows that it was created
by Lauren Dillon, as show below:
_______________
HOWEVER, that same document later released by Guccifer 2.0 shows a CHANGE in who authored
Document; this later copy showing the Author as Warren Flood . . . . who worked in the White
House!
Thus, the entire claim by Guccifer 2.0 that he was a Russian Hacker who stole the DNC
emails, was a deliberate deception attributable to a staffer in the Obama White House: Warren
Flood.
Here's the kicker, the version of Trump's opposition research file that was originally
released by WikiLeaks, and later released to the Main-Stream-Media (MSM), was never attributed
to the DNC, it was attributed to the Russian Hacker "Guccifer 2.0 -- A man jailed in Romania
for hacking.
THE DNC/WHITE HOUSE "FATAL MISTAKE"
It just wouldn't do, to have the head of research for the DNC be the Leaker to WikiLeaks or
to have the later Guccifer 2.0 release to come from a White House staffer, it had to
be attributable to someone connected to the Russians. The Romanian guy was the FALL GUY.
The one fatal mistake the DNC and the Obama White House made was that no one remembered
about the Microsoft Word metadata which reveals the owner of that particular copy of the Word
software. So, according to the evidence, Guccifer 2.0 was actually DNC/White House Staffer,
Warren Flood.
Yes, you read that correctly: EVIDENCE. Not speculation, or rumor, or innuendo. Actual real
life, hard copy EVIDENCE.
Guccifer 2.0 was an invention of the DNC/White House to cover-up who the real leaker was;
and at the same time start the Russian Hacking rumors that persist today.
INTERESTINGLY, the Wikipedia entry for Guccifer 2.0, describes an interview he did with
MotherBoard via an online chat. Guccifer 2.0 insisted he was Romanian but, when pressed to use
the Romanian language in an interview with an Interview with Motherboard via an online chat, he
used such clunky grammar and terminology that experts believe he was using an online
translator.
Bottom line: The Obama White House invention of Guccifer 2.0, apparently through its Staffer
Warren Flood, accomplished three things:
1) It covered DNC research director Lauren Dillon. Whatever sort of opposition research she
authored was later claimed by Guccifer 2.0.
2) It covered for Seth Rich. This is the BIG ONE, because he was killed in an obvious
assassination staged to look like street robbery -- the only problem is, the robbers didn't
take anything. He still had all his cash and his Rolex watch when police arrived. And Guccifer
2.0 took also credit for the Podesta emails which were actually downloaded by Seth Rich and
given to WikiLeaks.
AND;
3) It created the conduit to "Russian Intelligence" to fortify the claim that it was the
Russians who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, and therefore Trump "was in collusion with the
Russians" to defeat Clinton.
The whole claim of "Russian Hacking" and "Trump colluding with Russians" has come unraveled
because it was ALL a complete fraud.
What remains is how this fraud is STILL affecting our nation to this very day, and how the
Congress of the United States, acting late last month upon this totally FALSE "Russian Hacking"
claim, has now enacted further sanction upon Russia – sanctions that will very likely
lead to war.
VIDEO EVIDENCE
Here is the video containing the EVIDENCE that the Wikileaks original Trump Opposition
document was created by a user whose Microsoft Word software was registered to DNC Research
Director Lauren Dillon, and the later exact same document, allegedly hacked by "GUccifer
2.0″ was done by DNC/White House Staffer William Flood
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
"... By illuminating CIA programs and systems of surveillance, control, and assassination utilized against the civilian population of South Vietnam, we are presented with parallels with operations and practices at work today in America's seemingly perpetual war against terror. ..."
"... Through the policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and "brute force" interventions that wreak havoc on designated enemy states, destroy progress and infrastructure under the claim of liberation, degrade the standards of living for people in the perceived hostile nations, "...America's ruling elite empowers itself while claiming it has ensured the safety and prestige of the American people. Sometimes it is even able to convince the public that its criminal actions are 'humanitarian' and designed to liberate the people in nations it destroys." ..."
"... Want to know why the DEA is losing the war on drugs, how torture has become policy? Want to know why the government no longer represents your interests? Look no further. ..."
Of the extraordinarily valuable and informative works for which Mr. Valentine is responsible, his latest, CIA As Organized
Crime, may prove to be the best choice as an introduction to the dark realm of America's hidden corruptions and their consequences
at home and around the world. This new volume begins with the unlikely but irrevocable framework by which Mr. Valentine's path
led to unprecedented access to key Agency personnel whose witting participation is summarized by the chapter title: "How William
Colby Gave Me the Keys to the CIA Kingdom."
By illuminating CIA programs and systems of surveillance, control, and assassination utilized against the civilian population
of South Vietnam, we are presented with parallels with operations and practices at work today in America's seemingly perpetual
war against terror.
Through the policies of covert infiltration and manipulations, illegal alliances, and "brute force" interventions that
wreak havoc on designated enemy states, destroy progress and infrastructure under the claim of liberation, degrade the standards
of living for people in the perceived hostile nations, "...America's ruling elite empowers itself while claiming it has ensured
the safety and prestige of the American people. Sometimes it is even able to convince the public that its criminal actions are
'humanitarian' and designed to liberate the people in nations it destroys."
Mr. Valentine has presented us with a major body of work which includes: The Strength of the Wolf; The Strength of the Pack;
The Pheonix Program, to which we may now add The CIA as Organized Crime, and for which we are profoundly indebted.
If you want the inside scoop on the CIA and it's criminal past; this is the book. Additionally, why the Phoenix Program is
pertinent for our own times. This book connects the dots.
If you have been wondering why Homeland Security has fusion centers; why the USA Anti-Patriot Act, NDAA and Rex 84 have been
passed by Congress; you will get your answer here.
A book every intelligent American needs to read and place in a prominent place in their library. Oh, and don't forget after
you read it; spread the word !!! (this book is based upon actual face to face interviews and documents)
Run, don't walk, and get yourself a copy of this book. The author has been warning us for decades about the clear and present
danger that is the CIA I was unaware of Valentine's work for most of those years, perhaps because our media outlets (even the
"anti-establishment" ones like Democracy Now and The Intercept) have been compromised. Valentine's work has been suppressed since
his ground-breaking book on the Phoenix Program.
Not that I didn't know anything about the sordid history. I knew about MK-Ultra, some of the agency's drug running and empire-building
exploits. This work goes much deeper and paints a much bigger picture. The extent of the agency's influence is much greater than
I had imagined.
This is not another history book about dirty tricks. It is not just about our insane foreign policy and empire building. The
cancer of corruption, of outright crime, has metastasized into every agency of the government right here in the US itself. Those
dirty tricks and crimes have become domestic policy- in fusion centers and Homeland Security, in the militarization of local police
and in Congress, from Wall Street to Main Street. Border Patrol, the DEA, Justice and State have all been compromised.
Want to know why the DEA is losing the war on drugs, how torture has become policy? Want to know why the government no
longer represents your interests? Look no further.
The problem is now. We are the new targets.
Read it and weep, but for God's sake, please read it.
A highly informative and comprehensive book, and a scathing, fearless indictment of government corruption.
I cannot overstate it's importance.
I just picked up this book and have not read it yet--but I am writing this to CORRECT THE RECORD regarding very basic information.
There are 446 PAGES (not 286, as listed above). 160 Pages is a big difference--obviously, QUALITY is more important than quantity--but
I do feel the listing needs be corrected.
The "Inside Look" feature is also cutting off the last 9 chapters of the book, which are as follows:
Chapter 16: Major General Bruce Lawlor: From CIA Officer in Vietnam to Homeland Security Honcho
Chapter 17: Homeland Security: The Phoenix Comes Home to Roost
PART IV: MANUFACTURING COMPLICITY: SHAPING THE AMERICAN WORLDVIEW
Chapter 18: Fragging Bob Kerrey: The CIA and the Need for a War Crimes Tribunal
Chapter 19: Top Secret America Shadow Reward System
Chapter 20: How Government Tries to Mess with Your Mind
Chapter 21: Disguising Obama's Dirty War
Chapter 22: Parallels of Conquest, Past and Present
Chapter 23: Propaganda as Terrorism
Chapter 24: The War on Terror as the Greatest Covert Op Ever
This is a devastating and must-read study of the social and political calamity created by the CIA over the last sixty years.
The portrait shows the criminal character of the agency and finally of the government it is said to serve. The portrait is a double
shock because it shows not just a sordid corruption but a malevolent 'dark side' mafia-style corruption of american civilization
and government. That the CIA controls the drug trade is not the least of the stunning revelations of this history.
This was written almost a year ago. Not author demonstrated tremendous insight which was confirmed by subsequent events.
Notable quotes:
"... The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. ..."
"... The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'! ..."
"... Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound " ..."
The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded
by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as
in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over 'Al' Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious
electoral outcomes in these cases, the 'defeated' candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful
protests to register their opposition.
These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect
Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected
president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.
We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and
the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.
Regime Change in America
In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent
foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years
of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups
were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'.
The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political,
administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction
between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.
Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The
US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.
The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected
and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional
ideological boundaries.
Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize
the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal
gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.
Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the legitimacy of the November 2016
election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump's victory, a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect
even before he takes office – by claiming Trump was an 'enemy agent'.
The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail members of the Electoral
College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.
Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected
president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful
elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations
with Russia were acts of treason.
The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald
Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony
documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the
major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the
'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered
to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'!
Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British
official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect.
Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership
was involved in a domestic coup d'état.
CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect.
For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened
the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's
policies) on the United States could be profound "
Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US
president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.
From a Scratch to Gangrene
The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and rightist politicos, the corporate
mass media and the 'progressive' websites and pundits providing ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated 'regime change'.
Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many – they are now being degraded and discarded in a march toward
an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and 'in`telligence' hierarchy.
Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the
atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous
organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their
drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York.
http://petras.lahaine.org/
"... It's very interesting. But there is one thing that is certain according to McAffee (the McAffee) "If it looked like it was the Russians, then I can guarantee it WASN'T the Russians." ..."
"... Good comment and reading the last line, it has just reminded me of 'Vault 7' and what Wiki Leaks had to say. ..."
"... Vault 7 CIA Hacking Tools Revealed.docx... https://www.scribd.com/docu... ..."
Getting closer all the time, but Mueller's job will continue till the mid-term elections just to see if they can get away
with their scheming. The tale within a tale: FBI investigates and discovers they themselves are also part of this tale. The
story will have a tail: will it be a tragic, Shakespearean end or repentance by Hillary and Mueller (Duh...).
It's about the date / time stamps on the files, and the HACKER (Guciffer 2.0) was acutely
an Obama aid called: WARREN FLOOD. Warren Flood pretended to hack the DNC and made himself
out to be Russian with an alias of Guciffer 2.0. That was the smoke screen the Democrats put
out on top of the Crowdstrike false evidence job. It's excellent reading.
Thank you for the link and must admit it has made me laugh. A line I will use in the
future. '50 Shades of Pissed Off' - no doubt I will use it as my Mantra for 2018.
Yes, that Guccifer 2.0 stuff and the clear evidence that it was not a hack was published
before but you are now updating us by identifying the guy who did it, which should also
change the process. Thanks for that!
Update: Just see what Libby and Trauma2000 mean: yes, that makes sense!
In actual fact, it was Seth Ritch who 'leaked' the material (if you believe that Huma Abdeen was the original leaker and used Seth as a 'go between' then that is up to you). When
the DNC found out Seth was the leaker, the murdered him and had to 'think up a story' hence
Guccifer 2.0. There are several DNC employees involved but Warren Flood is the 'fall guy'
along with a girl (her name is out there) whom had her name on the software licenses that
were used to doctor the emails.
It's very interesting. But there is one thing that is certain according to McAffee (the
McAffee) "If it looked like it was the Russians, then I can guarantee it WASN'T the
Russians."
For me it is because of the truth: there is not much point being on this or that "side",
but when the truth is so twisted it becomes perversion and that should be uncovered.
Flood had already stopped working as Biden's IT director back in 2011, the only place he'd
likely have had his name on a license under the company name GSA based on his work history -
was there.
So, Guccifer 2.0's first docs were most likely constructed using a computer that had
resided in the West Wing office on June 15, 2016 at the exact same time as Pyatt, Nuland and
others (also connected to the Ukraine coup in 2014) were meeting there.
source:
http://g-2.space
(the person behind it is the person who originally wrote this "Fancy Fraud, Bogus Bears..."
article too)
RE: The Eastern timezone. - If referring to the NGP-VAN analysis, the timestamps
themselves don't show timezones but the timezone can be evaluated due to how timestamps on
files (that appear to be part of the same batch transfer on July 5, 2016) are displayed in
the 7zip archive root versus those in various RAR files contained within (and the different
methods of timestamp storage used by the different archive formats) and how this changes
depending on what your computer's timezone is set to (the time changes in the 7zip but not in
the RARs and the only timezone in which these have a close correlation is Eastern).
There was an article, that I read, just before Christmas Day, that supports what you say.
That Mueller has got to keep the narrative running, until they have sorted out the Mid-Term
Elections, that the Dems believe will work to their advantage. Is it something to do with the
Dems hoping to control Congress and managing to close any investigations that Trump is
working on?
Surprised with Fox. Considering old Murdoch has a problem with Russia, no doubt owing to
his interests in Genie Energy. However, not complaining, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and now
the ex-NSA on Fox News. Nice.
This is just the beginning: just read New Trump Executive Order Targets Clinton-Linked
Individuals, Lobbyists And Perhaps Uranium One on
Zerohedge.com
1. It will have huge consequences for all those who made shady deals with dictators and
criminals (adding to the coffers of the Clinton Foundation etc.etc.). Perhaps this is what
Trump was waiting for to start in the new year:his fireworks response to all the mud slung
around?
2. Seth Rich and distraction by Guccifer 2.0: Trauma200 comments below is BIG and makes the
connection to SETH RICH's murder, which also shows how Assange made it necessary for the
complete the search and expose with evidence what was going on.
What I am curious about, is will he use it for that or will he go for any foreigner that
Washington DC has a problem with. Such as anybody who is a friend of President Putin, just to
cause problems, before the Russian Presidential Campaign.
Or am I being cynical. I seriously hope he uses it for the Russia Gate crowd and no doubt,
he has good reason and he is not known to like being insulted, with no payback. However, I
can also see him using it as another form of punishment on non-nationals.
One additional point: Thomas Rid and most of the mainstream media keeps saying that German
intelligence fingered Russia for the German Parliament attacks. While this is partly true,
German intelligence in fact never said directly that APT 29 or "Fancy Bear" WAS DEFINITELY
Russian state sponsored. They said they ASSUMED Russia was conducting hacks on Germany.
See here:
Digital Attack on German Parliament: Investigative Report on the Hack of the Left Party
Infrastructure in Bundestag
https://netzpolitik.org/201...
Jeffrey Carr made this point early on in his Medium article:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of
identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control
address -- 176.31.112[.]10 -- that was hard coded in a piece of
malware found both in the German parliament as well as on
the DNC's servers. Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic
security agency BfV as the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure
behind the fake MIS Department domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at
least one other element, a shared SSL certificate.
This paragraph sounds quite damning if you take it at face value, but if you invest a
little time into checking the source material, its carefully constructed narrative falls
apart.
Problem #1:
The IP address 176.31.112[.]10 used in the Bundestag breach as a Command and Control server
has never been connected to the Russian intelligence services. In fact, Claudio Guarnieri, a
highly regarded security researcher, whose technical analysis was referenced by Rid, stated
that "no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country."
Problem #2: The Command & Control server (176.31.112.10) was using an outdated version
of OpenSSL vulnerable to Heartbleed attacks. Heartbleed allows attackers to exfiltrate data
including private keys, usernames, passwords and other sensitive information.
The existence of a known security vulnerability that's trivial to exploit opens the door
to the possibility that the systems in question were used by one rogue group, and then
infiltrated by a second rogue group,
making the attribution process even more complicated. At the very least, the C2 server should
be considered a compromised indicator.
Problem #3: The BfV published a newsletter in January 2016 which assumes that the GRU and
FSB are responsible because of technical indicators, not because of any classified finding;
to wit: "Many
of these attack campaigns have each other on technical similarities, such as malicious
software families, and infrastructure -- these are important indicators of the
same authorship. It is assumed that both the
Russian domestic intelligence service FSB and the military foreign intelligence service GRU
run cyber operations."
Professor Rid's argument depended heavily on conveying hard attribution by the BfV even
though the President of the BfV didn't disguise the fact that their attribution was based on
an assumption and not hard evidence.
Thanks for the article and reminding us of Crowd Strike. Must admit, I read an interesting
article, over on Oped News, by George Eliason, with regards Crowd Strike. Plus a few other
reminders.
Does anybody remember the Awan Brothers from Pakistan and what they were arrested for,
with regards the DNC and computers?
Then you have Google and Soros and their links into Crowd Strike. Hasn't the CEO of Google
just stepped down, the same day that Trump signed a Presidential Order, that might prove a
problem for some, in the future?
QANON EXPOSES DEM CONSPIRACY TO FRAME TRUMP, CLAIMS GOOGLE'S SCHMIDT PLAYED PIVOTAL
ROLE
QAnon also claims Debbie Wasserman Schultz contracted MS-13 gang to kill Seth Rich...
https://www.infowars.com/qa...
Remember, Crowd Strike, Dmitry Alperovic and his links back to The Atlantic Council? Then
you have the Ukrainian Oligarch Pinchuk, who happily invested $25 million in the Clinton
Foundation. Remember his Yalta Summits and the one back in September 2013? Now who attended
and what were the various topics that they discussed?
Then you have Obama giving Crowd Strike
a White House Commission for Cyber Security. Plus, the DNC refusing the FBI access to their
servers, but, having no problem giving Crowd Strike full access. Now why was that? Funny how
often Ukraine comes up, when looking into Clinton, Fusion, Crowdstrike, Old Ukrainian Malware
and The Trump Dossier? Coincidence or what?
If there is a smoking gun that proves that Trump is beholden to Russia, I want to know about
it. Having slogged through this book, though, I can tell you that the smoking gun is not here.
That is disappointing, because the cover of the book implies that proof of collusion will be
provided. Instead, the book provides a series of "it seemed as if something more was going on"
types of speculations. It also restates everything you already know about the alleged
scandal.
Some readers will be happy with this book -- primarily those who are already certain that
Trump is controlled by Russia, despite the lack of evidence to that effect. If you are a
liberal looking for confirmation bias, this book will make you nod knowingly.
Other readers should note that this book accepts the controversial "Russian dossier" about
Trump on face value, even though the dossier has been debunked by Newsweek, Bob Woodward, and
others, while the New York Times (embarrassed by initially treating the dossier as legitimate)
has called it "unsubstantiated." This book's perspective on the dossier is to the left of even
the New York Times. At one point, the book references the publication Mother Jones as a
mainstream news source -- that says everything you need to know about the author's political
slant.
This book is very deceptive! beware of confirmation bias!
I just got through reading this and I have to say if you are looking for a book with
nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with
VERIFIABLE lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons, then this will be a delight
to read! This book will do nothing but reinforce your confirmation bias!
"... The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning. ..."
The New Zealand flagship National Radio channel recently played an interview of the above
mentioned plagiarist Luke Harding https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018624819
It is interesting to compare the free ride he is given by the interviewer, Kim Hill,
noticeably anti-Russian, and the far more intelligent approach from Aaron Mate of the Real
News.
The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a
state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning.
"... Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you. Peace. ..."
"... Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated, Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6. ..."
"... I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies. ..."
"... Wait. Did he say Steele was involved in the Ukraine Coup? :)) ..."
"... A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation. ..."
How can this guy write a whole book about the "collusion" and not give a single clear
proof in the interview. He is a prime example of the Russiagate supporters. Good Job
Aaron!
Aaron is boss in this interview... damn I've watched 5 mins so far and this "author" has
shown himself already to be a complete tool. The only opportunist I see here is him cashing
in on this anti Russian craze that only serve the interests of Intel agencies and the
Democratic party insiders.
Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That
is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt
on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault
of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a
book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar
situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is
irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it
the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this
writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you.
Peace.
Aaron Maté, you are gold. This so-called journalist was condescending and highly
unprofessional throughout the interview to point where he most likely cut the line because he
couldn't handle being interviewed by a real journalist and seeker of truth. His failure to
directly answer Aaron's questions regarding evidence of collusion show his inability to be
factual and impartial. The 'evidence' the author presents seems circumstantial at best and
unconvincing. Thank you, the Real News Network. Your high standard of journalism is always
appreciated by your loyal viewers.
I love you, Aaron. You and the Real New are one of the few who actually challenges this
ridiculous narrative. Trump is a horrible man but so is the rest of the US plutocracy. Making
him out as some sort of special sort of evil is pathetic. He wasn't hired because of the
Russians. He was hired because Americans cannot seem to understand that the changes they want
from the economic system here in this country will not happen if they exclusively use voting
as their change mechanism. Especially if they keep voting in the two fake opposition parties
for all positions. Also, Mr. Harding, we don't need to read your book. We've been hearing
this garbage through the mainstream media for over the last year. You are not providing
anything new or any actual proof.
Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "I was a Moscow correspondent for four
years!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "Trump is nice to Putin and rude to
other world leaders!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "What do you think
Russian spy agencies do all day if not spy? Huh?"
I despise Trump, but where the fuck is Harding's evidence for collusion? He responds to
direct questions with, "weeell..." and goes onto talking about obscure meetings with musical
producers or vague connections with Russian business men. Or, worse still, reminding us how
awful Putin is (what does that prove in regards to collusion?). And how dare he claim that
he's living in the "empirical world," when he can't substantiate his headline - collision.
Stunningly, he even suggests later on that skeptical people can't appreciate Putin! Cash-in,
little more. Good job, Aaron.
Luke is full of shit as he pushes hacking of the 2016 election. William Edward Binney[3]
is a former highly placed intelligence official with the United States National Security
Agency (NSA)[4] turned whistleblower who resigned on October 31, 2001, after more than 30
years with the agency. He was a high-profile critic of his former employers during the George
W. Bush administration, and later criticized the NSA's data collection policies during the
Barack Obama administration. In 2016, he said the U.S. intelligence community's assessment
that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election was false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv0-Lnv0d0khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoeJeWfoSpQ
Aarons calm, but critical, questioning/demand for evidence is very refreshing. It has to
be very uncomfortable for a guest that is acustomed to mainstream neo-libs/con
journalists.
So this guy's whole body of evidence can be summarized as because Russia engages in
espionage then that proves the collusion? Great interview Aaron, he wasn't expecting you
to call out his bullshit, thought he didn't seemed at all phased by it. 10:30"I'm a story
teller." I think that sums this guy up pretty nicely.
Funny he lost his cool so fast and went into teacher mode, LOL! Good job interviewer this
is how "stories" get vetted no matter how favorable they are to you position. :o)
Watching this interview was like a breath of fresh air. You NEVER see a "journalist"
challenge their guests on network TV (probably because guests are pre-screened to fit the
prevailing orthodoxy). If we just had an army of Aarons doing the news, I think the world
would be in a lot better shape.
Good job, Aaron, thank you. It's not the first time I've been impressed by your objective
questioning and reasoning that may offend a guest but leads to the truth. Good, unbiased
journalism seems very rare these days
Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to
throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his
connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated,
Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6.
And I wouldn't be
surprised if he had done work for them, which means he effectively still works for them (you
never leave the intelligence club, you keep getting fat wads of cash on occasion while
understanding that very bad things will happen if you turn on them). Again and again, he
presented arguments which were whole cloth bullshit, either 'facts' that were proven untrue
(like the bare-faced lie about Russian interference in the French elections) with laughable
ease by Aaron, or threw a word salad of tales of nefarious Russia being nefarious to somehow
'prove' something completely unrelated, that Russia got Trump elected with a bunch of random,
laughably tiny, obtuse efforts (a couple of ads on FB, some supposed Twitter trolls, RT,
Pokeman f-ing Go (!) ) which are all that has been openly claimed.
And there is NO REAL
EVIDENCE for that crap either, just the word of the always trustworthy spooks (a hand
selected group from 3 agencies, btw) and some heavily leaned on establishment toadies in
Silicon Valley. This book (I am guessing here- no, I have not nor will I waste my time
reading it) appears to be a disgusting cash grab on the level of 'What Happened?', selling
self-serving vacuous BS to credulous morons looking to feel better about the epic failure of
their disgusting, characterless idol. Also will undoubtedly be a big hit with the McCain wing
of right wing nuts, who have been itching for the fun of a REAL WAR (oh boy oh boy oh boy!
mass tank clashes in Poland! carrier battle groups attacking Vladivostok!!!) with the always
evil Reds... errr, Russians.
Disinformation trolls like this guy are willing to put in their
two cents toward making that happen. How the fuck they look themselves in the mirror,
especially if the have young people they care about, baffles me. But considering the Oxford
background and government connections, his kids sure as hell won't be digging a trench
frantically in ESTONIA (which I also have heard of, btw, you pompous, pompous puke). THANK
YOU REAL NEWS! MORE LIKE THIS PLEASE!! :)
this is another nothing burger by a member of the UK MSM this time who should know better
- Citing Chris Steele as a source for info is a complete joke - this guy needs to go back to
Journo school .
What a great debate by Aaron. Slapped that jackass so many times & revealed how
deceptive & outright false his position is. He has no evidence & is so
condescending/arrogant despite the baselessness of his position.
I find blinking isn't usually a good sign - I do think Trump has had Russian money, some
of it laundered, through his properties for decades and Russians probably have enough to
place pressure on him in the same way Hillary could be compromised by Uranium One, he might
have considerable debts owing. However Trump like Tillerson/Exxon and many others just want
to get into Russia and start doing deals.
They are over this Brezinzski like need to crush
Russia for all time that the deep state has got lined up.
I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for
it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so
now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while
minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a
containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying
attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty
propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with
past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in
this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies.
A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on
abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real
investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview
about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation.
Luke is part of the UK metropolitan liberal elite. Still in shock that HRC was rejected by
the US voters . Still in shock that UK deplorables voted for Brexit . His monumental
arrogance is such that he believes we were too stupid to understand the issues and therefore
were 'guided' by Russian propaganda. Aaron exposes Lukes lack of evidence
perfectly.
Kudos to Aaron Mate and the Real News for asking Harding serious questions; the upshot is
that this Harding character did not have shit to prove that Russia meddled with the US
election. Good job Aaron Mate and the Real News.
"... Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order to please his masters. ..."
"... As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. ..."
Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to
Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order
to please his masters.
I don't think that's far from the truth actually. As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and
Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at
university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain why Harding
is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were
recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain
why Harding is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies
from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British
not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same
time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald Trump. ..."
"... I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! ..."
"... DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to secure their systems and not click on phishing emails ..."
"... This seems like yet another attempt to divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been disproven ..."
"... I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending? ..."
Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between
Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking
secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and
occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by
every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all
three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives
us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning
every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald
Trump.
I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with
insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's
first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! [p219]. As someone who has spent
the past thirty-five years as a war correspondent and investigative journalist, I find it a
bit disappointing to think that this is the best the Left has to offer. A more shoddy piece
of work I have rarely seen.
DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING
with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The
knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to
secure their systems and not click on phishing emails.
This seems like yet another attempt to
divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have
some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is
laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been
disproven.
I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath
court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against
Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending?
The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies
from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British
not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same
time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"! ..."
The Problem With Espionage The purpose of espionage is to keep your opponent at a
disadvantage by cultivating an alternate reality in their mind that is different from the
facts. Whatever the government or agency they work for an agent wants to distort your
impressions of them and their own personal capabilities. All agents want you to believe that
they don't have the capabilities, contacts, or powers that they actually do posses. By the
same token secret agents want you to believe that they DO have capabilities, contacts, or
powers that they, in fact, do NOT have. When deception is such an integral part of the game
you are playing it makes sense to assume that you know less than you think you do. That's
what actual journalism is about -- particularly when dealing with spies and espionage. In
this video Aaron Mate' is acting like a real journalist. Luke Harding is not. "Real News" is
getting the story right. Thank you! We need more real journalism.
Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the
middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and
call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"!
Imho, this guy's full of shit. Not quite ready for a 'Reynolds Wrap' hat, but seeing smoke
where there's mist. Takes me back to when there were definitely WMD's in Iraq. To TRN's
credit, they did give him a hearing. Which is more than the MSM gives to say, Chomsky or
Hedges.
He speaks Russian and has lived in Russia -- so I guess that settles it. LOL Maybe
somebody ought to ask Sarah Palin about it, since you can actually see Russia from parts of
Alaska. And the French intelligence report is inconclusive but if you get more context from
reading his book, you will see that it may be inconclusive but is actually conclusive. (It's
complicated.) And of course, he's lived in Berlin and he knows people there, so that proves
the German elections were hacked too. And only the most hidebound skeptic could fail to see
the smiley face connection. If you read his book you'll find out all this great context and
facts that prove the Russians did it. It's too bad he couldn't provide any of that for us in
this interview. (This whole thing has a sort of dog-ate-my-homework feel to it.)
The main question NOBODY'S been able to answer me is that "What policies has Trump
enacted, political, economic, military or otherwise, that benefits the interests of the
Russian state?" As far as I can tell, Trump is either indifferent to the interests of the
state of Russia, or is hostile, directly or indirectly, to them.
I tried really hard to follow this story as credible without prejudice and it was just a
bunch of babble without any evidence whatsoever.. this is just a re-print and re-title of the
Steel dossier updated with MSNBC and CNN reportage
This entire collusion scheme is occurring because the Democrats can't admit that Hillary
ran a horrible campaign and she's a murderer and a war criminal. I'm glad Mate is putting a
fire under Harding's arse and trying to make him accountable for these specious speculations.
I'm not a fan of either Putin or Trump, but this whole "scandal" has been little more than a
massive distraction. I've speculated that the entire election was a CIA psychological
operation to influence foreign policy to appease certain elements of the Deep
State.
I dislike Trump as much as the next man but when the Guardian publishes this BS it will
only bolster Trump when the lies dissolve over time and the facts eventually come out. Sadly
you might have never heard of Dr Udo Ulfkotte and his exposure that the CIA has an army of
journalists on its payroll, especially in Europe. So why are you not questioning the
integrity of this individual in more detail. These are the type of CIA and MI6 stooges that
Tony Blair used to promote the illegal war against Iraq. When this CIA stooge says,
08:25 "I
think that Russia played a role in last year's election is a matter of fact. This is only
what US intelligence agencies believe" he must be assuming the majority of the US population
are just ignorant fools. The US Intelligence agencies also believed Iraq had WMDs and the
British Intelligence believed Saddam was sourcing nuclear material from Africa. This
deceitful idiot Harding still pushes the idea the MI6 published Trump-Putin Dossier when it
has been shown it was paid for by the DNC. So would you believe any intelligence agency whose
motive is a push for war? And the best way to achieve this goal and have the misinformed
population back the corrupted corporate government would be to promote this BS from this
sleazy CIA puppet. If you get a chance, have a look at some other YouTube videos of the BS
this CIA journalist produces: "The KGB left a sex manual after breaking into my home" or
"Putin is Building an Empire" or the ever popular "Putin May Secretly Be One Of The World's
Richest Men". Then may I suggest you look at any story on Russia by the truth-tellers, the
whistleblowers that have actually been prosecuted for telling the truth in this fascist
system: William Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, or Ray McGovern. So there will always be
some imbeciles that believe this fabrication just as there were some that believed the New
York Times and the Washington Post about the Bush-Blair Iraq War rhetoric when the oligarchs'
real intentions were so clearly stated by General Wesley Clark in his admission of "7
countries in 5 years". I am interested to know if TRN approached Harding or Harding was
offered up to TRN as a CIA stooge to spew their propaganda. It is sad to see the Guardian
employ such a hack; sure they are now a mouthpiece for the Empire but they have done some
good work over the years. It is clear that Harding writes to influence the apathetic and the
stupid; he conflates innuendo and supposition with fact in his attempt to distort perception
and for the imbecile with no intellectual honesty; this is very effective. I find it
frustrating that TRN attempts to expose this garbage when the oligarchs' MSM would lap it up.
You would never hear the BBC or Maddow questioning this MI6-CIA stooge like Aaron Maté
did. Aaron has done a competent job; not an effective job like one would expect from Paul Jay
at questioning this farce but sadly, this is the best TRN has to offer. There will always be
a number of scared and pathetic individuals within the population that will always be
incapable of differentiating between fact and fantasy or between truth and lies. These are
the Useful Idiots of Empire and they have been used to justify and instigate Imperial
aggression since the beginning of time.
Maté wiped the floor with Harding. It's also interesting that Harding appeared to
confuse Russian espionage with what is essentially Mossad-driven sexpionage when he mentioned
the "swallows." He seems woefully ill-informed when it comes to dual nationality,
Russian-Jewish mafia ties with Israel and Anglo-American foreign policy. This is also why
Trump has been encircled with Russian corporate interests to a certain degree - they are
connected to Russian-Israeli underworld objectives. Hence, the real conspiracy here is via
Israeli intelligence working through its traditional syanim in both Russia and the United
States.
This lunatic Harding is trying to sell USA and CIA as pillars of truth, democracy and
integrity, playing positive role in international affairs. How stupid and sold can a writer
get?!
I love how this guy keeps harping the point that Mate should have read his entire book.
This is so sad to watch, our media should be as critical as this, and this shows how far they
are from that.
Interviewer: "Your book is called Collusion. What evidence do you present for an act of
collusion?" Author: "Well, you see, Russians are bad and they do bad things, and you have to
see a pattern of bad things, and Trump is bad, so <waves hands> you know, context."
Interviewer: "I didn't hear any actual evidence there" Author: "Did you read my book? Because
I say stuff in there that suggests that my title is true. Also, go to Russia and ask
Russians, because you can trust them about what they have to say about the US election. Don't
listen to me, listen to them." At this point I'm wondering if the author read his own
book...
That guy had become unhinged by the end of the interview. This is the same behavior I've
seen from Russia-gaters when every talking point they bring up gets immediately debunked. I'm
surprised he didn't start ranting xenophobic nonsense about how the interviewer was also a
Russian agent. I've seen this conversation play out this way so many times over the past year
that the fact we're still talking about this is asinine.
This is Journalism. You need to answer the questions with hard evidence, facts, links and
ties. Names, Dates, Times these have to add up. Donate to The Real News!!
Seems Luke wasn't expecting a grilling from an outlet like the real news. He's probably
not used to a left-leaning American news outlet that tolerates dissenting opinions on the
Russia narrative. A sad reflection on what the atmosphere must be like at the Guardian.
Thanks again Aaron.
This is a great exchange between a believer of Russiagate and a sceptic. Both guys did a
great job pushing their arguments. Shame you don't see this on the msm. They're too busy
pushing their editorial lines instead of being challenged.
What is easier? Russia pulling off collusion OR Russia convincing idiots that they pulled
off collusion. I think that both have the same effect on delegitimizing our electoral
process, one is just a lot easier.
ALSO if the kgb is so good and so well trained at this then why is it so obvious? The
perfect crime is one that your enemy thinks you committed yet has no proof of, because
spoiler, you didn't commit it.
Thank you Aaron for being a JOURNALIST unlike the guy trying to well a book, why not every
body ids entitle to profit from a nation which from here seem to be populated by MORONS! The
Guardian lost its way back in 2001 by toeing the official White House Line, it asked very
little questions, it was very thick on speculation (a bit like this moron)!
This "author" or hack journalist is absolutely ignorant. Clearly he hates Russia and Puti.
And is just fine to create lies and stories. This was a great interview by Aaron! Excellent
job asking valid, intelligent questions and holding his feet (and fables) to the fire. People
creating and spreading this type of propaganda should all be held to the standards Aaron just
held this doofus to! When asked real questions, for proof of their statements of fact and
confronted with opposing information, you just get stuttering and the same old line of Putin
is bad so therefore my lies must be true! No proof yet people r still writing books and
profiting from spreading a very dangerous type of propaganda!
This is hilarious. Everytime TRN interviews anyone about the Russian case, they - the
interviewee - ends up being flustered, frustrated. I am waiting for that obscenities laden
outburst one of these interviews
Very good Aaron! Finally someone's called out the fabulilt Harding, arguably the worst
Anglophone reporter from Russia, and there's stiff competition.
I'm getting fed up with this shit. Trump just sent lethal weapons to Ukraine. This guy and
his administration have done nothing but escalate tensions with Russia since he took office.
Sanctions, banning RT, Syria strike, buzzing Russian jets, the latest Ukraine BS, that Obama
refused to do because it would escalate tensions. I wish this guy was Putin's puppet, but he
is more likely to give us a nuclear exchange with Russia.
It was the USSR until 1991, then the US Oligarchs pillages the New formed Russia.I don't
even think that Psychics would have fathomed Trump ever running for President 35+ years
later... Idiot....
Trump is crocked in my opinion, but who cares about my opinion--NO ONE. So why don't we
just wait for the evidence to come forward after the investigation. If he is guilty of
something then we will know. Clearly Mueller and his team is NOT going to put evidence out in
the public if indeed they do have something at this time. So everyone is just speculating,
BUT that does not mean the investigation should be over because SOME people feel there is
nothing there. That just does not make sense to me. Let the investigation conclude just like
they wanted it to conclude when Bill Clinton. By the way, he should read the book (not skim
it) and then get quotes to ask. The author is right to call out the interviewer for not
reading his book, but wants to talk about---the BOOK! Really?
Just what is the proof that Trump is Putin's puppet? Is it the NATO troops moving ever
eastward in Europe, holding war games on Russia's borders? Is it the extra billions earmarked
for nuclear war preparations? Or perhaps the US troops and bases illegally placed in Russia's
ally Syria? One has to be an idiot to believe this Russiagate nonsense.
Luke Harding is so full of shite, I'm surprised it's not oozing out of his pores. He says
nothing new in this interview he just rehashes the narrative. Intentionality? Luke is
obviously not used to being questioned on his storytelling.
This fella seems to be more interested in advertising his book than answering the
questions. These Guardian article writers may as well write for Daily Express or The Sun or
any other gutter press
I wonder if Luke Harding thought that doing this interview would sell a few copies of his
book. If so, he will be disappointed - he doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable, to say the
least.
this guy is pissed of with Putin, and thinks he knows everything just because he is a rich
boy from Oxbridge elite, yet this wanker has not a single fact supported with solid evidence.
That sums up the state of liberal fascists. Oh God!
Harding never voiced any proof or real evidence of collusion. Speculation, speculation,
speculation and inference. I'm so tired of this. And yes, Putin's not a nice guy.
The guy said go to Russia, meet Navalny (a man with less than 1% support)..lol. go to any
country on earth and meet the opposition and see if they will have anything positive to say
about the running government.. they are opposition for a reason... smh
I heard a really, disappointing softball interview on KCRW (NPR affiliate in LA) with this
same author where he was presenting correlations as causation and making the same broad
generalizations with nary a challenge from Warren Olney (who could be an excellent
interviewer) , but rather exclamations of approval. Aaron Mate on the other hand does a
fabulous job of showing the Emperor has no clothes. So, big big kudos to him for leaving this
fraud in a stumbling, stuttering pout of ineffective arguments. This author is at best making
a buck jumping on the Russian hysteria bandwagon, and at worst is part of a concerted
propaganda effort by those who would benefit from a new Cold War. One can oppose Trump for
not only his vulgarity but more importantly he does, policy-wise. Unfortunately, many of
those policies are the same or just a bit more radical than many of the politicians whose
style is less overly vulgar and divisive.
At the end Harding implies that definitive proof of collusion would be Trump and Putin in
a sauna. That would actually only be proof both men like a good steam.
Luke: There are only two honorable ways to respond to the charge of lack of proof for your
bold claims. 1. Point to proof 2. Admit there is no proof. Only a pathetic weasel with zero
intellectual integrity would take another course. After this interview I don't even believe
you know any Russian beyond "can I have the check please" Oh, and Hillary Clinton is a
deranged mad woman. Who else would laugh like a hyena about being accessory to Qaddafi's
gruesome murder?
Mate' is nobody's fool. This is what an interview should be, not a beaming love-fest
between "journalist" and guest. It's wonderful to see a strong journalist who's informed and
not rubber-stamping BS to crawl up the ass of someone with connections. You go, Aaron!!! Much
respect to RT.
Aaron. Probably the best journalistic interview that I have ever seen. Anyone watching
this will realise this collusion stuff is nonsense. And yes, i despise Trump and Putin's
corruption.
"The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or
hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled
Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken
apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there
is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his
assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" - in other words: its
fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian
Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as
plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct
Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology."
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/27/from-snowden-russia-gate-cia-and-media.html
Thank you, Aaron, for convincingly exposing a shill for the Imperialist agenda and
committed cheerleader for the "deep state." Harding could do nothing more, in the face of
demands for evidence, than splutter endlessly on irrelevancies and assertions that the
Russians don't like us (gee, I wonder why not?!?!?). Excellent job Aaron: you are a credit to
true journalism.
This is the best video on the Russiagate conspiracy theory I have seen all year. I wish
people would remember that there is equal evidence that the US kills journalists; when you
hear people say that about other countries they're clearly propagandists.
That was awkward viewing.....but you can see why people like me in England went from
buying the guardian everyday to being dismayed to see the publication have such a skewed
agenda on politics that I now avoid clicking on their online articles. Basically the media
here is "London thinks this, so you should too"
Your sign off with a plug for the propagandist book, despite his abrupt fleeing of your
interview, was very civilised. Great job, I enjoyed the squirm and deflecting done by Luke. I
think he was well grilled by the time he left.
It should be acrime for so called Journalists to be allowed to propagate this abaloute
disgraceful nonsense. The guy is talking about 1987 - a single time Trump visited Russia
during the 80's. Next time he wsa there was about 5 years ago for miss universe contest. Yet
this is evidence or him being a Russian puppet. Total nonsense! No, this is communists
realizing Trump is a sledgehammer to their narrative. They are looking at political
wilderness across the west if Trump can do what he wants to do so in desperation they attempt
to drag out anything they can to keep their bs narrative going even going back almost 30
years...
Just to be clear: Russia hacked both DNC and Macron emails, and released them, mixed with
false information, in a disinformation campaign. The DNC emails became source of conspiracy
on facebook. Macron emails were never allowed to be published in any form.
When subjected to some skepticism, Harding's assertions collapse into vague "because the
intel agencies told us" nonsense. Hats off to Aaron for knocking down the Russia hysteria
once again.
Pretty embarrassing interview with this British guy... When he gives that snarky "oh too
bad you didnt read the book.." line i really wanted to hear the interveiwer say "Oh its
really too bad you didnt think to memorize one fact about the subject your being interveiwed
about..."
Now he leans on whether Aaron has read the whole book or not. I know I won't read it, as
the man as not said a convincing word in the entire interview.
Russiagate is a conspiracy theory. Let's be frank. It presupposes it's conclusion and
finds circumstantial and hearsay evidence to support it. "Collusion-rejectionist" Mate points
this out time and time again (not only to this guy) and this guy says 'go talk to people; the
russians do things this way; everybody knows; you are a fringe character for not agreeing' -
it just doesn't hold water. No doubt Trump has shady deals with Russians among others. The
idea that such a buffoon been cultivated since the mid-80s by the KGB as a Manchurian
Candidate wouldn't make for a plausible pop spy thriller plot - maybe a good satire of one,
however.
Omg this was fun. Btw, we can all agree that Pyutin made Luke to wrote that idiotic book
just to toss a doubt how he did not collude with Tryump, because there's no limit of his
cunningness.
Luke's stories, just like the whole collusion theme, is a nothing burger left out of the
fridge too long. So now it stinks and needs to be thrown in the garbage where it
belongs.
He probably published the book half cooked just for the best timing of the sale. Maybe
they need a better guests? This doesn't prove anything that Trump is clear of the
allegation.. Far from it. Probe will continue.
Crappiest interview ever. You don't read the book and then you spout your pre-conceived
notions of the its subject matter. Cherry on top, with a pro-Trump bias.
He obviously didn't bother to read the book , why bother to interview the guy ? They are
talking past each other , if he had read the book they could have had a descent debate . This
is as bad a Fox News segment . Terrible .
This clown only response is to stammer and stutter until the regurgitated corporate
propaganda eventually spews out of his mouth with very very little confidence lol
This conspiracist has not listened to Putin speak. If he had, he would not be painting
such a one-dimensional, comic book character of him. Can we please move on from such naively
simplistic analyses of global power structures? Any leader unable to manage Intelligence is
at the mercy of a Deep State -- as we have learned time and again in the US. Before
cheerleading for World War, start by watching some of the hours and hours of footage showing
Putin engaging deeply with citizens and world leaders. Try critiquing that. Maybe learn some
history.
In watching the video interview it is obvious this 'Journalist' has his own Personal
Agenda regarding Putin and wants to get Putin any which way he can even if it means lying to
the America People. He is no true journalist. Great Interviewer!
The more I hear "experts" push this stupid Russia-phobic conspiracy theory the less I
believe it...This is why I like the Real news and you're worth supporting. You haven't fallen
for the mainstream narrative... There are many legitimise things to criticise Trump on. The
Trump-Russia conspiracy theory is NOT one of them.
Opposition Research on oligarch Hillary and Don Jr goes to find out what they've got.
That's it? We already know that the DNC emails were an inside job and subsequent DNC coverup
to blame Russia. We KNOW that (see VIPs report on consortium.) Stop blaming Russia! Luke
Harding is a delusional red-baiting Russophobe. Were I the Guardian, I would sack him! He's
an embarrassment! Don't buy his book!
Hillary's rush to threaten military action toward Russia over leaked/hacked DNC e-mails,
which simply exposed some of their corruption during the Democratic primary process, likely
did more to further harm her chances in the general election than any memes or any efforts by
anybody else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz_dZ2SlPgw
aaron mate! thank you for putting this Guardian hack into account! brilliant stuff! once
more the Real News is exceeding my expectations, this was superb journalism and holding the
media gatekeepers an extension of the establishment into account.
Luke kinda had his mind made up prior to setting up this interview. Russian collusion?
IDK, but let's just see what turns up. Mueller's already indicted some people. The issue with
the Russia investigation is the excitement over it on both sides. Everyone needs to just lay
back and let it happen regardless of how you feel. Close your eyes and think of England, and
maybe something comes out of it. I would rather we were investigating how we got into Iraq
and the abuses that happened after we invaded, but no one should be opposed to an
investigation where people have already been indicted. Media pushing the war with Russia
narrative are being silly, but the same with media saying we shouldn't investigate anything
about this. ON the left we also shouldn't expect too much to come from this. Great if we can
use this investigation to get Trump out of office for something; if not, useful political
theater if the Dems would just recognize the importance of that.
How fair to give him a platform. Will you invite Alex Jones next? How about some flat
earthers? ahh right, it's only ok when it's mainstream conspiracy theory, sorry, totally
forgot
Aaron challenges Russia assertion : Guy goes onto tell some story how he lived there and
he just knows "Believe him" Because he lived in Russia for 4 years... ??????????? Goes to
assert further... Aaron responds.. "proof" Response to that "Well the history from the
1970's.... " PROOOOOF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Look. I am fine with the fact that Russia might have
interfered with the election. JUST GIVE ME SOME FUCKING PROOF. Until then? Fuck off... There
are real problems to deal with.
LOL I loved Mate's performance in this interview. He totally flipped the script on this
crackpot realist. He felt like a dissenting person feels on MSM, if they ever bother to have
one on.
Telling how this "person" being interviewed spouts of a word like empirical when it comes
to an accusation with no supporting evidence so to him if you are accused of something that
in itself is empirical evidence?=horse shit propagandist no offense to horses. He first won't
accept there is no proof but when asked what the proof is he starts talking about his
personal feelings as if they are proof(superiority complex).
So? The "real" news is now doing book-promos? Shame on you - this is unmitigated garbage.
(edit: after watching the whole article, I'm still not satisfied. The problem with a public
"hatchet-job" is you give oxygen to your "victim" and get seen with a hatchet in your hand.
That does not look good. And in your victim's dying breaths, he will plant a curse on you via
those who saw you with the hatchet. Sun Tzu warns us to not give your enemy no-way-out ..
your forces are no match to those fighting for their very lives. It is abundantly clear from
the actual evidence that the 2016 election was willfully lost by Hillary Clinton, not won by
Trump. This is a result of Clinton being high in the cluster-B spectrum -she gets sexual
pleasure from torture and ugly death [Qaddafi] - whereas, Trump is lower on the spectrum: not
a sociopath/psychopath, but clearly a narcissist bordering on malignant. And I pause to add
that probably ALL global leaders are on the cluster-B spectrum of personality disorder. The
thing you have to know about cluster-B in this context, is that those within the cluster-B
are outside of normal social influence, such as "honey-traps" etc, because they lack the
compassion link to empathy - i.e. they do not respond to the tools which work on healthy
humans and tend to only respond to their own "world-view" in which the entire universe is
composed of themselves. Next: I tried to influence the US election by donating to Sanders -
so who is investigating the Australian "collusion" .. gimme a break - we all wanted Sanders.
Clinton gave us the choice of a sociopath against a narcissist - and we chose the narcissist.
And there he is doing the work he was made to do - to destroy the entire world-order so we
can, at least, start over. With Clinton - we all knew - it was lights-out for all of us. At
least with trump, the game is still in play. The lesser of evils. SO stop giving gas to the
commercial-distractionists - they are remnants of the lights-out brigade who are eating,
drinking, and being merry, because tomorrow, they intend to die .. the self-condemned. And
none of them asked me, or any of the others who would like to see life continue. The whole
thing disgusts me - dust your feet and leave the show - the finale is not worth sticking
around for.)
PS: NSA is currently monitoring, downloading and repeatedly viewing some of our children
for "security reason" ... Youth who are legally earning a living in the US as porn stars on
the net in order to eat, get an education pay student loan debt and survive in a nation which
gives little F about providing the true security realized via the the provision of privacy,
organic food from local heritage seed, pure potable H2O, clean air, access to free Integrated
Medicine, free and equal education and a comfortable roof over their heads, NOT based on how
much potential they have to move money for the corporatist-elite or the ethnicity of their
forefathers. How low will, WE stoop? @TheRealNews Pathetic
Aaron Mate that was absolutely BRILLIANT!!! You picked his bullshit story apart. Another
journalist making money on Russiagate. I can't believe I called him a journalist. Bill Binney
has already solved the hacking issue....lets move on. Awesome interview. Keep up the great
work...I bow to you.
I've never heard of the interviewer needing to read the book before interviewing the
author? Isn't it the author's "job" to plug his own book and inform the viewers of its
contents? It's really obvious that Harding had nothing to counter with- it was awkward to
watch as his Russian gate conspiracy fell to shit. Great job Mate!
Ugh. Another opportunistic "journalist" trying to capitalize on Russia panic (PUTIN!).
Great interview. You gave him plenty of time and room to make his case, and he just couldn't
seem to defend his position.
The Guardian was once a respectable news outlet. It both saddens and angers me that
journalists such as Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, neither of whom seem to have any real
grasp on the subjects they cover, are touted by The Guardian as leading experts on Putin and
Russia. Almost as embarrassing as anger-making.
Sadly typical of what the Guardian has become. This reminds me why I can't read it
anymore, just too much bullshit and innuendo sold off as fact. Good work, Aaron.
Aaron: "Are you inferring that because two Russians used a smiley face that's proof that
Manafort's associate was a tool of the Russian government?" 20:23 . HaHaHa!!! I don't miss
Louis CK anymore. This is the goddamn funniest shit ever!
Donald Trump just authorized the sale of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine. This ensures
that fighting will intensify on Russia's border. We can thank Russia conspiracy theorists
like Rachel Maddow, Marcy Wheeler and Luke Harding for providing a media environment that
enabled/pushed Trump to move in this direction. Mission accomplished, propagandists! World
War 3 in 2018?
the only collusion i saw in 2016 was rothschild zionazis, saudi arabia, isis, israhell,Fox
msnbc cnn trump, and clinton against bernie sanders and the people
''Kind of, sort of....air quotes...sort of...'' If Trump colluded with anyone it was
Netanyahu and other ultra nationalist Zionists inside Washington and Tel Aviv. It certainly
is not in the interests of America to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And who
is Gerard Kushner batting for? America...or Israel?
This Harding hack is a perfect example of why The Guardian - a once proudly liberal
publication - has become another neoliberal propaganda rag. He also wrote articles cheering
ISIL in Syria, literally comparing them to the Republican Brigade who went to Spain to fight
against the Franco Fascists in Spain in the 1930s.
No, "you don't have to just take a look", this is more BULLSHIT for book sales. No way
Russia colluded in the election, no hacking either. This Russia story was thought up by
Podesta back in 2015. Peace
"I'm a writer & I once lived in Russia so I have to be right!" AND he says, "I'm a
storyteller." Well, that's the problem. Storytelling is also a synonym for lying.
That so-called journalist was so obviously bereft of facts and wore his blatant biases
proudly. That kind of crap might play well on MSM shows, but doesn't work very well with a
well-informed and neutral interviewer. Well done. "Collusion"? Maybe "My Cold War Fantasy
World" would have been a better title for his book.
Excellent interviewer, disappointing interviewee. Harding's red herrings, guilt by
association, appeals to "context," and repeated well-poisoning do not constitute
*evidence*.
It is because of these journalists is why I believe journalism is no longer a professional
of finding and presenting the truth. It's more of floating around a narrative to serve the
interests of their masters
The disturbing thing about this interview is Luke Harding not only is unable to respond to
Aaron's request for evidence but he doesn't even seem to understand that his conclusions are
based on surmise and implications gleamed from irrelevant material. I have to assume Harding
has had some education in the journalistic rules of evidence, at least enough to land a
prestigious job with the Guardian. And yet he is not only unable to submit forensic evidence
of collusion between Trump and Putin but he doesn't seem to understand what would be required
to actually identify that evidence to make his case. I have to assume the book only relies on
inference and innuendo to establish its case: Putin is a bad man who will resort to anything
to achieve his ends, hence he is guilty of resorting to any means to influence a Trump
victory. This kind of "evidence" only goes to motivation and says nothing about ability or
opportunity. (two of the three linchpins of circumstantial evidence. Of course this kind of
shoddy thinking is nearly endemic today among not only journalists and pundits, who ought to
know better, but also among the general public (most of my friends in particular). This
epidemic is so vast and persistent that I am afraid it will only be staunched by a
thermonuclear war. "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we
were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time:
the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality,
usually on a battlefield." George Orwell
This guy is Mr Word Salad, Aaron really twists his balls in the best possible way. What a
pathetic shill, you can tell this idiot works for the Guardian. "Where is the evidence of
collusion?" "Putin is bad." "Yes but where is the evidence?" "Estonia, France, my friends
died, Putin is bad." "Where's the evidence?" "Putin is bad." Idiot.
It's ironic that Mate presents himself (by virtue of the association implied with Real
News) as somehow different from the (again implied) not-so-real news and then pursues a
pretty familiar "gotcha" approach to this interview. Mate appears more interested in proving
himself correct with his skepticism rather than at all curious about the author's point of
view as it applies to his work. This is more of the Same News I think. Or at least the same
games that talking heads favour. Mate, in addition, seems very amused with himself. That's
hardly productive to anyone interested in learning something about the author or the author's
premise.
I love how Aaron is making this guy squirm with simple, logical questions. Taking the
guest's own advice, he should venture out into the reality world out of his book's bubble.
The icing on the cake is when the guest starts (around 8 minute mark) flailing his arms like
a monkey in a zoo, to the delight of children observing the animal.
No offense to my Estonian friends, but Harding using them as an example of the broader
hacking trend seems bullshitty to me. I don't think any leftists skeptical of the Russiagate
narrative would say that Russia doesn't hack, or Russia doesn't attempt to influence foreign
elections. But if you're going to say that Russia has the capacity to do it in the USA,
showing they did it in France or Germany would be a decent analog, Estonia (formerly occupied
by the USSR and in Russia's sphere of geopolitical influence) is not. Am I missing
something?
It is NOT about Donald Trump. It is about USA and the foundational principles of our
democracy. IF there is even a small chance that the formation of our government is influenced
by the forces from a hostile nation, this IS the problem. Go to hell Aaron Mate. Idiot Aaron,
go to Russia and meet and the HR activists and see what the country is truly like before you
interview, mofo idiot Aaron Mate
Even if Putin directly helped trump get elected using his own personal computer, these ppl
are gonna fuck up proving it up tripping all over themselves with adolescent anticipation and
opportunism
Sounds like the Brits are stirring the pot, bringing the Russian 'axis of evil' back into
the mix. Think.. Did we ever have US sovereignty? What really happened back in 1775? Maybe
the US is just the military arm of the UK and is still hell bent on achieving global
domination after all. And the US has been annexed by them all along. Why else is this Brit
demanding that the Russians are still a cold war enemy when Trump obviously has nothing
against them? I'm having serious questions as to the strategic alliance and geopolitical
relationship we have with Britain because of this guy's views. That being said, there may
well have been collusion by the Russians to help Trump get into office. But that alone, still
doesn't prove Russia the 'axis of evil' or anything near to being our enemy. It's about
global domination. The NWO remember? The Brits/Rothschild banking cartel have been hell bent
for it for centuries. Russia? Not so much.
Mr. Harding is definitely having a hard time finding any collusion and he wrote the book
on it!? Instead of addressing our unfair, closed and black box elections we waste time on a
guy who can't seem to form a coherent sentence!?
Although there may have been collusion, Russia did not help Trump win. Hillary's record
helped Trump win. After learning of her speech to Wall st., it made it impossible for me to
vote for her. How dare she tell them one story and tell us what she thinks we want to
hear.
great interview Aaron, i also am very skeptical of the whole "Russia did it" meme. great
job asking for proof, i didnt hear any either, color me not impressed with the interviewee or
his hypothesis,
Manafort was a recommendation of Roger Stone, friend of Trump. Manafort and Stone had
companies together since the eighties. Harding doesn't know what he is talking
about.
Wow, a real journalist. MSM would have covered this conspiracy theory as absolute truth.
No questions asked, which is why nobody trusts them. Harding has nothing but speculation and
an obvious bias. I wonder who paid him to write the book.
Ooh this Harding dude was squirming in his shoes. At the end, very sweatie, voice is
cracking. It's impressive how he's able to lie for so long but he stayed consistent with his
questioning
Given Harding's long chain of illogical arguments in this interview, I suspect his four
year stint in Russia was heavily influenced by Russian vodka, from which he has yet to
recover.
That included a lot of criticism of Russia and Putin for a supposed Russian controlled new
out let. Again, there is no direct evidence of collusion and no evidence that Russia cost
Clinton the election
The guy's got nothing. I'd love to see some real proof but this guy is equivocating at
every turn. Re: the "France hacks" he says it was "inconclusive" but due to a laundry list of
unrelated other examples of Russians possibly doing some nefarious stuff he's willing to
accept it as a fact. That is not what I would call "empirical." "Muckraking" would be a
better term...
this poor conspiracy author was depthcharged by this artfull and rather demeaning
interviewer. it demonstrates the need to be able to back claims unless they are presented as
theories. I have not read this book but apparently claims were made as"common knowledge" that
could not be supported by "empiracle data". this also points out why no massive claims have
been announced by Mueller's team. all conclusions must be backed by solid data. I believe one
would be naive to conclude anything from this interview except that claims made in this book
are not supported by accepteddata -- yet.
Much like the circular arguments put forth by the pro Hillary anti Stein people. No matter
how much you request the EVIDENCE they keep repeating suspicion, someone said, everyone
knows....and CANNOT produce any evidence....and do not understand how that type of response
is acutely reminiscent of Joe McCarthy waving of the paper with those names...one never gots
to see.
On the allegation of Russian meddling in the French election, if I remember correctly, it
was not Putin who cut a campaign video ad for one of the candidates, I remember correctly, it
was Obama who cut a campaign ad for the French Candidate who won.
The reason mainstream media focuses on Russia is because of ratings but it is a huge
nothing burger. No proof no real connections and all the "smoking guns" turned out to be
cigarette lighters and the lamestream never retracts it or anything just goes on like all is
well. Good to see some journalistic integrity. The author was making a leap from "He's a
repressive dictator ao he must be guilty" with no evidence at all.
Excellent interview Aaron. Crushed it. Your guest has 28 minutes to make at least one
salient point and he is unable to do that. Wow! However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting
for the next Russiagate shill to consent to an interview with you though Aaron. Just saying!
:) :) PS - Oh, darn, I forgot and gave you the secret code of two Emoji smilies!
Drats!
Luke Harding talks like he presumes all the rest of us just fell off the turnip truck 10
minutes ago. Uh... yeah dude... we DO know the history of the KGB and FSB, and yeah dude, we
know about "honey pots" and that KGB and _______________________ (fill in Intel agency
of your choice____) did them too... for... oh... lets see... a few centuries anyway. So what
are you trying to sell? You constantly keep using past circumstance as "proof" when it is no
such thing. You would get thrown out of a court for that... and ANYONE capable of critical
thinking knows, all you are selling is "LOGICAL FALLACIES". Hey... I don't dispute that you
will surely sell copies of your book to low information Kool Aid drinkers (You going to cite
THAT as proof that your book is "true" now as well?)
Is there any empirical evidence of Trump/Putin collusion in this fairy tale? Lol Why does
Luke insist we read this without providing real, objective evidence? He expects us to just
take his and his "sources'" word for it?
Re-watching this interview, I'm absolutely astounded by the vacuity and ridiculous
attempts on the part of Harding to misdirect the conversation at the same time that he tries
to prop up his own credibility. This is literally a primer in the 'art' of
Imperialist/careerist 'journalism.'
Why H.R.C. 'lost'? "And it's deadly. Doubtless, Crosscheck delivered Michigan to Trump who
supposedly "won" the state by 10,700 votes. The Secretary of State's office proudly told me
that they were "very aggressive" in removing listed voters before the 2016 election. Kobach,
who created the lists for his fellow GOP officials, tagged a whopping 417,147 in Michigan as
potential double voters."
http://www.gregpalast.com/trump-picks-al-capone-vote-rigging-investigate-federal-voter-fraud/
"it's opportunistic it's very often 04:45 pretty low-budget the kind
of hacking 04:47 operation to hack the
Democratic Party 04:49 was done by two separate
groups of kind 04:52 of Kremlin hackers
probably not owning 04:54 kind of huge sums of money
and and so 04:58 some of it is kind of
improvisational 05:00 the most important thing
is that you you 05:02 have people with access
which in this . . . " Wikileaks hacked the Democratic Party?
Oregon's Democrats vote for and support attacks on our civil liberties, love the emergence
of censorship in social media and the press, vote for the criminalization of protest, vote
for the militarization of police and the unconstitutional massive expansion of the
surveillance state. Democrats Hate All Life on Mother Earth. Love torture. Love Killing
millions of brown folk overseas. Democrats are steamy piles of Horse Manure. Republicans
& Democrats are criminal organizations and are EVIL and war for profit groups; they do
the bidding of foreign dictators before they listen to the American People.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Hi NRDC; I have made many monetary contributions to your organization. You are evoking the
fear of Trump in this year end fund drive. Fighting against Trump is a democratic stance.
Democrats cheated Bernie Sanders and gave us Trump; both parties are corrupt and enemies of
all life on earth. Your organization is used for politics chiefly. I will find organizations
to donate to that are for the people, not war and corruption and not run by selected leaders
picked for their political powers and hate of common man and that actually love Mother earth.
Politics is 100% lies and that makes you guys liars and cheats just like the democrats.
Oregon Green Energy
Harding, show us the evidence. If you had any real, objective evidence, you would all want
to share it. You have shared NOTHING. None of you Russia-gaters share anything other than
circumstantial. Nobody who is "skeptical," or who uses logic and critical thinking skills has
ever said Russia and Putin weren't shady and oppressive, but that is not the
argument.
Why on Earth isn't Mueller investigating radical democrats for embezzling taxpayer money
for the Climate Change hoax? Maybe Mueller needs to be investigated for fraud and collusion
with North Korea and Iran.
Nice job of keeping this insane relentlessly endless narrative of Russian's changing the
election in any meaningful way. This is McCarthyism the modern day Maddowism. It's all
mainstream wants to talk about. Meanwhile in real life: 1) The majority of the population
doesn't have $500 in the bank to cover emergencies. 2) The War Machine continues to ramp up
to epic levels 3) The USA continues to employ their regime change diplomacy 4) The Life
Expediency in the USA is going down. Opiod's largely to blame 5) The USA is not even in the
top ten among providing Quality Healthcare 6) The USA is Number ONE in passing on the HIGHEST
COST Healthcare I could go, on it's exhausting....
This man is delusional there is no evidence of any collusion why is RealNews interviewing
this hack...watch Aaron Mate show this hack up. The Guardian is a right wing rag now don't
follow it end any association with them. Aaron Mate well done.
The DNC/Hillary corruption was revealed in the emails and they have successfully
distracted the public with a the dangerous fabrication of Russia collusion when the
conversation should be about the corruption of the democratic process. There are too many
complicit media and politicians so willing to go along with it but thankfully most Americans
are awake to the scheme.
In order to read the book I would have to buy the book, get it? An author should be able
to articulate their main arguments in an interview. The emoticons colluding was disturbing
though.
If you ask for actual facts of collusion you are a 'collusion rejectionist'. Hillarious.
Harding is a 'collusion conspiracy theorist'. Harding throws in the murder of Litvinenko as
if this, in any way, relates to the US election. It doesn't. Yes, Russian, US and Israeli
Intelligence kill people regularly for political reasons. Do I need to give Luke Harding a
history lesson? The smiley face emoticon issue, which Harding tried to swerve away from,
shows the level of journalistic quality Harding delivers. Harding deals in smear, supposition
and innuendo to sell books. The misleading cover and title show his journalistic credibility.
He actually raised as evidence of collusion, that Trump wasn't rude to Putin in interviews.
Is he serious? What a hack writer. As a side note, the CIA wrote the book in interfering in
other country's elections and governments. This indignation is a joke. If this is true they
finally got some of their own back. See how it feels?
For the record, this is what these people sound like on Tucker Carlson, too. Tucker had
Adam Schiff on and subjected him to real questions rather than the head-nodding interviews
Schiff is used to. Needless to say, Schiff hasn't been on Tucker Carlson's show since. Pretty
soon they'll start calling people skeptical of the evidence provided thus far "collusion
deniers".
Noted right-wing hack Jeremy Scahill has it exactly right. This guy Harding is just an
opportunist who knows what the audience wants. And he knows that 99% of the people who cite
the book will never read beyond the cover; in fact, he's counting on it. Expect the rest of
his little book tour to look like this: CNN, NPR, BBC, The Young Turks, The David Pakman Show
(tee hee), Huff Po etc etc
*You really should have read the book though. You could have seen that coming a mile away.
Why give him the out? Read the book before you attempt to trap someone with it. You should
still marry me though.
Harding threw all the red herrings he could find! Just because the man has a British
accent doesnt make him above scrutiny. Remember Louise Mensch? This was the sum (or scam) of
all fears: the Cold War , "repressive regime, "opposition crackdown" ,Soviet KGB, throw in
bits of Russian words.This was funny & painful at the same time. I nearly fell off my
chair when Aaron said "emoticons", that part was kinda
surreal.Talk to my friends! Go to Russia! I lived in Russia! I talked to the opposition!
I speak Russian! I thought he was gonna add: my best friends are Russian! My wife is
Russian!Niding is right Luke wasnt prepapred at all.Was it me or was Luke perspiring because
he was struggling? Why was he throwing air quotes? Thanks Aaron!
Brutal interview and painful to watch. I never believed in the Trump/Russia collusion fake
narrative. It doesn't exist. It was made up (FBI insurance policy) against Trump.
Great job Aaron to hold this author's feet to the fire and discredit his conclusions of
Trump/Russian collusion. I hate Trump and would love to see him kicked out of office, but
this Russia-gate conspiracy theory so far has no legs and this author is a posture kid for
this nonsense.
The author repeatedly returns to his talking points when challenged for evidence to
support his assertions. This is how ALL INTERVIEWS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. And the claim that
the interviewer had to read the whole book to rightly ask for evidence to support assertions
is utterly ridiculous.
This is a very biased interview. Mueller will tell the last word on Russia meddling Trump
campaign. But you can not question the content of a book you had not read in advance as this
young man does. I have followed the issue from the beginning in CNN and other media and I
have read the book Collusion, which is worth reading, very informative about. So this debate
lead me think this "journalist" may be paid by FSB/Putin.
I would say if you are going to critique the Christian idea of God it's essential you read
the bible if you are going to do it in any meaningful way . I take it you also have not read
the book . This is like debate climate denailists, it's the same tatic , they take some data
and misrepresent it to prove an ideological point . What I don't understand is why . And that
goes to my first point , why even bother debate it at all ? You say he offered no proof , but
he was just defending matte attachs , which if you look into it, are not that credible either
. If he thought he was going to debunk all the claims made in the book, he should of read it,
as he just looks stupid . But if you have not read it either, it's easy to agree with him, as
it's not a genuine debate .
Another Libtard bites the dust, grand claims of collusion without the necessary proof.
Going all the way back the 80' and 90' to justify hearsay. This libtard should be put in jail
for defamation and slander for not have enough proof for those claims.
Luke's book is already discounted, being peddled for barely half of its list price. The
man is a fraud with an anti-Putin vendetta he's trying to settle.
His entire argument is a gish gallop fallacy......... They're throwing dozens of
accusations at Trump, all of them individually weak arguments. If thier were actual fire,
they wouldn't need all of the smoke & mirrors.
It seems (opinion = fact ) in the UK , just walk around and ask ordinary Russians what
they think . The tactical guilt trip as a defensive tool , when you can't answer question .
This is another propagandist colluding with we're not sure who? , believe me anyway , how
dare you not believe me .
Wow!!! That's the best news interview I saw in ages... calmly, respectfully but surely
exposing that joke of a journalist for what he is: a fraud. Tnx Aaron!!! Keep on
truckin'...
Russia seem to have gotten almost nothing out of this Presidency. If there was something
transactional going on then Russian intelligence if far more incompetent than people are
being led to believe.
His answer to the very first Question explains everything, is the collusion ? we have to
go way back to 1987. (I thought this was during the campaign) (IGNORE THE NOISE IN THE MEDIA)
if you look at it, clinton payed many millions from KGB officers to get info on trump during
the campaign.
What a complete fraud this guy is. This is the book version of the "Steele Dossier", just
a bunch of crap telling people what they want to hear to make a quick buck. Bottom
feeders.
Why are we listening? Why did you interview an englishman of questionable character and
background about a case that is in investigation and has not found a single connection. This
book foremost is for profit and attention for the writer's benefit. Can he produce a single
documents to back his statements? My guess is no. Everything he says is hearsay and fiction.
The very first question asked is redirected... always when a question is redirected you can
bet it's all garbage. He's just another babbling backward British pompous bozo looking to
under mind and influence US citizens of our elected president. Brits by nature are globalist.
The small island has for century plagued the world with globalist ideals of using people all
over the world to enrich themselves. NEVER believe a Brit unless they are speaking ills of
their own country which basically has 2 classes, rich and poor.
Great work Aaron. Its great to see an interview that challenges the guest to rationally
explain the basis of proof for this nonsense red herring issue. Harding could not do it
without clear suppositions and assumptions - no proof. The Guardian - my how its prestige has
fallen.....and that guy wrote the book on the collusion and could not justify his case. That
is why his feed cut out - frustration he does not encounter thru corporate media
softball.
It is far too early to write off the investigation into Russian activities in the 2016
election or dismiss how long Russian operatives will cultivate a subject (POTUS Trump). They
often do not know how or where the people they cultivate will eventually end up, but they do
know that they have a hook in them, for future use. It's how they've done business for
decades.
Good job nailing him, however, " Putin is not a nice person" - what kind of BS is that?
Not a nice person, comparing to whom? The Russians seem to like him just fine and that's the
only thing that matters.
really i cringe listening to that guy - that's how that whole bullshit story implodes when
not all parties follow some scripts. thanks aaron - well done. merry xmas @ all.
Luke Harding talks a lot of Nonsense and which kind of secret meetings? What the Hell? He
just making Money with his Book and the truth doesn´t interst him
whatsover!
HARDING has no SHAME... the fact that he can blather this moronic nonsense without
laughing is mind blowing. Aaron just wants to laugh out loud so many times... Harding loves
to offer salacious antidotes regarding how evil Putin is, however there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO
EVIDENCE!
**IF THIS IS AN ACT OF WAR WE MUST HAVE EVIDENCE!** DID HARDING - "the reporter"
(used loosely) contact the DNC in order to find out whether they allowed the FBI to inspect
or examine the servers. This is PURE PROPAGANDA... Trump's phone calls have been monitored
according to retired NSA whistle blowers since 2005. If there was any conversation it would
have been leaked there is absolutely NO evidence what so ever of collusion. The FBI has no
evidence and STEELE has testified in court that other than Carter Page's trip to Moscow the
Dossier is ENTIRELY UNVERIFIED. When the entire thing is shown to have been a hoax will this
idiot retract his drivel. PREET BAHARA -Hillary donor - is the US atty who allowed the
Russian Lawyer into the country.
"... Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and ''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!! ..."
"... I don't think that guy knows what the word "evidence" means. ..."
"... You know what's hilarious? This guy didn't even do the basic research required to know the kind of interview he was getting into. ..."
"... Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. ..."
"... This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he has. ..."
"... I bet this clown sees Russian agents under his bed at night. ..."
"... This guy is better off appearing on Rachel Maddow show. he would get 0 push back from her ..."
"... Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate ..."
"... How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any attention?? ..."
"... the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda ..."
"... Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this "storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with stories like his. ..."
This moronic Brit wrote an entire book? Beginning with a visit to trump tower by a soviet
era diplomat who made a factual statement about how lovely Trump Tower is? It is a beautiful
tower, and had I seen the Donald on the streets of NYC, I would have said the same thing.
After a year of no implication.of collusion, we are left with delusion collusion. If the
moron wants to make a great case, how about researching the names of tenants of projects to
which Trump sold the right to his name? Or the Odessan taxi drivers who sometimes drove past
Trump Tower? After 7 minutes, I wondered how the interviewer had any patience for the moron,
except to get his worthless and lazy slime argument into the record. Click. The interviewer
had patience.
Another guy who, when asked for evidence to back up his assertions, answers with a
non-specific hand-wave :'( Nice interview, Aaron - you asked him questions he didn't like,
but you did it politely.
Luke, on the other hand, comes across as rude and petty... not a
great way to present a viewpoint. BTW, I think it's great that TheRealNews interviews people
with various opinions, and isn't afraid to ask them "hard" questions.
Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every
Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and
''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!!
Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North
America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so
diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and
speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. e.g. Green Party Jill Stein's guilt for
being at the same table that Putin sat at for mere minutes long enough to be included in a
photo, now smeared by the press as a Russian asset. I never saw Aaron raise his hands and ape
and gesticulate for added performance. Ultimately, when no evidence was ever presented (as
there is none to be found), this hilariously unfunny supposed-journalist, moreover fiction
author, invented the new term collusion-rejectionist, and promptly grabbed his mouse to click
disconnect and terminate his utter embarassment so expertly elucidated in this interview.
Thank You, Happy Holidays and best of luck in 2018 Aaron!
Bullcrap! Hillary Clinton and her Cronies, secured Trumps win, by how they cheated Bernie
during the 2016 Primary! Trump did not need Russia's, whatever you think they did, Hillary
secured the win for Trump because of her DIRTY POLITICS, against the Democratic Base! Hillary
and her thugs keep this up, they will secure the Republican Control in Washington, and quite
honestly, its what they want! Because I firmly believe that the Clinton's and all whom
support them ARE undercover Republicans, out to, and HAVE, destroyed the Democratic
Party!
This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the
worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of
tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could
convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he
has.
This man is quite hilarious in that even if Putin did hack the election all this
storyteller relates is predicated on the fact that, WE THE PEOPLE are entirely idiotic in in
the US. 'Tis quite condescending @TheRealNews
LUKE= So I think there is proof from my point of view but I don't have any. Only a feeling
and theories that can't be proven. No Evidence but Russia is bad. All oligarchs and
billionaires work with each other to make more money. Of course Putin and Trump had meetings.
So does Jeff Besos and the CIA.
Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good
speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is
flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with
this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate
One question: What kind of nation is modern day Russia? TOTALLY separate question: Did
they conduct some insidious assault on American elections (as though corporations don't do
this already)? These are totally unrelated issues. The human rights situation in Russia may
be- and is- awful. But we can imagine an extremely murderous nation internally that doesn't
happen to be much of a threat externally
Sez Corporatist Hack: "...The Russian media were portraying Hillary as some sort of
warmonger madwoman." Hello: That's EXACTLY what she is. She said one of her first acts as
President would be to declare a no-fly zone in Syria, which Gen. Dunford, testifying before
Congress, said would require going to war with Russia.
But Clinton is a front for the neocon
wing of the MIC, and they have been lusting for a new "Cold" War on the obvious grounds that
it would increase the already appalling amount of US and world resources they suck up. The
war corporations are so driven for profit that a little thing like the possibility of WWIII
is of no concern to them. So they tell themselves the story that the Russians would back down
and go home; the US would then be able to overthrow Assad so the oil companies could get
their damned pipeline across southern Syria; and the Russians, angry at the loss of face,
would ramp up their defense spending, which of course would require the US to ramp up theirs
even more.
Neat plan for never-ending profits, brought to you by Hillary Clinton and the
Warmongers. The problem is that Russia does not fear the US, and knows that it has the raw
power to win a conflict in Syria if it wants to respond that strongly (look up "Zircon"
hyper-sonic missile, which they have thousands of and against which US aircraft carriers have
no defense). And Russia, being legally invited by the legally-elected President of Syria, and
knowing the US to be acting illegally, might just decide to respond if the US attacks its
planes.
And if they send a carrier to the bottom of the Gulf to stop American fighters from
interfering with their legal activities in Syria, then President Clinton would have been
faced with a choice: Go nuclear or go home. Which do you think she would have done? It's a
damn good thing Trump won, detestable as he is. We are not at war with Russia, and that at
least is ahead of where we very likely would have been if the Shill had slimed her way into
power.
Sez Corporatist Hack: "I'm a story teller." No doubt about it, because he's told a bunch
of stories on this video. The Guardian is worthless corporatist trash, and Luke Harding is a
lying propagandist. I wonder who else KOFF*CIA*AHEM is paying his salary?
How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent
opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any
attention??
Aaron batting out the park these regular talking points so easily, It looked like Harding
has never had pushback on this. Twas interesting seeing him on the backfoot.
the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda....what an ass. thanks aaron, for keeping his feet to the fire and not letting him get away with lying. very
satisfying to see these a holes not get away with it for once.
Everything this guy sites happens all the time with many countries involved. So the
question is, why isolate one country? This another case of creating a narrative, and then
looking for non existent facts to back up said narrative. Sounds zealous. I cannot finish
watching this. Good job Aaron.
Tough interview, while he has a point the book should have been read thoroughly, it was a
shame he used that as a point to avoid answering the hard question, "where is the proof?". It
was interesting to hear about "Trump's ties to Russia", I think it was a shame the author
felt it was acceptable to defer to his mistrust (warranted) and bad feelings towards
Putin/Russian power structure in order to seemingly (from my point of view) justify the
position.
This interview goes to show how difficult REAL journalism is, and how REAL
scholarship is very valuable. While the author has a lot of interesting points, on this
issue, I only see this probe/issue as a political wedge used to disenfranchise the presiding
elected president, and the best thing about this whole process is a clear illustration about
how bankrupt and politically corrupt DC is.
The confidence game DC is pushing needs to be
brought down a few levels, and some power needs to go back to the people. We all have our own
part to play, and being a victim, I feel is a waste of time, except as a means of holding
people accountable.
smoke and mirrors. The evidence is so over-whelming that if anything was going
to be prosecuted the trial would already be completed.
This is getting a lot more complicated than it needs to be. The buzzphrase that most
Americans respond to (like Pavlov's dogs) is "Russia meddled in our election!" U.S. elections
have always been "meddled" with. It's enough to say Trump, Kushner & their ilk made a lot
of lucrative financial deals with Russia that turn out to be 1) conflicts of interest for ANY
elected official and 2) abuse of (presidential) power. Isn't that enough?
I know that this person is trying to sell a book, but I see the investigation wrapping up.
It would be pretty hard to carry on for another year. After all, Mueller has said it has
completed all the WH interviews - and the ones at the top of an investigation are always the
last ones questioned. Furthermore, in the first three week of November alone, 4,289 sealed
cases have appeared in federal dockets throughout the nation - including the territories.
There are probably more now. No one knows how many are Muellers, but the 4 unsealed cases are
part of the initial group of filings. My prediction - nothing on Trump and Hillary goes to
prison finally.
Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling
cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this
"storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with
stories like his.
Seriously, RNN? Why do you give this puppets book play. Good for you Erin for questioning
him. He's on the wrong side of this. There are so many connections among Obama FBI, DOJ,
State Dept, Clinton and DNC to Fusion GPS that you're have to be a complete moron not to want
to investigate THAT collusion to swing and election. They ere spying on trump and associates
all last year. If there was collusion the leaky DC swamp would have spilled the beans.With
regard to this collusion with Russia, Trump seems pretty clean. The NSA should know exactly
who hacked the DNC servers the collect every oversees packet transfer. Given they have not
come forward with that evidence I am more inclined to believe it was a leak, especially given
Former NSA cryptographer and IC pro Bill Binney pretty much proved it was a leak when he
showed the transfer rates were only achievable at a local port. Not over the Internet.
Impossible! Trump is an international businessman, some as Clinton's who have just as much
shady history with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. Follow the money there is a flow of money
from Russian banks and players to the Clinton Foundation while she was SoS.
So sad you cannot read the book and you cannot listen and dismiss a really serious threat
to our elections. You did not even know what happened in Estonia. You demonstrate a real lack
of willingness to explore the truth with an open mind.
That was great! The emoticon proof! Hahaha! His tenacity was quasi-religious, especially
in the wrap-up and boils down to "There is evidence of collusion, even though I cannot point
to any evidence."
1987 all the way back when it was called the Soviet Union and was communist country. I am
an Independent, but get a charge out of all the lying and BS going on in the USA and the 2
parties and their zombie followers. Empires going down and the 2 parties are just puppets for
the Military Industrial Congressional Complex/Deep State. Big war coming and need lots of
unemployeed young draftees.
Good job, Aaron! What does the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko have to do with Donald
Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election from the hideous witch?
"... It's very interesting. But there is one thing that is certain according to McAffee (the McAffee) "If it looked like it was the Russians, then I can guarantee it WASN'T the Russians." ..."
"... Good comment and reading the last line, it has just reminded me of 'Vault 7' and what Wiki Leaks had to say. ..."
"... Vault 7 CIA Hacking Tools Revealed.docx... https://www.scribd.com/docu... ..."
Getting closer all the time, but Mueller's job will continue till the mid-term elections just to see if they can get away
with their scheming. The tale within a tale: FBI investigates and discovers they themselves are also part of this tale. The
story will have a tail: will it be a tragic, Shakespearean end or repentance by Hillary and Mueller (Duh...).
It's about the date / time stamps on the files, and the HACKER (Guciffer 2.0) was acutely
an Obama aid called: WARREN FLOOD. Warren Flood pretended to hack the DNC and made himself
out to be Russian with an alias of Guciffer 2.0. That was the smoke screen the Democrats put
out on top of the Crowdstrike false evidence job. It's excellent reading.
Thank you for the link and must admit it has made me laugh. A line I will use in the
future. '50 Shades of Pissed Off' - no doubt I will use it as my Mantra for 2018.
Yes, that Guccifer 2.0 stuff and the clear evidence that it was not a hack was published
before but you are now updating us by identifying the guy who did it, which should also
change the process. Thanks for that!
Update: Just see what Libby and Trauma2000 mean: yes, that makes sense!
In actual fact, it was Seth Ritch who 'leaked' the material (if you believe that Huma Abdeen was the original leaker and used Seth as a 'go between' then that is up to you). When
the DNC found out Seth was the leaker, the murdered him and had to 'think up a story' hence
Guccifer 2.0. There are several DNC employees involved but Warren Flood is the 'fall guy'
along with a girl (her name is out there) whom had her name on the software licenses that
were used to doctor the emails.
It's very interesting. But there is one thing that is certain according to McAffee (the
McAffee) "If it looked like it was the Russians, then I can guarantee it WASN'T the
Russians."
For me it is because of the truth: there is not much point being on this or that "side",
but when the truth is so twisted it becomes perversion and that should be uncovered.
Flood had already stopped working as Biden's IT director back in 2011, the only place he'd
likely have had his name on a license under the company name GSA based on his work history -
was there.
So, Guccifer 2.0's first docs were most likely constructed using a computer that had
resided in the West Wing office on June 15, 2016 at the exact same time as Pyatt, Nuland and
others (also connected to the Ukraine coup in 2014) were meeting there.
source:
http://g-2.space
(the person behind it is the person who originally wrote this "Fancy Fraud, Bogus Bears..."
article too)
RE: The Eastern timezone. - If referring to the NGP-VAN analysis, the timestamps
themselves don't show timezones but the timezone can be evaluated due to how timestamps on
files (that appear to be part of the same batch transfer on July 5, 2016) are displayed in
the 7zip archive root versus those in various RAR files contained within (and the different
methods of timestamp storage used by the different archive formats) and how this changes
depending on what your computer's timezone is set to (the time changes in the 7zip but not in
the RARs and the only timezone in which these have a close correlation is Eastern).
There was an article, that I read, just before Christmas Day, that supports what you say.
That Mueller has got to keep the narrative running, until they have sorted out the Mid-Term
Elections, that the Dems believe will work to their advantage. Is it something to do with the
Dems hoping to control Congress and managing to close any investigations that Trump is
working on?
Surprised with Fox. Considering old Murdoch has a problem with Russia, no doubt owing to
his interests in Genie Energy. However, not complaining, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and now
the ex-NSA on Fox News. Nice.
This is just the beginning: just read New Trump Executive Order Targets Clinton-Linked
Individuals, Lobbyists And Perhaps Uranium One on
Zerohedge.com
1. It will have huge consequences for all those who made shady deals with dictators and
criminals (adding to the coffers of the Clinton Foundation etc.etc.). Perhaps this is what
Trump was waiting for to start in the new year:his fireworks response to all the mud slung
around?
2. Seth Rich and distraction by Guccifer 2.0: Trauma200 comments below is BIG and makes the
connection to SETH RICH's murder, which also shows how Assange made it necessary for the
complete the search and expose with evidence what was going on.
What I am curious about, is will he use it for that or will he go for any foreigner that
Washington DC has a problem with. Such as anybody who is a friend of President Putin, just to
cause problems, before the Russian Presidential Campaign.
Or am I being cynical. I seriously hope he uses it for the Russia Gate crowd and no doubt,
he has good reason and he is not known to like being insulted, with no payback. However, I
can also see him using it as another form of punishment on non-nationals.
One additional point: Thomas Rid and most of the mainstream media keeps saying that German
intelligence fingered Russia for the German Parliament attacks. While this is partly true,
German intelligence in fact never said directly that APT 29 or "Fancy Bear" WAS DEFINITELY
Russian state sponsored. They said they ASSUMED Russia was conducting hacks on Germany.
See here:
Digital Attack on German Parliament: Investigative Report on the Hack of the Left Party
Infrastructure in Bundestag
https://netzpolitik.org/201...
Jeffrey Carr made this point early on in his Medium article:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of
identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control
address -- 176.31.112[.]10 -- that was hard coded in a piece of
malware found both in the German parliament as well as on
the DNC's servers. Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic
security agency BfV as the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure
behind the fake MIS Department domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at
least one other element, a shared SSL certificate.
This paragraph sounds quite damning if you take it at face value, but if you invest a
little time into checking the source material, its carefully constructed narrative falls
apart.
Problem #1:
The IP address 176.31.112[.]10 used in the Bundestag breach as a Command and Control server
has never been connected to the Russian intelligence services. In fact, Claudio Guarnieri, a
highly regarded security researcher, whose technical analysis was referenced by Rid, stated
that "no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country."
Problem #2: The Command & Control server (176.31.112.10) was using an outdated version
of OpenSSL vulnerable to Heartbleed attacks. Heartbleed allows attackers to exfiltrate data
including private keys, usernames, passwords and other sensitive information.
The existence of a known security vulnerability that's trivial to exploit opens the door
to the possibility that the systems in question were used by one rogue group, and then
infiltrated by a second rogue group,
making the attribution process even more complicated. At the very least, the C2 server should
be considered a compromised indicator.
Problem #3: The BfV published a newsletter in January 2016 which assumes that the GRU and
FSB are responsible because of technical indicators, not because of any classified finding;
to wit: "Many
of these attack campaigns have each other on technical similarities, such as malicious
software families, and infrastructure -- these are important indicators of the
same authorship. It is assumed that both the
Russian domestic intelligence service FSB and the military foreign intelligence service GRU
run cyber operations."
Professor Rid's argument depended heavily on conveying hard attribution by the BfV even
though the President of the BfV didn't disguise the fact that their attribution was based on
an assumption and not hard evidence.
Thanks for the article and reminding us of Crowd Strike. Must admit, I read an interesting
article, over on Oped News, by George Eliason, with regards Crowd Strike. Plus a few other
reminders.
Does anybody remember the Awan Brothers from Pakistan and what they were arrested for,
with regards the DNC and computers?
Then you have Google and Soros and their links into Crowd Strike. Hasn't the CEO of Google
just stepped down, the same day that Trump signed a Presidential Order, that might prove a
problem for some, in the future?
QANON EXPOSES DEM CONSPIRACY TO FRAME TRUMP, CLAIMS GOOGLE'S SCHMIDT PLAYED PIVOTAL
ROLE
QAnon also claims Debbie Wasserman Schultz contracted MS-13 gang to kill Seth Rich...
https://www.infowars.com/qa...
Remember, Crowd Strike, Dmitry Alperovic and his links back to The Atlantic Council? Then
you have the Ukrainian Oligarch Pinchuk, who happily invested $25 million in the Clinton
Foundation. Remember his Yalta Summits and the one back in September 2013? Now who attended
and what were the various topics that they discussed?
Then you have Obama giving Crowd Strike
a White House Commission for Cyber Security. Plus, the DNC refusing the FBI access to their
servers, but, having no problem giving Crowd Strike full access. Now why was that? Funny how
often Ukraine comes up, when looking into Clinton, Fusion, Crowdstrike, Old Ukrainian Malware
and The Trump Dossier? Coincidence or what?
"... It should be Clinton-Gate not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been hoodwinked into believing government falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of Iraq. ..."
It's very difficult to get the head wrapped around the Mueller investigation as a contrivance to avoid going after Clinton, which
shows a corrupted intelligence service working for political ends and saving the Democratic Party, which needs replacing. The
evidence against Clinton is much more substantial than the continuing Mueller foray into inconsequence.
If you need more on Clinton
beyond the massive email problems she had to avoid revealing how much pay money she was getting, search on the DNC convention
entirely corrupted over to her and then the Uranium One deal. Why is all this not being investigated?
It should be Clinton-Gate
not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been hoodwinked into believing government
falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of Iraq.
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I
regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts
to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing
Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more
aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the
the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.
Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained
foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using
Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public
opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are
incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with
billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used
for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian
plan.
The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot.
Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his
Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly
extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is
so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to
end sanctions against Russia.
Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will
unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which
allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad
bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the
world's favor in the long run.
there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the
rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the
election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now
dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."
The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the
campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those
who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the
usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't
need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.
To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence.
Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As
with:
"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir
Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in
the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and
completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the
evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for
the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical
embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in
the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not
seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in
casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility –
even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been
moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."
I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and
the ME. Credit to b.
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it
makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD
make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential
level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than
a witch hunt.
But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts
to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its
free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world,
including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own
medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus
pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering
controls in the future.
USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have
not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.
"... After scorning the Russia collusion theories as fiction, Bannon acknowledged the grisly reality that the Russia investigation poses for his former boss. And he blamed it all on Kushner, for having created the appearance that Putin had helped Trump. Dropping Kushner head first into the grinder, Bannon turned the crank. ..."
"... "[Kushner was] taking meetings with Russians to get additional stuff. This tells you everything about Jared," Bannon told the magazine's Gabriel Sherman. "They were looking for the picture of Hillary Clinton taking the bag of cash from Putin. That's his maturity level." ..."
"... Informing Vanity Fair that Kushner's hunt for political smut led him to over-fraternize with the Russians might not be the best way for Bannon to throw special counsel Robert S. Mueller III off the collusion scent. ..."
"... Sherman's piece reveals the cognitive split that evolved between Bannon and others, specifically Trump, on how to handle the mess that had been created. "Goldman Sachs teaches one thing: don't invent shit. Take something that works and make it better," Bannon told Sherman. He said he consulted with Bill Clinton's former lawyer Lanny Davis about how the Clintons responded to Ken Starr's probe. "We were so disciplined. You guys don't have that," Bannon recalls Davis advising him. "That always haunted me when he said that," Bannon told Sherman. Bannon said the investigation was an attempt by the establishment to undo the election, but he took it seriously and warned Trump he was in danger of being impeached. ..."
"... There's even more hot Bannon on Kushner action. Bannon tells of an Oval Office meeting he attended with Trump, Kushner and Kushner's wife Ivanka Trump in which he called Ivanka "the queen of leaks." "You're a fucking liar!" Ivanka allegedly responded. Hard to know how to score this round, but shattering the public image of Ivanka as poised princess must have been satisfying for a guy who called Javanka "the Democrats." ..."
"... Although "people close to Kushner, who decline to be named" told the Times they don't think the Mueller investigation exposes him to legal jeopardy, the young prince isn't taking chances. The Washington Post reports that his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has been shopping for a "crisis public relations firm" over the past two weeks. (Senator Robert Menendez, the recent beneficiary of a deadlocked corruption trial, is another Lowell client.) ..."
"... Why hire super flacks now? Does Kushner sense disaster? Another Bannon offensive? The Flynn plea bargain exposed him -- according to the press -- as the "very senior member" of the Trump transition team described in court documents who told former national security adviser Michael Flynn to lobby the Russian ambassador about a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements. Maybe he's just buying reputation insurance. Or maybe he's taken to heart Chris Christie's scathing comments. Christie was squeezed out of the Trump transition early on, some say by Kushner who is said to hold a grudge against Christie who, when he was federal prosecutor, put Kushner's father in jail . This week Christie said that Kushner "deserves the scrutiny" he's been getting. It was almost as if Christie and Bannon were operating a twin-handled grinder, cranking out an extra helping of Kushner's tainted reputation. ..."
"... President Putin and President Trump occupied the same page about the scandal this week in what was either a matter of collusion or of great minds thinking alike. Speaking at a four-hour media event in Moscow, Putin blamed the scandal on the U.S. "deep state" and said, "This is all made up by people who oppose Trump to make his work look illegitimate." According to CNN , Trump took the opportunity this week to call the Russia investigation "bullshit" in private. In public, he told reporters, "There's absolutely no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it." ..."
Former Trump chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon milled his former Oval Office colleague Jared Kushner into a bloody chunk of battle
sausage this week and smeared him across the shiny pages of
Vanity Fair . You've got to read Bannon's quote three or four times to fully savor the tang of its malice and cruelty. After scorning the
Russia collusion theories as fiction, Bannon acknowledged the grisly reality that the Russia investigation poses for his former boss.
And he blamed it all on Kushner, for having created the appearance that Putin had helped Trump. Dropping Kushner head first into
the grinder, Bannon turned the crank.
"[Kushner was] taking meetings with Russians to get additional stuff. This tells you everything about Jared," Bannon told the
magazine's Gabriel Sherman. "They were looking for the picture of Hillary Clinton taking the bag of cash from Putin. That's his maturity
level."
Informing Vanity Fair that Kushner's hunt for political smut led him to over-fraternize with the Russians might not be
the best way for Bannon to throw special counsel Robert S. Mueller III off the collusion scent. So what was the big man in the Barbour
coat up to?
That Bannon and Kushner skirmished during their time together in the White House has been long established. Kushner advocated
the sacking FBI Director James B. Comey, for example, and Bannon opposed it. He later
told 60 Minutes that the firing
was maybe the worst mistake in "modern political history" because it precipitated the hiring of the special counsel and had thereby
expanded the investigation.
Sherman's piece reveals the cognitive split that evolved between Bannon and others, specifically Trump, on how to handle the
mess that had been created. "Goldman Sachs teaches one thing: don't invent shit. Take something that works and make it better," Bannon
told Sherman. He said he consulted with Bill Clinton's former lawyer Lanny Davis about how the Clintons responded to Ken Starr's
probe. "We were so disciplined. You guys don't have that," Bannon recalls Davis advising him. "That always haunted me when he said
that," Bannon told Sherman. Bannon said the investigation was an attempt by the establishment to undo the election, but he took it
seriously and warned Trump he was in danger of being impeached.
Bannon's gripe against Kushner in Vanity Fair continues: He claims that Donald Trump's disparaging tweets about Attorney
General Jeff Sessions were designed to provide "cover" for Kushner by steering negative media attention toward Sessions and away
from Kushner as he was scheduled to testify before a Senate committee.
There's even more hot Bannon on Kushner action. Bannon tells of an Oval Office meeting he attended with Trump, Kushner and
Kushner's wife Ivanka Trump in which he called Ivanka "the queen of leaks." "You're a fucking liar!" Ivanka allegedly responded.
Hard to know how to score this round, but shattering the public image of Ivanka as poised princess must have been satisfying for
a guy who called Javanka "the Democrats."
Getting mauled by Steve Bannon might not be the worst thing to happen to the president's son-in-law this week. He and Ivanka
were
sued by a private attorney for failing to disclose assets from 30 investment funds on their federal financial disclosure forms.
Perhaps more ominous for Kushner,
and according
to the New York Times , federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have subpoenaed Deutsche Bank records about Kushner's family's
real estate business. "There is no indication that the subpoena is related to the investigation being conducted by Robert S. Mueller
III," the Times allowed. Yeah, but wouldn't you want to be there when Mueller's team invites Bannon in to talk to him about
the Vanity Fair article, and they ask him, "What did you mean about Jared taking meetings with Russians to get additional
stuff? Like, what stuff?"
Although "people close to Kushner, who decline to be named" told the Times they don't think the Mueller investigation
exposes him to legal jeopardy, the young prince isn't taking chances. The Washington Post
reports that his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has been shopping for a "crisis public relations firm" over the past two weeks. (Senator
Robert Menendez, the recent beneficiary of a deadlocked corruption trial, is another Lowell client.)
Why hire super flacks now? Does Kushner sense disaster? Another Bannon offensive? The Flynn plea bargain exposed him -- according
to the press -- as the "very senior member" of the Trump transition team described in court documents who told former national security
adviser Michael Flynn to lobby the Russian ambassador about a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements. Maybe he's just buying reputation
insurance. Or maybe he's taken to heart Chris Christie's scathing comments. Christie was squeezed out of the Trump transition early
on, some say by Kushner who is said to hold a grudge against Christie who, when he was federal prosecutor, put Kushner's father in
jail . This week Christie
said that
Kushner "deserves the scrutiny" he's been getting. It was almost as if Christie and Bannon were operating a twin-handled grinder,
cranking out an extra helping of Kushner's tainted reputation.
President Putin and President Trump occupied the same page about the scandal this week in what was either a matter of collusion
or of great minds thinking alike. Speaking at a four-hour media event in Moscow, Putin
blamed
the scandal on the U.S. "deep state" and said, "This is all made up by people who oppose Trump to make his work look illegitimate."
According to CNN , Trump
took the opportunity this week to call the Russia investigation "bullshit" in private. In public, he told reporters, "There's absolutely
no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it."
Everybody, perhaps, except former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Appearing on
CNN , Clapper used direct language to bind former KGB officer Putin to Trump tighter than a girdle to a paunch. "[Putin] knows
how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said. "I think some of that experience and instincts
of Putin has come into play here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our president."
Writing in
Newsweek , Jeff Stein collected other tell-tale signs of Trump's cooptation: He refused to take Russian meddling in the election
seriously. He responds favorably to Putin's praise and seems to crave more. He dismisses worries about his circle's connections to
Kremlin agents before the election and during the transition -- and he tried to call off the Flynn investigation.
It's enough to make you wonder why Bannon thinks Kushner is the enemy, not Trump.
******
If you've read this far, you're probably disappointed that more didn't happen in the Trump Tower scandal this week. Sue me
in small claims court via email to [email protected]. My
email alerts
never believed in collusion, my Twitter feed is set to cut a plea
deal with Mueller, and my RSS feed has several crisis PR
firms on retainer.
It's very difficult to get the head wrapped around the Mueller investigation as a contrivance
to avoid going after Clinton, which shows a corrupted intelligence service working for
political ends and saving the Democratic Party, which needs replacing. The evidence against
Clinton is much more substantial than the continuing Mueller foray into inconsequence. If you
need more on Clinton beyond the massive email problems she had to avoid revealing how much
pay money she was getting, search on the DNC convention entirely corrupted over to her and
then the Uranium One deal. Why is all this not being investigated? It should be Clinton-Gate
not Russia-Gate. It seems that once again, as with late 02 and into 03, the populace has been
hoodwinked into believing government falseness--as with the non-existent WMD and invasion of
Iraq.
Essentially FBI has pushed Sunders under the bus and as such rigged the elections. In no way
Hillary can become candidate if she woouls have benn charged with "gross negligence". In this
sense they are criminals.
Notable quotes:
"... And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious? First, whether or not to indict was a decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing. Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been "extremely careless" with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of "gross negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify indictment. ..."
"... Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry McAuliffe. ..."
"... Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase "gross negligence" was key FBI agent Peter Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation of the "idiot" Trump. After one meeting with "Andy" (McCabe), Strzok told Page an "insurance policy" was needed to keep Trump out of the White House. ..."
"... JFK wanted to break the CIA into a million pieces and I think Trump needs to shatter the FBI into a million pieces after these latest revelations. The FBI stinks to high heaven and have for quite a long time now. They have become a highly politicized federal law enforcement agency ..."
"... If any Joe or Jane Shmo at Boeing or Lockheed-Martin had done what Hillary did he or she would have been fired and fined or jailed or both. His or hers security clearance would have been permanently revoked. So much for liberty and justice for all. ..."
"... What was the original mandate for Robert Mueller? If after all this time he has not been able to find any connection between Trump campaign and Putin then that phase of the investigation must end. The Justice Department appointed him and they should put a stop to that portion of the investigation. They can always give him a new mandate to investigate Hillary campaign's connection with Russia. These investigations should never be open ended. Lots of money is wasted and it gives the investigator an opportunity to satisfy personal vendetta. ..."
"... This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out by what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump. ..."
"... The only thing I would take exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be "Kremlin" based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of the Putin government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling the Clinton researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments would be forthcoming. ..."
The original question the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was to answer was a simple
one: Did he do it?
Did Trump, or officials with his knowledge, collude with Vladimir Putin's Russia to hack the
emails of John Podesta and the DNC, and leak the contents to damage Hillary Clinton and elect
Donald Trump?
A year and a half into the investigation, and, still, no "collusion" has been found. Yet the
investigation goes on, at the demand of the never-Trump media and Beltway establishment.
Hence, and understandably, suspicions have arisen.
Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?
Set aside the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory momentarily, and consider a rival explanation
for what is going down here:
That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop
Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. Having failed, they conspired to break Trump's presidency,
overturn his mandate and bring him down.
Essential to any such project was first to block any indictment of Hillary for transmitting
national security secrets over her private email server. That first objective was achieved 18
months ago.
On July 5, 2016, Comey stepped before a stunned press corps to declare that, given the
evidence gathered by the FBI, "no reasonable prosecutor" would indict Clinton. Therefore, that
was the course he, Comey, was recommending. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, compromised by her
infamous 35-minute tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton -- to discuss golf and grandkids --
seconded Comey's decision.
And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious? First, whether or not to indict was a
decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption
of Justice Department authority was astonishing. Second, while Comey said in his statement that
Hillary had been "extremely careless" with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was
declared guilty of "gross negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify
indictment.
Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a
munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry
McAuliffe.
Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase "gross negligence" was key FBI agent Peter
Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation
of the "idiot" Trump. After one meeting with "Andy" (McCabe), Strzok told Page an "insurance
policy" was needed to keep Trump out of the White House.
Also, it appears Comey began drafting his exoneration statement of Hillary before the FBI
had even interviewed her. And when the FBI did, Hillary was permitted to have her lawyers
present.
One need not be a conspiracy nut to conclude the fix was in, and a pass for Hillary wired
from the get-go. Comey, McCabe, Strzok were not going to recommend an indictment that would
blow Hillary out of the water and let the Trump Tower crowd waltz into the White House.
Yet, if Special Counsel Robert Mueller cannot find any Trump collusion with the Kremlin to
tilt the outcome of the 2016 election, his investigators might have another look at the Clinton
campaign.
For there a Russian connection has been established.
Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to
ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his "dirty dossier" that was distributed
to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump.
And who hired Steele to tie Trump to Russia?
Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit into which the DNC and Clinton campaign pumped millions
through law firm Perkins Coie.
Let's review the bidding.
The "dirty dossier," a mixture of fabrications, falsehoods and half-truths, created to
destroy Trump and make Hillary president, was the product of a British spy's collusion with
Kremlin agents.
In Dec. 26′s Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough writes that the FBI relied on this
Kremlin-Steele dossier of allegations and lies to base their decision "to open a
counterintelligence investigation (of Trump)." And press reports "cite the document's
disinformation in requests for court-approved wiretaps."
If this is true, a critical questions arises:
Has the Mueller probe been so contaminated by anti-Trump bias and reliance on Kremlin
fabrications that any indictment it brings will be suspect in the eyes of the American
people?
Director Comey has been fired. FBI No. 2 McCabe is now being retired under a cloud.
Mueller's top FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, and lover Lisa, have been discharged. And Mueller
is left to rely upon a passel of prosecutors whose common denominator appears to be that they
loathe Trump and made contributions to Hillary.
Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had his "Get Hoffa Squad" to take down Teamsters boss Jimmy
Hoffa. J. Edgar Hoover had his vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King. Is history repeating
itself -- with the designated target of an elite FBI cabal being the President of the United
States?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
JFK wanted to break the CIA into a million pieces and I think Trump needs to shatter the FBI
into a million pieces after these latest revelations. The FBI stinks to high heaven and have
for quite a long time now. They have become a highly politicized federal law enforcement
agency who often collaborate with mortal enemies of America like the ADL and other "watchdog"
groups in addition to assuming the biases of said organizations against certain groups of
Americans.
They behave like a bunch of cowboys and police state thugs and their treatment of and
unnecessary raid on Paul Manafort's home was just the tip of the iceberg. The FBI is becoming
a clear and present danger to civil liberties.
Trump was a bit of a wild card to the establishment elites. He lived in the public spotlight
for most of his adult life, so his foibles were well known, and he had too much money to be
bought off. Mueller was given his job to make sure Trump doesn't stray too far from the
elitists program. He appears to have been cowed and is walking the straight left of center
republican line, now.
"For there a Russian connection has been established.
Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to
ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his "dirty dossier" that was
distributed to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump."
No worries -- as long as somebody can still accuse "Kremlin agents" of something, the
Establishment will be just fine.
Time for Mr. Napolitano to take his turn at the spinning wheel?
Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been "extremely careless"
with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of "gross
negligence" -- the precise language in the statute to justify indictment.
If any Joe or Jane Shmo at Boeing or Lockheed-Martin had done what Hillary did he or she
would have been fired and fined or jailed or both. His or hers security clearance would have
been permanently revoked. So much for liberty and justice for all.
What was the original mandate for Robert Mueller? If after all this time he has not been
able to find any connection between Trump campaign and Putin then that phase of the
investigation must end. The Justice Department appointed him and they should put a stop to
that portion of the investigation. They can always give him a new mandate to investigate
Hillary campaign's connection with Russia. These investigations should never be open ended.
Lots of money is wasted and it gives the investigator an opportunity to satisfy personal
vendetta.
This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out by
what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump.
The only thing I would take
exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be "Kremlin"
based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of the Putin
government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling the Clinton
researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments would be
forthcoming.
"... In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0. ..."
"... But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role. ..."
"... While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value. ..."
"... In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968. ..."
"... Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US. ..."
"... It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm. ..."
"... "Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one. ..."
"... The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak). ..."
"... So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel. ..."
"... So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first. ..."
"... Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection. ..."
"... Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference. ..."
"... I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along." ..."
"... The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy. ..."
"... FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story. ..."
"... God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact. ..."
"... I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war. ..."
"... Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence. ..."
The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate December 23, 2017
While unproven claims of Russian meddling in U.S. politics have whipped Official Washington
into a frenzy, much less attention has been paid to real evidence of Israeli interference in
U.S. politics, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
By Dennis J Bernstein
In investigating Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. politics, special prosecutor Robert
Mueller uncovered evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured the Trump
transition team to undermine President Obama's plans to permit the United Nations to censure
Israel over its illegal settlement building on the Palestinian West Bank, a discovery
referenced in the plea deal with President Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn.
President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the United
Nations General Assembly (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took
the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal
to block the resolution).
I spoke on Dec, 18 with independent journalist and blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes
on national security and other issues for a number of blogs at Tikun Olam .
Dennis Bernstein: A part of Michael Flynn's plea had to do with some actions he took before
coming to power regarding Israel and the United Nations. Please explain.
Richard Silverstein:
The Obama administration was negotiating in the [UN] Security Council
just before he left office about a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements.
Obviously, the Israeli government did not want this resolution to be passed. Instead of going
directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to
Trump instead. They approached Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner became involved in this. While
they were in the transition and before having any official capacity, they negotiated with
various members of the Security Council to try to quash the settlement resolution.
One of the issues here which is little known is the Logan Act, which was passed at the
foundation of our republic and was designed to prevent private citizens from usurping the
foreign policy prerogatives of the executive. It criminalized any private citizen who attempted
to negotiate with an enemy country over any foreign policy issue.
In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign
policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because
that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on
the resolution and it passed 14-0.
But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the
Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to
derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and
disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role.
This speaks to the power of the Israel lobby and of Israel itself to disrupt our foreign
policy. Very few people have ever been charged with committing an illegal act by advocating on
behalf of Israel. That is one of the reasons why this is such an important development. Until
now, the lobby has really ruled supreme on the issue of Israel and Palestine in US foreign
policy. Now it is possible that a private citizen will actually be made to pay a price for
that.
This is an important development because the lobby till now has run roughshod over our
foreign policy in this area and this may act as a restraining order against blatant disruption
of US foreign policy by people like this.
Bernstein: So this information is a part of Michael Flynn's plea. Anyone studying this would
learn something about Michael Flynn and it would be part of the prosecution's
investigation.
Silverstein:
That's absolutely right. One thing to note here is that it is reporters who
have raised the issue of the Logan Act, not Mueller or Flynn's people or anyone in the Trump
administration. But I do think that Logan is a very important part of this plea deal, even if
it is not mentioned explicitly.
Bernstein: If the special prosecutor had smoking-gun information that the Trump
administration colluded with Russia, in the way they colluded with Israel before coming to
power, this would be a huge revelation. But it is definitely collusion when it comes to
Israel.
Silverstein: Absolutely. If this were Russia, it would be on the front page of every major
newspaper in the United States and the leading story on the TV news. Because this is Israel and
because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby and they have so much influence
on US policy concerning Israel, it has managed to stay on the back burner. Only two or three
media outlets besides mine have raised this issue of Logan and collusion. Kushner and Flynn may
be the first American citizens charged under the Logan Act for interfering on behalf of Israel
in our foreign policy. This is a huge issue and it has hardly been raised at all.
Bernstein: As you know, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has made a career out of investigating the
Russia-gate charges. She says that she has read all this material carefully, so she must have
read about Flynn and Israel, but I haven't heard her on this issue at all.
Silverstein:
Even progressive journalists, who you'd think would be going after this with a
vengeance, are frightened off by the fact the lobby really bites back. So, aside from outlets
like the Intercept and the Electronic Intifada, there is a lot of hesitation about going after
the Israel lobby. People are afraid because they know that there is a high price to be paid. It
goes from being purely journalism to being a personal and political vendetta when they get you
in their sights. In fact, one of the reasons I feel my blog is so important is that what I do
is challenge Israeli policy and Israeli intervention in places where it doesn't belong.
Bernstein: Jared Kushner is the point man for the Trump administration on Israel. He has
talked about having a "vision for peace." Do you think it is a problem that this is someone
with a long, close relationship with the prime minister of Israel and, in fact, runs a
foundation that invests in the building of illegal Israeli settlements? Might this be
problematic?
Silverstein:
It is quite nefarious, actually. When Jared Kushner was a teenager, Netanyahu
used to stay at the Kushner family home when he visited the United States. This relationship
with one of the most extreme right political figures in Israel goes back decades. And it is not
just Kushner himself, but all the administration personnel dealing with these so-called peace
negotiations, including Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, the ambassador. These are all
orthodox Jews who tend to have very nationalist views when it comes to Israel. They all support
settlements financially through foundations. These are not honest brokers.
We could talk at length about the history of US personnel who have been negotiators for
Middle East peace. All of them have been favorable to Israel and answerable to the Israel
lobby, including Dennis Ross and Makovsky, who served in the last administration. These people
are dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist supporters of [Israeli] settlements. They have no
business playing any role in negotiating a peace deal.
My prediction all along has been that these peace negotiations will come to naught, even
though they seem to have bought the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which is something new in the
process. The Palestinians can never accept a deal that has been negotiated by Kushner and
company because it will be far too favorable to Israel and it will totally neglect the
interests of the Palestinians.
Bernstein: It has been revealed that Kushner supports the building of settlements in the
West Bank. Most people don't understand the politics of what is going on there, but it appears
to be part of an ethnic cleansing.
Silverstein:
The settlements have always been a violation of international law, ever since
Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967. The Geneva Conventions direct an occupying power to
withdraw from territory that was not its own. In 1967 Israel invaded Arab states and conquered
the West Bank and Gaza but this has never been recognized or accepted by any nation until
now.
The fact that Kushner and his family are intimately involved in supporting
settlements–as are David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt–is completely outrageous. No
member of any previous US administration would have been allowed to participate with these
kinds of financial investments in support of settlements. Of course, Trump doesn't understand
the concept of conflict of interest because he is heavily involved in such conflicts himself.
But no party in the Middle East except Israel is going to consider the US an honest broker and
acceptable as a mediator.
When they announce this deal next January, no one in the Arab World is going to accept it,
with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia because they have other fish to fry in terms of
Iran. The next three years are going to be interesting, supposing Trump lasts out his term. My
prediction is that the peace plan will fail and that it will lead to greater violence in the
Middle East. It will not simply lead to a vacuum, it will lead to a deterioration in conditions
there.
Bernstein: The Trump transition team was actually approached directly by the Israeli
government to try to intercede at the United Nations.
Silverstein:
I'm assuming it was Netanyahu who went directly to Kushner and Trump. Now, we
haven't yet found out that Trump directly knew about this but it is very hard to believe
that Trump didn't endorse this. Now that we know that Mueller has access to all of the emails
of the transition team, there is little doubt that they have been able to find their smoking
gun. Flynn's plea meant that they basically had him dead to rights. It remains to be seen what
will happen with Kushner but I would think that this would play some role in either the
prosecution of Kushner or some plea deal.
Bernstein: The other big story, of course, is the decision by the Trump administration to
move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Was there any pre-election collusion in that
regard and what are the implications?
Silverstein:
Well, it's a terrible decision which goes against forty to fifty years of US
foreign policy. It also breaches all international understanding. All of our allies in the
European Union and elsewhere are aghast at this development. There is now a campaign in the
United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the announcement, which we will
veto, but the next step will be to go to the General Assembly, where such a resolution will
pass easily.
The question is how much anger, violence and disruption this is going to cause around the
world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. This is a slow-burning fuse. It is not going to
explode right now. The issue of Jerusalem is so vital that this is not something that is simply
going to go away. This is going to be a festering sore in the Muslim world and among
Palestinians. We have already seen attacks on Israeli soldiers and citizens and there will be
many more.
As to collusion in all of this, since Trump always said during the campaign that this was
what he was going to do, it might be difficult to treat this in the same way as the UN
resolution. The UN resolution was never on anybody's radar and nobody knew the role that Trump
was playing behind the scenes with that–as opposed to Trump saying right from the get-go
that Jerusalem was going to be recognized as the capital of Jerusalem.
By doing that, they have completely abrogated any Palestinian interest in Jerusalem. This is
a catastrophic decision that really excludes the United States from being an honest broker here
and shows our true colors in terms of how pro-Israel we are.
As most regular readers of CN already know, some dynamite books on the inordinate amount
of influence pro-Israel zealots have on Washington:
1.) 'The Host and the Parasite' by Greg Felton
2.) 'Power of Israel in the United States' by James Petras
3.) 'They Dare to Speak Out' by Paul Findley
4.) 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt
5.) 'Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power' by James Petras
I suggest that anyone relatively knew to this neglected topic peruse a few of the
aforementioned titles. An inevitable backlash by the citizens of the United States is
eventually forthcoming against the Zionist Power Configuration. It's crucial that this
impending backlash remain democratic, non-violent, eschews anti-Semitism, and travels in a
progressive in direction.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Which one would you suggest? I already read "The Israel Lobby."
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Findley and Mearsheimer are certainly worthwhile. I will look for Petras.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm
If you haven't already read them, the end/footnotes in "The Israel Lobby" are more
illuminating.
That influence is also shown, of course, by the fact that Obama waited until the midnight
hours of his tenure and after the 2016 election to even start working on this resolution.
While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated,
probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value.
In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think
he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew
calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm
Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case
against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel
collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will
awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:32 am
It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention
from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind
the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm.
The leaked emails showed the corruption
plainly, and based on the ACTUAL evidence (recorded download time), most likely came from a
highly disgruntled insider. The picture was starting to spill into public view. I'd estimate
the real huge worry was that if this stuff came out, it could bring out other Israeli
secrets, like their involvement in 9/11. That would mean actual jail time. Might be hard to
buy your way out of that no matter how much money you have.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 10:48 pm
The Logan act states that anyone who negotiates with an enemy of the US, and Israel is not
defined as an enemy.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 6:59 pm
The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would. I don't think anyone has
been convicted based on this act, and they were part of a transition team not to mention the
Logan act clearly states a private citizen who attempts to negotiate with an enemy state, and
that certainly doesn't apply to Israel. In this administration their bias is so blatant that
they can install Kushner as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine peace process while his
family has a close relationship with Netanyahu, and he runs a foundation that invests in the
building of illegal settlements which goes against the Geneva conventions. Hopefully Trump's
blatant siding with Israel will receive a lot of backlash as did his plan to make Jerusalem
the capital of Israel.
I also found that so called progressive internet sites don't cover this the way they
should.
Al Pinto , December 24, 2017 at 9:16 am
@Annie
"The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would."
You and me both .
From the point of starting to read this article, it has been in my mind that the Logan act
would not apply here. After reading most of the comments, it became clear that not many
people viewed this as such. Yes, Joe Tedesky did as well
The UN is the "clearing house" for international politics, where countries freely contact
each other's for getting support for their cause behind the scene. The support sought after
could be voting for or against the resolution on hand. At times, as Israel did, countries
reach out to perceived enemies as well, if they could not secure sufficient support for their
cause. This is the normal activity of the UN diplomacy.
Knowing that the outgoing administration would not support its cause, Israel reached out
to the incoming administration to delay the vote on the UN resolution. I fail to see anything
wrong with Israel's action even in this case; Israel is not an enemy state to the US. As
such, there has been no violation of any acts by the incoming administration, even if they
tried to secure veto vote for Israel. I do not like it, but no action by Mueller in this case
is correct.
People, just like the article in itself, implying that the Logan Act applies in this case
are just plain wrong. Not just wrong, but their anti-Israel bias is in plain view.
Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state. Even then, Russia contacting the incoming administration is not a violation of
the Logan Act. That is just normal diplomacy in the background between countries. What would
be a violation is that the contacted official acted on the behalf of Russia and tried to
influence the outgoing administration's decision. That is what the Mueller investigation
tries to prove hopelessly
"Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and
therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with
Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing
their best to provoke Russia into one.
Annie , December 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for your reply. When I read the article and it referenced the Logan Act, which I am
familiar with in that I've read about it before, I was surprised that Bernstein and
Silverstein even brought it up because it so obviously does not apply in this case, since
Israel is not considered an enemy state. Many have even referenced it as flimsy when it comes
to convictions against those in Trump's transition team who had contacts with Russia. No one
has ever been convicted under the Logan Act.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm
The Logan Act either should apply equally, or not apply at all. This "Russia-gate" hype
seems to apply it selectively.
mrtmbrnmn , December 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm
You guys are blinded by the light. The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer
hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak).
There is no doubt that Trump is Bibi's and the Saudi's ventriloquist dummy and Jared has
been an Israel agent of influence since he was 12.
But half the Dementedcrat Sore Loser Brigade will withdraw from the field of battle (not
to mention most of the GOP living dead too) if publically and noisily tying Israel to Trump's
tail becomes the only route to his removal. Which it would have to be, as there is no there
there regarding the yearlong trumped-up PutinPutinPutin waterboarding of Trump.
Immediately (if not sooner) the mighty (pro-Israel) Donor Bank of Singer (Paul), Saban
(Haim), Sachs (Goldman) & Adelson (Sheldon), would change their passwords and leave these
politicians/beggars with empty begging bowls. End of $ordid $tory.
alley cat , December 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm
So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What
of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are
orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator
bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel.
Mueller can use that evidence of sabotage and/or obstruction of justice to try to coerce
false confessions from Kushner and Flynn. But what are the chances of that, barring short
stayovers for them at some CIA black site?
So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem
witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and
Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's
flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first.
Leslie F. , December 23, 2017 at 8:28 pm
He used it, along with other info, to turn flip Flynn and possibly can use it the same way
again Kusher. Not all evidence has end up in court to be useful.
JWalters , December 23, 2017 at 8:40 pm
This is an extremely important story, excellently reported. All the main "facts" Americans
think they know about Israel are, amazingly, flat-out lies.
1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a
defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor
shape and would not be able to resist the zionist army.
2. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.
3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are
under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.
4. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of
equal human rights for all.
Maintaining such a blanket of major lies for decades requires immense power. And this
power would have to be exercised "under the radar" to be effective. That requires even more
power. Both Congress and the press have to be controlled. How much power does it take to turn
"Progressive Rachel" into "Tel Aviv Rachel"? To turn "It Takes a Village" Hillary into
"Slaughter a Village" Hillary? It takes immense power AND ruthlessness.
War profiteers have exactly this combination of immense war profits and the ruthlessness
to victimize millions of people. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Vast war profits easily afford to buy the mainstream media. And controlling campaign
contributions for members of Congress is amazingly cheap in the big picture. Such a squalid
sale of souls.
And when simple bribery is not enough, they ruin a person's life through blackmail or
false character assassination. And if those don't work they use death threats, including to
family members, and finally murder. Their ruthlessness is unrestrained. John Perkins has
described these tactics in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".
For readers who haven't seen it, here is an excellent riff on the absurdly overwhelming
evidence for Israel's influence compared to that of Russia, at a highly professional news and
analysis website run by Jewish anti-Zionists. "Let's talk about Russian influence" http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Hitler and Mussolini, Trump and Netanyahoo – matches made in Hell. These characters
are so obviously, blatantly evil that it is deeply disturbing that people fail to see that,
and instead go to great lengths to find some complicated flaws in these monsters.
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Keep it simple folks. No need for complex analyses. Just remember that these characters as
simply as evil as it gets, and proceed from there. These asinine shows that portray mobsters
as complex human beings are dangerously deluding. If you want to be victimized by these
types, this kind of overthinking is just the way to go.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 9:00 pm
There is a modern theory of fiction that insists upon the portrayal of inconsistency in
characters, both among the good guys and the bad guys. It is useful to show how those who do
wrongs have made specific kinds of errors that make them abnormal, and that those who do
right are not perfect but nonetheless did the right thing. Instead it is used by commercial
writers to argue that the good are really bad, and the bad are really good, which is of
course the philosophy of oligarchy-controlled mass publishers.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:54 pm
A very important article by Dennis Bernstein, and it is very appropriate that non-zionist
Jews are active against the extreme zionist corruption of our federal government. I am sure
that they are reviled by the zionists for interfering with the false denunciations of racism
against the opponents of zionism. Indeed critics face a very nearly totalitarian power of
zionism, which in league with MIC/WallSt opportunism has displaced democracy altogether in
the US.
backwardsevolution , December 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm
A nice little set-up by the Obama administration. Perhaps it was entrapment? Who set it
up? Flynn and Kushner should have known better to fall for it. So at the end of his
Presidency, Obama suddenly gets balls and wants to slap down Israel? Yeah, right.
Nice to have leverage over people, though, isn't it? If you're lucky and play your cards
right, you might even be lucky enough to land an impeachment.
Of course, I'm just being cynical. No one would want to overturn democracy, would
they?
Certainly people like Comey, Brenner, Clinton, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein wouldn't want
that, would they?
Joe Tedesky , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm
I just can't see any special prosecutor investigating Israel-Gate. Between what the
Zionist donors donate to these creepy politicians, too what goods they have on these same
mischievous politicians, I just can't see any investigation into Israel's collusion with the
Trump Administration going anywhere. Netanyahu isn't Putin, and Russia isn't Israel. Plus,
Israel is considered a U.S. ally, while Russia is being marked as a Washington rival. Sorry,
this news regarding Israel isn't going to be ranted on about for the next 18 months, like the
MSM has done with Russia, because our dear old Israel is the only democracy in the Middle
East, or so they tell us. So, don't get your hopes up.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:33 am
It's true the Israelis have America's politicians by the ears and the balls. But as this
story gets better known, politicians will start getting questions at their town meetings.
Increasingly the politicians will gag on what Israel is force-feeding them, until finally
they reach a critical mass of vomit in Congress.
Joe Tedesky , December 24, 2017 at 11:12 am
I hope you are right JWalters. Although relying on a Zionist controlled MSM doesn't give
hope for the news getting out properly. Again I hope you are right JWalters. Joe
Actually, Netanyahu was so desperate to have the resolution pulled and not voted on that
he reached out to any country that might help him after the foreign minister of New Zealand,
one of its co-sponsors refused to pull the plug after a testy phone exchange with the Israeli
PM ending up threatening an Israeli boycott oturnef the KIwis.
He then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin, who owed him a favor for having Israel's UN
delegate absent himself for the UNGA vote on sanctioning Russia after its annexation of
Crimea.
Putin then called Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, since deceased, and asked him to
get the other UNSC ambassadors to postpone the vote until Trump took over the White House but
the other ambassadors weren't buying it. Given Russia's historic public position regarding
the settlements, Churkin had no choice to vote Yes with the others.
This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US which,
due to Zionist influence on the media, does not want the American public to know about the
close ties between Putin and Netanyahu which has led to the Israeli PM making five state
visits there in the last year and a half.
Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto. That
Netanyahu apparently knew in advance that the US planned to veto the resolution was, I
suspect, leaked to the Israelis by US delegate Samantha Power, who was clearly unhappy at
having to abstain.
Abe , December 24, 2017 at 12:39 am
The Israeli Prime Minister made five state visits to Russia in the last year and a half to
make sure the Russians don't accidentally on purpose blast Israeli warplanes from the sky
over Syria (like they oughtta). Putin tries not to snicker when Netanyahu bloviates ad
nauseum about the purported "threat" posed by Iran.
He thinks Putin is a RATS ASS like the yankee government
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:34 am
"This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the
US"
We've just had a whole cluster of big stories involving Israel that have all been
essentially blacked out in the US press. e.g. "Dionne and Shields ignore the Adelson in the room" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-israels-capital
This is not due to chance. There is no doubt that the US mainstream media is wholly
controlled by the Israelis.
alley cat , December 24, 2017 at 4:49 am
"He [Netanyahu] then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin "
Jeff, that characterization of Putin and Netanyahu's relationship makes no sense, since
the Russians have consistently opposed Zionism and Putin has been no exception, having
spoiled Zionist plans for the destruction of Syria.
"Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US
veto."
Not sure where you're going with that, since the US vote was up to Obama, who wanted to
get some payback for all of Bibi's efforts to sabotage Obama's treaty with Iran.
For the record, Zionism has had no more rabid supporter than the Dragon Lady. If we're
going to make assumptions, we could start by assuming that if she had won the White House
we'd all be dead by now, thanks to her obsession (at the instigation of her Zionist/neocon
sponsors) with declaring no-fly zones in Syria.
Brendan , December 24, 2017 at 6:18 am
Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves
their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will
simply ignore the Israeli connection.
Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as
evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone
call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of
this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference.
Skip Scott , December 24, 2017 at 7:59 am
I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would
never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
The zionist will stop at nothing to control the middle east with American taxpayers
money/military equiptment its a win win for the zionist they control America lock stock and
barrel a pity though it is a great country to be led by a jewish entity.
What will Israel-Palestine look like twenty years from now? Will it remain an apartheid
regime, a regime without any Palestinians, or something different. The Trump decision, which
the world rejects, brings the issue of "final" settlement to the fore. In a way we can go
back to the thirties and the British Mandate. Jewish were fleeing Europe, many coming to
Palestine. The British, on behalf of the Zionists, were delaying declaring Palestine a state
with control of its own affairs. Seeing the mass immigration and chafing at British foot
dragging, the Arabs rebelled, What happened then was that the British, responding to numerous
pressures notably war with Germany, acted by granting independence and granting Palestine
control of its borders.
With American pressure and the mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Jews defied the British
resulting in Jewish resistance. What followed then was a UN plan to divide the land with a
Jerusalem an international city administered by the UN. The Arabs rebelled and lost much of
what the UN plan provided and Jerusalem as an international city was scrapped.
Will there be a second serious attempt to settle the issue of the land and the status of
Jerusalem? Will there be a serious move toward a single state? How will the matter of
Jerusalem be resolved. The two state solution has always been a fantasy and acquiescence of
Palestinians to engage in this charade exposes their leaders to charges of posturing for
perks. Imagined options could go on and on but will there be serious options placed before
the world community or will the boots on the ground Israeli policies continue?
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with
the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to
both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Truly mind-boggling. Ahistorical, and as you say, fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:48 pm
FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy
(against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End
of story.
$50K of Facebook ads about puppies pales in comparison to that blatant, prima facia,
public manipulation. God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Just for the record, Richard Silverstein blocked me on Twitter because I pointed out that
he slammed someone who was suggesting that the Assad government was fighting for its
(Syria's) life by fighting terrorists. Actually, more specifically, because of that he read
my "Free Palestine" bio on Twitter and called me a Hamas supporter (no Hamas mentioned) and a
"moron" for some seeming contradiction.
I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy.
If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria
and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving
their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing
brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote,
arguably, perpetual war.
Silverstein is probably not a good (ie. consistent) arbiter of Israeli impact on US
politics. Just sayin'.
This may be a tad ot but it relates to the alleged hacking of the DNC, the role debbie
wasserman schultz plays in the spy ring (awan bros) in house of rep servers: I have long
suspected that mossad has their fingers in this entire mess. FWIW
Good site, BTW.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm
I can't recall why I removed the Tikun Olam site from my bookmarks – it happened
quite a while back. Generally I do that when I feel the blogger crossed some kind of personal
red line. Something Mr. Silverstein wrote put him over that line with me.
In the course of a search I found that at the neocon NYT. Mr. Silverstein claims several
things I find unbelievable, and from that alone I wonder about his ultimate motives. I may be
excessively touchy about this, but that's how it is.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Yeah Zachary, "wondering about ultimate motives" is probably a good way to put it/his
views. He's obviously conflicted, if not deferential in some aspects of Israeli policy. He
really was a hero of mine, but now I just don't get whether what he says is masking something
or a true belief. He says some good stuff, but, but, but .
P. Michael Garber , December 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm
Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than
reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel
lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible
relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was
manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's
influence.
The interests and sympathies of British government are clear form this peace:they are definitely afraid about reopening Clinton
investigation. If British government was behind Steele dossier that was a very dirty job.
Notable quotes:
"... All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe. ..."
In recent weeks, conservative commentators and politicians have begun arguing, with growing intensity, that Robert Mueller's investigation
into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia is the result of an intentional effort by biased investigators to undermine
the Trump presidency.
There are a number of components to the case they are presenting, from doubts about the impartiality of Mr Mueller and his team
to questions about the integrity of the FBI and the Obama-era Justice Department.
All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary
of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe.
Such an action would provoke a major political crisis and could have unpredictable consequences. For Mr Trump's defenders, it
may be enough simply to mire Mr Mueller's investigation in a partisan morass. Here are some are some of the ways they're trying to
do that.
Tell-tale texts?
Peter Strzok, a senior counter-intelligence agent in the FBI and until this summer a top member of Mr Mueller's special counsel
team, has become Exhibit A of anti-Trump bias in the Russia investigation.
A Justice Department inspector general review of the FBI's handling of its 2016 election investigations unearthed text messages
between Mr Strzok and Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer who also temporarily worked on the Mueller investigation and with whom Mr Strzok was
having an extramarital affair.
Some of the messages, which were provided to reporters, showed the two had a hostility toward then-candidate Trump in 2016. Ms
Page called Mr Trump a "loathsome human" in March, as the candidate was cementing his lead in the Republican primary field. Three
months later - after Mr Trump had secured the nomination - Mr Strzok wrote that he was an "idiot" who said "bigoted nonsense".
In an August text, Mr Strzok discussed a meeting with then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in which Ms Page apparently had mentioned
there was "no way" Mr Trump could be elected.
"I'm afraid we can't take that risk," Mr Strzok wrote. "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're
40."
Some have theorised that the "insurance policy" in question was an FBI plan to destroy Mr Trump if he were to win. Others have
suggested that it was simply a reference to the need to continue working the Trump-Russia investigation even though his election
seemed unlikely.
Media caption President Trump renews attack on 'disgraceful' FBI
"It is very sad when you look at those documents," Mr Trump said on Friday, apparently referring to the texts. "And how they've
done that is really, really disgraceful, and you have a lot of very angry people that are seeing it." He said it was a shame what
had happened to the FBI and that it would be "rebuilt".
Since the first coverage of the story, reporters have reviewed more of the Strzok-Page texts and found the two made disparaging
comments about a wide range of public figures, including Chelsea Clinton, Democrat Bernie Sanders, then-Attorney General Eric Holder,
Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich, and Mrs Clinton.
"I'm worried about what happens if HRC is elected," Mr Strzok wrote, referring to Mrs Clinton by her initials.
Why it could matter: If Mr Strzok, a high-ranking member of the FBI who officially launched the initial investigation of ties
between the Trump campaign and Russia, harboured anti-Trump animus, there is the possibility it could have motivated him to influence
the investigation to the president's disadvantage.
Why it might not: Government employees are allowed to express political views as long as they don't influence their job performance.
The breadth of the Strzok-Page texts could indicate they were just gossiping lovers. Without context, Mr Strzok's "insurance" line
is vague. When Mr Mueller learned of the text this summer, Mr Strzok was removed from the independent counsel investigation and reassigned
to a human resources job.
The Clinton case
Mr Strzok also figures prominently in Republican concerns about the FBI's handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's
use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
Mr Strzok took part in interviews with key Clinton aides and
reportedly was involved
in drafting the report that concluded Mrs Clinton's actions did not warrant criminal charges, including changing the description
of her handling of classified material from "grossly negligent" - which might have suggested illegal behaviour - to "extremely careless".
During the campaign Mr Trump repeatedly insisted that the Justice Department should re-open its investigation into Mrs Clinton
and, after backing away from the idea early in his presidency, has once again renewed those calls.
"High ranking FBI officials involved in the Clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election and
clearly let their strong political opinions cloud their professional judgement," Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte said during
a House Judicial Committee hearing.
There's also the possibility that there were more communications between Ms Page and Mr Strzok about the Clinton investigation
that have yet to come to light.
"We text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can't be traced, you were just venting [because] you feel bad that
you're gone so much but it can't be helped right now," Ms Page wrote in one text.
Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he wants more information about the use of these
"untraceable" phones.
Why it could matter: If FBI agents backed off their investigation of Mrs Clinton in 2016 it could be further evidence of bias
within the bureau that could affect its ongoing investigation into Mr Trump. If public confidence in the FBI is eroded, the ultimate
findings of Mr Mueller's probe may be cast in doubt.
Why it might not: Lest anyone forget, Mrs Clinton's candidacy was the one wounded by FBI actions in the final days of the 2016
campaign. Then-Director James Comey's announcement of new evidence in the inquiry into her private email server - perhaps prompted
by anti-Clinton leaks from the bureau's New York office - dominated the headlines and renewed concerns about the former secretary
of state. News of the ongoing Trump-Russia investigation, on the other hand, didn't emerge until well after the election.
Marital woes
When it comes to the ongoing investigations into the investigations, it's not just the actions of the principals involved that
have come under the spotlight. Spouses have figured prominently, as well.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the bureau's second-in-command, is married to Jill McCabe, a paediatrician who ran as a Democrat
for a Virginia state senate seat in 2015 (before Mr McCabe was promoted to his current position). During the hotly contested race,
Ms McCabe received $467,500 in campaign contributions from a political action committee controlled by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe,
a close political ally of the Clinton family.
Conservatives contend that this donation should have disqualified Mr McCabe from involvement in the Clinton case - and was yet
another example of possible anti-Trump bias in the FBI's Russia investigation.
"If Mr McCabe failed to avoid the appearance of a partisan conflict of interest in favour of Mrs Clinton during the presidential
election, then any participation in [the Russia] inquiry creates the exact same appearance of a partisan conflict of interest against
Mr Trump," Senator Grassley wrote in a letter to then-Director Comey in March.
Meanwhile, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr was
recently reported as being employed in 2016 by Fusion GPS, the political research firm that produced the dossier containing unconfirmed
allegations of Mr Trump's Russia entanglements. Mr Ohr himself
has been connected to Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence agent who collected the material for the dossier.
Fusion GPS's anti-Trump research efforts were originally funded by a Republican donor and later backed by groups associated with
the Democratic Party and the Clinton presidential campaign.
Why it matters: "Power couples" - spouses with influential, complementary political jobs - are a Washington tradition, and the
actions of one partner are often considered to reflect on the views and behaviour of the other. In Mr McCabe's case, his wife's Democratic
activism and allegiances could shed light on his political sympathies. For Mr Ohr, his marriage could have served as a conduit to
inject Democratic-funded opposition research into the Justice Department.
Why it might not: Having a political spouse is not evidence of official bias. The identity of the individuals or groups that funded
and gathered anti-Trump research and how it ended up in government hands does not necessarily have a bearing on whether the information
is valid or merits further investigation.
Follow the money
The individuals working on the Russia investigation have been billed as a "dream team" by Democrats and liberal commentators hoping
the efforts will eventually topple the Trump presidency.
Many conservatives beg to differ.
In June, as details of the special counsel hires began to emerge, conservatives noted that some of the biggest names - Andrew
Weissmann, James Quarles, Jeannie Rhee and Michael Dreeben - had given money to Democratic presidential candidates.
"Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair," former Republican Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich tweeted . "Look who he is hiring."
Ms Rhee's private law work included representing Democrats, such as Obama Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and the
Clinton Foundation in a lawsuit brought by a conservative activist group.
Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz recently travelled to Florida with Mr Trump and
said he
told the president that the independent counsel investigation was "infected with bias" against him - a view echoed in the conservative
press.
"What we've seen over the past seven months of the Mueller investigation reveals a lot about how big government can end up becoming
a threat to representative democracy," Laura Ingraham
said on her Fox News programme. "And the more we look at the web of Clinton and Obama loyalists who burrowed into Mueller's office,
the more obvious it all becomes."
Why it could matter: Political donations and legal work may be evidence of the ideological tilt of Mr Mueller's investigative
team. That he has assembled a group of lawyers that may lean to the left could mean the investigation itself is predisposed to findings
damaging to Mr Trump.
Why it might not: Investigators are adversarial by nature, and as long as Mr Mueller's team builds its cases with hard evidence,
personal political views should not matter. While political partisans may focus on staff-level appointments, the investigation will
rise and fall based on perceptions of Mr Mueller himself.
Mr Mueller's waiver
Prior to accepting the position as special counsel investigating possible Trump campaign ties to Russia, Mr Mueller requested
- and received - an "ethics waiver" for possible conflicts of interest from the US Department of Justice.
The government has confirmed the existence of the waiver but has not revealed any details, although speculation at the time was
that it had to do with Mr Mueller's work at the law firm WilmerHale, which represented former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort
- who Mr Mueller has since indicted on money-laundering charges - and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
Why it could matter: Without further information about the nature of the waiver,
some are
speculating that there is more to this request than simply routine ethical paperwork. Given that Mr Mueller is a former director
of the FBI, with ties to many of the bureau officials who are now coming under conservative scrutiny, Mr Mueller's own allegiances
are being called into question.
Why it might not: Mr Mueller is a decorated war veteran who, prior to taking the special counsel role was widely praised for his
independence and probity. He was appointed FBI head by Republican George W Bush in 2001. If Mr Mueller's waiver had explosive details
indicating clear bias, it probably would have leaked by now.
"... The letters come a week after speculation that Trump wanted Mueller fired over recent revelations that two former FBI agents, assigned to investigate the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, had sent each other hundreds of 'anti-Trump' text messages during the campaign and election. ..."
More than 40 bipartisan former government officials and attorneys [Deep State globalists] are telling President Trump and Congress
to leave Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller alone so he can do his 'job.'
In two letters, the former U.S. attorneys and Republican and conservative officials pushed back against efforts to discredit the
special counsel investigating [alleged] Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The letters come a week after speculation that Trump wanted Mueller fired over recent revelations that two former FBI agents,
assigned to investigate the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, had sent each other hundreds of 'anti-Trump' text
messages during the campaign and election.
"... "I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that out," former CIA director John Brennan said of the possibility of Donald Trump firing special counsel Robert Mueller. "I would just hope that this is not going to be a partisan issue. That Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and something needs to be done for the good of the future. ..."
"... The American people, after all, elected Trump. Rod Rosenstein elected Mueller. ..."
"... A self-flattering interpretation by the puppeteers imagines Trump voters as Pap Finns resentful of the mere existence of the edumacated elites. Cultural tics surely explain part of this divide. But more so do frustrations with votes repeatedly resulting in policies unwanted by voters. Brennan encouraging employees of the executive branch to subvert the executive comes off as too analogous to the unelected continually sabotaging the will of the electorate that directly caused Trump's election. Trump's supporters certainly see it this way. This fight is an extension of the overall fight that colored the presidential election. ..."
Last year, the marionettes rebelled. Naturally, the Great Puppeteer Counter-revolt of
2017 followed.
"I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that
out," former CIA director John Brennan said of the possibility of Donald Trump firing special
counsel Robert Mueller. "I would just hope that this is not going to be a partisan issue. That
Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and
something needs to be done for the good of the future. "
Leaving aside the imprudence of the president firing the man investigating his campaign's
alleged ties to Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump certainly possesses the right
to dismiss Mueller. Unelected people who work for the man elected president do not possess the
right to thwart the legal directives of their boss.
The American people, after all, elected Trump. Rod Rosenstein elected Mueller.
A fine line exists between anonymous, unelected, unaccountable government officials
undermining the president's legal directives and such people working to overturn the results of
last year's election. One might argue the two as one in the same differing only in degree.
Did the Russians meddle in our electoral process in 2016 or do entrenched bureaucrats do so
on a constant basis? How one answers that question dictates one's response to this current
controversy.
November's results, one might think, would have sparked epiphanies. Americans voted for a
populist outsider to, in his words, "drain the swamp." Brennan's words indicate that the swamp
thrives six months after inauguration. The election neither hastened the drain nor chastened
the creatures from the swamp. As the late, great Stan Evans oft reflected, people go to
Washington imagining it a swamp only to soon regard it as a hot tub. Who wants to vacate a hot
tub?
A self-flattering interpretation by the puppeteers imagines Trump voters as Pap Finns
resentful of the mere existence of the edumacated elites. Cultural tics surely explain part of
this divide. But more so do frustrations with votes repeatedly resulting in policies unwanted
by voters. Brennan encouraging employees of the executive branch to subvert the executive comes
off as too analogous to the unelected continually sabotaging the will of the electorate that
directly caused Trump's election. Trump's supporters certainly see it this way. This fight is
an extension of the overall fight that colored the presidential election.
Consider any massive change in America over the last half century or so. The demographic sea
change in the United States occurred in large part in spite, not because, of U.S. immigration
laws. Courts, not the people, determined the legal status of abortion, gay marriage, school
prayer, and much else. On important questions regarding the environment, the internet, and
health care unelected bureaucrats make the rules under which we live. Such policy
change exposes the metachange of process change that allows unelected people to
impose their will on massive numbers of people. Tolerating the hijacking of policy soon leads
to empowered hijackers thinking they can hijack the presidency.
The Constitution decrees, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government." Do the deep-state puppeteers imagine that this principle does
not apply to Washington?
Donald Trump attempts to bring down the curtain on the long-running Puppet Show on the
Potomac. Naturally, Charlie McCarthy finds this more liberating than Edgar Bergen
The House Intelligence Committee has asked the former CEO of President Donald Trump's 2016
presidential campaign, Stephen K. Bannon, to appear before them for an interview as part of
their ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Bannon received a letter this week from the committee. In the letter, the committee requests
that he appear in early January, according to Bloomberg:
"The invitation, which didn't come in the form of a subpoena compelling them to testify,
was for a "voluntary interview" in the committee's offices, which means it would be held
behind closed doors, the official said."
Former Trump presidential campaign manager Corey Lewandowski also received a letter
requesting he speak with the committee in January.
The report further reveals that the letters to Bannon and Lewandowski don't specify reasons
for the interview beyond relation to the committee's ongoing investigation into any Russian
meddling in the 2016 election. At the time of the report, the committee had not received
responses from either Bannon or Lewandowski.
The second point we want to make, relates to Mueller himself who–far from being a "stand-up fellow" with a spotless record, and
an unshakable commitment to principle–is not the exemplar people seem to think he is. In fact, his personal integrity and credibility
are greatly in doubt. Here's a little background on Mueller from former-FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley who was named Time's Person
of the Year in 2002:
"Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law
improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens,
and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."
Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos
mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial" or "war presidency" powers, and
requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state of emergency."
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were
simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all"
surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers
who revealed these illegalities
Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak
out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11." ("Comey and Mueller: Russia-gate's Mythical
Heroes", Colleen Rowley, Counterpunch)
Illegal spying on American citizens? Infiltration of nonviolent anti-war groups? Martial law? Torture??
This is NOT how Mueller is portrayed in the media, is it?
The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at
all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and
public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning
to unravel.
Please, let Mueller stay to become a poster boy for borgistas. With each day, the incompetence of the CIA' and FBI' brass has
been revealing with the greater and greater clarity. They have sold out the US citizenry for personal gains.
Rod Rosenstein' role in particular should be well investigated so that his name becomes tightly connected to the "dossier" and
all its racy tales.
" there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been
probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to
believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that
should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments.
Even so, there's no evidence that a crime has been committed. None."
-- Anti-Consttutonal activity by Rod Rosenstein = Treason.
You mean, we should have better read the New Times and WaPo instead, in order to get the "gigantic scope of the investigation?"
-- Thank you very much. But these ziocons' nests have not provided any hard facts related to the main goal of this particular
investigation. However, a true and immense value of the investigation is the exposure of the incompetence of and political manipulations
by the FBI deciders -- as well as the sausage making under Clinton leadership in the DNC kitchen.
"It should have never been started. Trump and his administration screwed themselves."
– Disagree.
The investigation is the best thing for the US. It has exposed traitors (leakers) in the US government, the corruption of the
FBI (which provided the leaks and did not investigate the allegedly hacked DNC computers and white-washed Clinton's criminal negligence),
and the spectacular incompetence of the DNC-FBI deciders (the cooperation with foreigners in order to derail the governance of
the US by the elected POTUS). Cannot wait to hear more about Awan affair (the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity under the
watch of the current FBI brass) and about the investigation of Seth Rich murder.
For those familiar with Mueller, the blunt-force approach taken toward the GSA is something of a signature of Mueller and
his heavy-handed associates like Andrew Weissmann. As I have previously written, Mueller has a controversial record in attacking
attorney-client privilege as well as harsh tactics against targets. As a U.S. attorney, he was accused of bugging an attorney-client
conversation, and as special counsel he forced (with the approval of a federal judge) the attorney of Paul Manafort to become
a witness against her own client. Weissmann's record is even more controversial, including major reversals in past prosecutions
for exceeding the scope of the criminal code or questionable ethical conduct.
Nor will any be produced either. If Trump were to drop dead tomorrow or, alternatively, decide to pack it in and go back to
running hotels, Mueller's Star Chamber Committee would close down the day after. Mueller is a tool of The Powers That Be. And
they want Trump OUT -- no matter what the cost.
Now we can view Brennan testimony throw the prism of Steele dossier scandal and Strzok-gate
(with whom he who probably has direct contacts)
Please note that the interview was given directly after the appointment of the Special
Prosecutor Mueller and at this time many though that Trump was "fully cooked" and that neocon and
neoliberal swamp in Washington managed to consume him.
Former CIA Director John Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday that Russia
"brazenly interfered in the 2016 election process," despite U.S. efforts to warn it off.
Brennan testified in an open session of the committee, one of a handful of congressional
committees now investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Brennan said he told his Russian counterpart, the head of Russia's FSB, last August that if
Russia pursued its efforts to interfere, "it would destroy any near-term prospect for
improvement in relations" between the two countries. He said Russia denied any attempts to
interfere.
In his opening statement, Brennan also recounted how he had briefed congressional leaders in
August of last year, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, R-Ky., and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence
Committees about the "full details" of what he knew of Russia's interference in the 2016
election. Brennan said he became convinced last summer that Russia was trying to interfere in
the campaign, saying "they were very aggressive."
Brennan said he is "aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and
interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign."
Brennan said that concerned him, "because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals,"
and that it raised questions about whether or not the Russians "were able to gain the
cooperation of those individuals." Brennan added he didn't know if "collusion existed" between
the Russians and those he identified as involved in the Trump campaign.
While Brennan would not specifically identify any individuals associated with the Trump
campaign who had contacts with Russian officials and would not opine as to whether there was
any collusion or collaboration, he did tell lawmakers why he was concerned about the contacts
occurring against the general background of Russian efforts to meddle in the election. Brennan
said he's studied Russian intelligence activities over the years, and how Russian intelligence
services have been able to get people to betray their country. "Frequently, individuals on a
treasonous path do not even realize they're on that path until it gets to be too late," he
said.
Brennan said Russia was motivated to back Donald Trump in the presidential election because
of a "traditional animus" between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Russian President
Vladimir Putin. He told committee members there had not been a good relationship between Putin
and the Clintons over the years. What's more, Brennan said Putin blamed Hillary Clinton's
actions as secretary of state during the Obama administration for domestic disturbances inside
Russia. He said Putin was concerned Clinton would be more "rigid" on issues such as human
rights if elected president.
But Brennan told the committee he believed that Russia anticipated that Clinton would be the
likely winner of the presidential race, and that Russia tried to "damage and bloody" her before
Election Day. Had she won, Brennan said, Russia would have continued to attempt to "denigrate
her and hurt her" during her presidency. If Russia had collected more information about Clinton
that they did not use against her during the campaign, Brennan said they were likely
"husbanding it for another day."
On another question, Brennan criticized President Trump's reported sharing of classified
intelligence with Russia officials. Brennan said if reports were accurate, Trump violated
"protocols" by sharing the information with Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the
U.S.
Brennan also said he was "very concerned" by the release of what he said appears to be
classified information from the Trump administration. He said there appear to be "very, very
damaging leaks, and I find them appalling and they need to be tracked down."
Reacting to Brennan's testimony, a White House spokesman said "This morning's hearings back
up what we've been saying all along: that despite a year of investigation, there is still no
evidence of any Russia-Trump campaign collusion, that the President never jeopardized
intelligence sources or sharing, and that even Obama's CIA Director believes the leaks of
classified information are 'appalling' and the culprits must be 'tracked down.'"
Under questioning from Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., Brennan said the Russians have been
trying to disrupt Western elections since the 1960s, and that they've quickly adapted to the
times. Brennan pointed to the ease with which Russia was able to hack Democratic operatives'
emails, which were then published on WikiLeaks.
"The cyber-environment now really provides so much more opportunity for troublemaking and
the Russians take advantage of it," he said. Brennan said the use of spear phishing, and
"whatever else so that they can then gain access to people's emails, computer systems
networks," is something that the Russians are adept at.
He said Russia used WikiLeaks as a "cut-out," or go-between, and that protests by WikiLeaks
that it is not working with Russia and Russia's claims it is not working with WikiLeaks are
"disingenuous."
The rule for retired intelligence officials is to keep their mouth shut and disappear from
the public view. This not the case with Brennan. Probably worried about his survival chances in
case of failure, Brennan tries to justified the "putsch" of a faction of intelligence officials
against Trump. Nice... Now we have indirect proof that he conspired with Michael Morell to depose
legitimately elected president.
Now the question arise whether he worked with MI6 to create Steele dossier. In other words
did CIA supplied some information that went to the dossier.
Moreover, since JFK assassination, the CIA is prohibited from spying on American citizens,
especially tracking the activities of associates of a presidential candidate, which is clearly
political activity.
This alone should have sent warning bells off for Congress critters, yet Brennan clearly
persisted in following this dangerous for him and CIA trail. Very strange.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous ..."
"... The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides . ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it. ..."
"... It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. ..."
"... In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence. ..."
"... Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials. ..."
"... It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result. ..."
"... "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ." ..."
"... US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/ ..."
"... The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. ..."
"... Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason. ..."
"... Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface. ..."
"... "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned." ..."
"... This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist. ..."
"... What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships. ..."
"... "Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal". ..."
The Washington Post and a number
of other mainstream media outlets are sensing blood in the water in the wake of former CIA
Director John Brennan's public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The Post
headlined a front page featured article with
Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The
article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed
'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump
campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled
Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .
The precise money quote by Brennan that the two
articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that
revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the
Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the
co-operation of those individuals."
Now first of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the
activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off,
yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe, because it
was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know from the New
York Times and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services, including the
British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at
least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan
unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear
that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and
elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.
But where the information ultimately came from as well as its reliability is just
speculation as the source documents have not been made public. What is not speculative is what
Brennan actually said in his testimony. He said that Americans associated with Trump and his
campaign had met with Russians. He was "concerned" because of known Russian efforts to "suborn
such individuals." Note that Brennan, presumably deliberately, did not say "suborn those
individuals." Sure, Russian intelligence (and CIA, MI-6, and Mossad as well as a host of
others) seek to recruit people with access to politically useful information. That is what they
do for a living, but Brennan is not saying that he has or saw any evidence that that was the
case with the Trump associates. He is speaking generically of "such individuals" because he
knows that spies, inter alia , recruit politicians and the Russians presumably, like the
Americans and British, do so aggressively.
At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in
my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved
in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting
fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents
voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it.
It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented
meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the
purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do
things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and
acting Director of the CIA, should know better. That they don't explains a lot of things
about today's CIA
Brennan confirms his lack of any hard evidence when he also poses the question "whether or
not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." He doesn't know whether the
Americans were approached and asked to cooperate by Russian intelligence officers and, even if
they were, he does not know whether they agreed to do so. That means that the Americans in
question were guilty only of meeting and talking to Russians, which was presumably enough to
open an FBI investigation. One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia
was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense.
In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly
everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the
outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia
was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has
been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly
everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly
lacking in any actual evidence.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) server, which now is accepted as Gospel, but that is just
one side to the story being promoted. Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its
front page with a piece entitled Top
Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on
anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American
spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and
political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his
advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly
focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had
established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials.
The article goes on to concede that "It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials
actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn ," and that's about all there
is to the tale, though the Times wanders on for another three pages, recapping Brennan
and the Flynn saga lest anyone has forgotten. So what do we have? Russians were talking on the
phone about the possibility of influencing an American's presidential candidate's advisers, an
observation alluded to by Brennan and also revealed in somewhat more detail by anonymous
sources. Pretty thin gruel, isn't it? Isn't that what diplomats and intelligence officers
do?
It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United
States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places
including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria,
Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point
of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem
when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even
if it almost never has that result.
How one regards all of the dreck coming out of the Fourth Estate and poseurs like John
Brennan pretty much depends on the extent one is willing to trust that what the government, its
highly-politicized bureaucrats and the media tell the public is true. For me, that would be not
a lot. The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable, but buying into
government and media lies will only lead to more lies that have real consequences, up to and
including the impending wars against North Korea and Iran. It is imperative that every American
should question everything he or she reads in a newspaper, sees on television "news" or hears
coming out of the mouths of former and current government employees.
Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. It's lonely standing against the tide, and many are
trying to fabricate excuses for the lack of evidence.
Take Melvin Goodman, author of Whistleblower at the CIA, for instance. (I realize CIA is a
big place, but did you know him?) I've met Mr. Goodman, and he struck me as thoughtful,
rational and capable of objective discussion. However, in his talk at the Gaithersburg Book
Festival, he seemed a rather different person. At the end of Q&A, he said that he was
trying to figure out how the Russians had laundered the "hacked" DNC emails to make it look
like they were leaked by an insider. He's sure the Russians did it. With such creative
speculation, who needs facts?
The book, though, is probably pretty good. Which makes it that much stranger that he's
taking the political line on the DNC emails!
Ah, another day, another disgraceful display by the media. Incidentally: "The
"discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ."
"Presumably" here is quite generous: I'd be tempted to presume a whole string of lies
.
It's like climate change: The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the
Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find
that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have
actually been the case. Nevertheless, the case is settled. Pravda and Izvestia should have
been so convinced in their day.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to
consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.
It all seems quite simple to me. After WWI the USA people decided that their sons should
not die ever more for imperialism. Isolation, neutrality laws. In 1932 Roosevelt was brought
into politics to make the USA great, great as the country controlling the world. Trump and
his rich friends understand that this policy is not just ruining the USA, but is ruining them
personally. If I'm right in this, it is the greatest change in USA foreign policy since
1932.
Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control
of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As
Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to
them is high treason.
@exiled off mainstreet The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war,
since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both
fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our
survival.
Is he an Anglo-Zionist? I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the
article
Is someone going to look in to how the Izzys influence our politicians and elections? No.
Why? Because Russia is the "enemy" and Israel is our "ally." Can someone explain in simple
terms why Russia is the enemy? Yes. Because Jews don't like them very much. Can someone
explain in simple terms why Israel is our ally? Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN,
Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual
citizenship, etc. And because every president just can't wait to wear the beanie and
genuflect at some wall. Any other questions?
" One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is
not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense".
Although in point of fact the USA has committed, and continues to commit, acts of war
against Russia.
"Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major
newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. "
Let's not forget 911 and it's ongoing coverup, the State Dept's Bureau of Near Eastern
Affairs exemplifying our bestest ally's parallel command and control apparatus in every
federal agency such as the FBI, etc
The only problem I have with the article is understanding the vehemence with which Brennan
and Morell are denounced for, as I read it, blathering about unwitting agents who might have
co-operated without knowing it. I construed the objection to be based on a foreign
intelligence service necessarily seeking to "direct" its agents. It would indeed follow that
the agents could not help knowing what they were doing. However .
Is there not a category of people who Brennan and Morell might be referring to who could
be aptly described as useful idiots. You meet them at a writer's festival, invite them to
accept your country's generous and admiring hospitality and soon have them spouting the memes
you have made sure they are fed as well inadvertently feeding you useful titbits of
information, especially about people.
I think something fascinating is going on, Tom. Our leaders made a choice to defraud us
into the Iraq war. Russia didn't. This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero
accountability. It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for
having done this, are the one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.
The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes
THEY committed, not anything the Russians did. If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go
unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior. I do not know of one American,
anywhere, who feels this is okay.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that
hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server
It doesn't matter. Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar
question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch.
Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess.,
while the answer was so close, on the surface.
"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to
interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who
typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a
typical Russian technique. So we were concerned."
I know some others actually know you cannot believe spies. Some on the other hand so
not.
Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media. It is no longer disputed that
the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and
journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.
August 30, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW By Prof. James F.
Tracy
Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in
US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears
and reads on a regular basis.
@alexander Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American – I
am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here
– in miniature – with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their
jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.
I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so
largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue
explains very clearly how it works.
-------------------------------------–
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did
not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and
destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob
on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come
back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia
nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert
@Tom Welsh I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is
true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking
himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over
the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at
least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack
Poland. The trap worked.
@Agent76 That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the
CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough. The CIA is not a secret
service, it is a secret army. This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly
for the USA market, when funds for the CIA's war in Afghanistan were insufficient.
@alexander It is.
After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report
of considerable size. What happened ? Nothing. Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud
in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.
Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State's Voter
Database
While most of the country frets over Russia's role in the 2016 election, the state of
Georgia has come forward saying that they've traced an IP from a hack of their voter database
right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus
on protecting our vote from our own government.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider
even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular
profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine
(initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started
immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but
this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was
confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media
on Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and
Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne
Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
Unfortunately for you and myself there are literally millions of people in America who do
not think or challenge what they read or view as we do apparently. Thanks, *government
schooling* .
Mar 6, 2017 Drug Boss Escobar Worked for the CIA
The notorious cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar worked closely with the CIA, according to his
son. In this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the long history of CIA
involvement in the international narcotics trade, beginning with its collaboration with the
French Mafia to using drug money to illegally fund the Contras and overthrow the Sandinista
government in Nicaragua.
I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he
sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself
care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the
Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least
since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland.
The trap worked.
What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the
form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key
sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what
the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist
scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it
works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.
As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that
holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and
came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who
assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the
British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA
would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much
mistaken.
"Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very
much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery
to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference,
it would be illegal".
@Tom Welsh Well, another ruler also stated this, "Education is a weapon whose effects
depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Joseph Stalin
Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel
that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make
the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed
by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on
Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela,
has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an
American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014
I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a
Zio-bankster-quisling.
PG:
the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken
in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.
getting to the crux of the matter
when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan /
Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine
(some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate
Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking".
The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as
you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])
has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria
and elsewhere too.
All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll
eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery.
Which brings us to this curious comment..
The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,
what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!
So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know
the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made
symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the
zio-media/AIPAC/etc..
His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the
apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.
In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on
the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.
And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at
Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's
need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets
them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get
to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than
anything else.
"... Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way. ..."
"... And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. ..."
"... Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him. But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map where I live. ..."
I was raised by Democrats, and used to vote for them. But these days, I think heck would
freeze over before I'd vote Democrat again. From my point of view, Bernie tried to pull them
back to sanity. But the hard core Clinton-corporate-corrupt Democrats have declared war on
any movement for reform within the Democratic Party. And there is no way that I'm voting for
any of these corrupt-corporate Democrats ever again.
Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been
around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way
forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way.
We saw the way the corrupt-corporate Democrats colluded and rigged the last Presidential
Primaries so that Corrupt-Corporate-Clinton was guaranteed the corrupt-corporate Democrat
nomination. That's a loud and clear message to anyone who thinks they can achieve change
within the corrupt-corporate-colluding-rigged Democratic Party.
Since I've always been anti-war, I've been forced to follow what anti-war movement there
is over to the Republicans. And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the
Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous
primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. That never happened, and by 2012 I was
convinced that even the fake-reformers within the corrupt-corporate Democrats were fakes who
only wanted fund-raising but didn't really fight for reform.
Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to
voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the
only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the
Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the
loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him.
But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in
primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map
where I live.
Neither party is on our side. The establishment in both parties is crooked and corrupt.
Someone needs to fight them. And I sure as heck won't vote for the corrupt and the crooked.
Since the Democrats are doubling down on corrupt and crooked and telling such big lies that
even Goebbels would blush, it doesn't look like I'll ever vote Dem0crat again.
"... RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations? ..."
"... MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution. ..."
"... WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. ..."
"... Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a sembl ..."
"... At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks. ..."
"... MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year. ..."
"... MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day. ..."
"... MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time. ..."
"... Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge? ..."
"... COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made? ..."
"... MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas. ..."
"... LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward? ..."
"... MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely. ..."
"... LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey? ..."
"... MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs? ..."
"... STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks. ..."
"... HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources? ..."
"... MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced. ..."
"... MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that ..."
"... POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign intelligence organization. ..."
what is interesting is that whuile answering "yes" about Russian interference in election is
safe answer, the real quesion is whehther Russian intergfernce exceed in scope British (Stele
dossier), Israel (via Kushner) and Saudi interference to name a few. If no this is a witch
hunt. Russia is just another neoliberal state, so why it can be a threat to the US neoliberalm
and empire is unlear. It does has its own interests in former USSR space. How would the US
react if Russia halped to depose legitimate goverment in Mexico and started to supply arms in
order to get back California, Texas and Florida which new government would consider were
occupied by the the USA illegally? the fact that Russia does not want ot be Washington vassal
is not illegal. And there is nothing criminal in attempts to resist the spread of the US
neoliberal empire on xUSSR space.
SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: Intelligence community assessment accurately characterized the
extent of Russian activities in the 2016 election and its conclusion that Russian
intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking and leaking of information and using
misinformation to influence our elections? Simple yes or no would suffice.
ROBERT CARDILLO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: I do. Yes, sir.
STEWART: Yes, Senator.
ROGERS: Yes I do.
DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE : Yes I do.
MIKE POMPEO, DIRECTOR, CIA: Yes.
MCCABE: Yes.
WARNER: And I guess the presumption there -- or the next presumption, I won't even ask
this question is consequently that committee assess -- or that community assessment was
unanimous and is not a piece of fake news or evidence of some other individual or nation
state other than Russia. So I appreciate that again for the record.
I warned you Mr. McCabe I was going to have to get you on the record as well on this. Mr.
McCabe for as long as you are Acting FBI Director do you commit to informing this committee
of any effort to interfere with the FBI's ongoing investigation into links between Russia and
the Trump campaign?
MCCABE: I absolutely do.
WARNER: Thank you so much for that. I think in light of what's happened in the last 48
hours it's critically important that we have that assurance and I hope you'll relay, at least
from me to the extraordinary people that work at the FBI that this committee supports them,
supports their efforts, support their professionalism and supports their independence.
MCCABE: I will sir, thank you.
WARNER: In light of the fact that we just saw French elections where it felt like deja vu
all over again in terms of the release of a series of e-mails against Mr. Macron days before
the election and the fact that this committee continues to investigate the type of tactics
that Russia has used.
Where do we stand, as a country, of preparation to make sure this doesn't happen again in
2018 and 2020 -- where have we moved in terms of collaboration with state voting -- voter
files, in terms of working more with the tech community, particularly the platform --
platform entities in terms of how we can better assure real news versus fake news, is there
some general sense -- Director Coats I know you've only been in the job for a short period of
time -- of how we're going to have a strategic effort? Because while it was Russia in 2016
other nation states could -- you know -- launch similar type assaults.
COATS: Well, we are -- we will continue to use all the assets that we have in terms of
collection and analysis relative to what the influence has been and potentially could be in
future. Russians have spread this across the globe -- interestingly enough I met with the
Prime Minister of Montenegro the latest nation to join NATO, the number 29 nation, what was
the main topic?
Russian interference in their political system. And so it does -- it sweeps across Europe
and other places. It's clear though, the Russians have upped their game using social media
and other opportunities that we -- in ways that we haven't seen before. So it's a great
threat to our -- our democratic process and our job here is to provide the best intelligence
we can to the policy makers to -- as they develop a strategy in terms of how to best reflect
a response to this.
WARNER: Well one of the things I'm concerned about is, we've all expressed this concern
but since this doesn't fall neatly into any particular agency's jurisdiction you know, who's
-- who's taking the point on interacting with the platform companies like the Google,
Facebook and Twitter, who's taking the point in terms of interacting DHS image in terms of
state boards of election? How are we trying to ensure that our systems more secure, and if we
can get a brief answer on that because I got one last question for Admiral Rogers.
COATS: Well, I think the -- the obviously, our office tasks and takes the point, but
there's contribution from agencies across the I.C. We will -- I've asked Director Pompeo to
address that and others that might want to address that also. But each of us -- each of the
agencies to the extent that they can and have the capacity whether its NSA though SIGINT,
whether it's NSA through human or other sources will provide information to us that we want
to use as a basis to provide to our -- to our policymakers.
Relative to a grand strategy, I am not aware right now of any -- I think we're still
assessing the impact. We have not put a grand strategy together, which would not be our
purview, we would provide the basis of intelligence that would then be the foundation for
what that strategy would be.
WARNER: My hope -- my hope would be that we need to be proactive in this. We don't want to
be sitting here kind of looking back at it after 2018 election cycle. Last question, very
briefly, Admiral Rogers do you have any doubt that the Russians were behind the intervention
in the French elections?
ROGERS: I -- let me phrase it this way, we are aware of some Russian activity directed
against the Russian -- excuse me, directed against the French election process. As I
previously said before Congress earlier this week, we in fact reached out to our French
counterparts to say, we have become aware of this activity, we want to make you aware, what
are you seeing?
I'm not in a position to have looked at the breadth of the French infrastructure. So I'm
-- I'm not really in a position to make a whole simple declaratory statement.
WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BURR: Senator Rubio?
RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any
individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr.
Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any
investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations?
MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite
any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our
investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from
doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution.
RUBIO: And this is for all the members of the committee, as has been widely reported, and
people know this, Kaspersky Lab software is used by not hundreds of thousands, millions of
Americans. To each of our witnesses I would just ask, would any of you be comfortable with
the Kaspersky Lab software on your computers?
COATS: A resounding no, from me.
POMPEO: No.
MCCABE: No, Senator.
ROGERS: No, sir.
STEWART: No, Senator.
CARDILLO: No, sir.
... ... ...
POMPEO: I'll -- I'll let Mr. McCabe make a comment as well, but yes, of course. Frankly,
this is consistent with what -- right, this is the -- the -- the attempt to interfere in
United States is not limited to Russia. The Cubans have deep ties, it is in their deepest
tradition to take American visitors and do their best influence of the way that is in adverse
to U.S. interests.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. Fully agree, we share your concerns about that issue.
RUBIO: And my final question is on -- all this focus on Russia and what's happened in the
past is that the opinion of all of you -- or those of -- you certainly all have insight on
this. That even as we focus on 2016 and the efforts leading up to that election, efforts to
influence policy making here in the United States vis-a-vis the Russian interests are ongoing
that the Russians continue to use active measures; even at this moment, even on this day.
To try, through the use of multiple different ways, to influence the political debate and
the decisions made in American politics; particularly as they pertain to Russia's interests
around the world. In essence, these active measures is an ongoing threat, not simply
something that happened in the past.
MCCABE: Yes, sir, that's right.
POMPEO: Senator, it's right. In some sense, though, we've got to put it in context, this
has been going on for a long time. There's -- there's nothing new. Only the cost has been
lessened, the cost of doing it.
COATS: I -- I would just add that the use of cyber and social media has significantly
increased the impact and the capabilities that -- obviously this has been done for years and
years. Even decades. But the ability they have to -- to use the interconnectedness and -- and
all the -- all that that provides, that didn't provide before I -- they literally upped their
game to the point where it's having a significant impact.
ROGERS: From my perspective I would just highlight cyber is enabling them to access
information in massive quantities that weren't quite obtainable to the same level previously
and that's just another tool in their attempt to acquire information, misuse of that
information, manipulation, outright lies, inaccuracies at time.
But other times, actually dumping raw data which is -- as we also saw during this last
presidential election cycle for us.
... ... ...
COATS: I can't speak to how many agents of -- of the U.S. government are as cognizant as
perhaps we should be but I certainly think that, given China's aggressive approach relative
to information gathering and -- and all the things that you mentioned merits a -- a review of
CFIUS in terms of whether or not it is -- needs to have some changes or innovations to -- to
address the aggressive -- aggressive Chinese actions not just against or companies, but
across the world.
They -- they clearly have a strategy through their investments, they've started a major
investment bank -- you name a park of the world Chinese probably are -- are there looking to
put investments in. We've seen the situation in Djibouti where they're also adding military
capability to their investment, strategic area for -- on the Horn of Africa there that --
that you wouldn't necessarily expect. But they're active in Africa, Northern Africa, they're
active across the world.
Their one belt, one road process opens -- opens their trade and -- and what other interest
they have to the Indian Ocean in -- and a different way to address nations that they've had
difficulty connecting with. So it's a -- it's clearly an issue that we ought to take a look
at.
... ... ...
WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room
but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a semblance of ethics. Director Comey
should be here this morning testifying to the American people about where the investigation
he's been running stands.
At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into
connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information
didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in
recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have
forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly
that he loved WikiLeaks.
So the question is not whether Donald Trump actively encouraged the Russians and WikiLeaks
to attack our democracy, he did; that is an established fact. The only question is whether he
or someone associated with him coordinated with the Russians.
Now, Mr. McCabe, the president's letter to Director Comey asserted that on three separate
occasions the director informed him that he was not under investigations. Would it have been
wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigations? Yes or no?
MCCABE: Sir, I'm not going to comment on any conversations that the director may have had
with the president...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: I didn't ask that. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was
not under investigation? That's not about conversations, that's yes or no answer.
MCCABE: As you know, Senator. We typically do not answer that question. I will not comment
on whether or not the director and the president of the United States had that
conversation.
WYDEN: Will you refrain from these kinds of alleged updates to the president or anyone
else in the White House on the status of the investigation?
MCCABE: I will.
WYDEN: Thank you.
Director Pompeo, one of the few key unanswered questions is why the president didn't fire
Michael Flynn after Acting Attorney General Yates warned the White House that he could be
blackmailed by the Russians. Director Pompeo, did you know about the acting attorney
general's warnings to the White House or were you aware of the concerns behind the
warning?
POMPEO: I -- I don't have any comment on that.
WYDEN: Well, were you aware of the concerns behind the warning? I mean, this is a global
threat. This is a global threat question, this is a global threat hearing. Were you...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: Tell me...
(CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: Were you aware?
POMPEO: Senator, tell me what global threat it is you're concerned with, please. I'm not
sure I understand the question.
WYDEN: Well, the possibility of blackmail. I mean, blackmail by a influential military
official, that has real ramifications for the global threat. So this is not about a policy
implication, this is about the national security advisor being vulnerable to blackmail by the
Russians. And the American people deserve to know whether in these extraordinary
circumstances the CIA kept them safe.
POMPEO: Yes, sir, the CIA's kept America safe. And...
WYDEN: So...
POMPEO: And the people at the Central Intelligence Agency are committed to that and will
remain committed to that. And we will...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... do that in the face of...
WYDEN: You won't answer the question...
POMPEO: We will do that in the face of political challenges that come from any direction,
Senator.
WYDEN: But, you will not answer the question of whether or not you were aware of the
concerns behind the Yates warning.
POMPEO: Sir, I don't know exactly what you're referring to with the Yates warning, I -- I
-- I wasn't part of any of those conversations. I -- I... (CROSSTALK)
WYDEN: The Yates warning was...
(CROSSTALK)
POMPEO: ... I have no first hand information with respect to the warning that was
given.
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: She didn't make that warning to me. I -- I can't -- I can't answer that question,
Senator...
WYDEN: OK.
POMPEO: ... as much as I would like to.
WYDEN: OK.
Director Coats, how concerned are you that a Russian government oil company, run by a
Putin crony could end up owning a significant percentage of U.S. oil refining capacity and
what are you advising the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States about
this?
COATS: I don't have specific information relative to that. I think that's something that
potentially, we could provide intelligence on in terms of what this -- what situation might
be, but...
WYDEN: I'd like you to furnace that in writing. Let me see if I can get one other question
in, there have been mountains of press stories with allegations about financial connections
between Russia and Trump and his associates. The matters are directly relevant to the FBI and
my question is, when it comes to illicit Russian money and in particular, it's potential to
be laundered on its way to the United States, what should the committee be most concerned
about?
We hear stories about Deutsche Bank, Bank of Cypress, Shell companies in Moldova, the
British Virgin Islands. I'd like to get your sense because I'm over my time. Director McCabe,
what you we most -- be most concerned about with respect to illicit Russian money and its
potential to be laundered on its way the United States?
MCCABE: Certainly sir. So as you know, I am not in the position to be able to speak about
specific investigations and certainly not in this setting. However, I will confirm for you
that those are issues that concern us greatly.
They have traditionally and they do even more so today, as it becomes easier to conceal
the origin and the -- and the track and the destination of purpose of illicit money flows, as
the exchange of information becomes more clouded in encryption and then more obtuse, it
becomes harder and harder to get to the bottom of those investigations. That would shed light
on those issues.
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator Risch?
RISCH: Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I -- the purpose of this hearing as the chairman
expressed is to give the American people some insight into what we all do, which they don't
see pretty much at all. And so I think what I want to do is I want to make an observation and
then I want to get your take on it, anybody who wants to volunteer. And I'm going to start
with you Director Coats, to volunteer.
My -- I have been -- I've been on this committee all the time I've been here in the Senate
and all through the last administration. And I have been greatly impressed by the current
administrations hitting the ground running during the first hundred days, as far as their
engagement on intelligence matters and their engagement with foreign countries. The national
media here is focused on domestic issues which is of great interest to the American people be
it healthcare, be it personnel issues in the government.
And they don't -- the -- the media isn't as focused on this administrations fast, and in
my judgment, robust engagement with the intelligence communities around the world and with
other governments. And my impression is that it's good and it is aggressive. And I want --
I'd like you're -- I'd like your impression of where we're going. Almost all of you had real
engagement in the last administration and all the administrations are different. So Director
Coats, you want to take that on to start with?
COATS: I'd be happy to start with that, I think most presidents that come into office come
with an agenda in mind in terms of what issues they'd like to pursue, many of them issues
that effect -- domestic issues that affect infrastructure and education and a number of
things only to find that this is dangerous world, that the United States -- that the threats
that exist out there need to be -- be given attention to.
This president, who I think the perception was not interested in that, I think Director
Pompeo and I can certify the fact that we have spent far more hours in the Oval Office than
we anticipated. The president is a voracious consumer of information and asking questions and
asking us to provide intelligence. I -- we are both part of a process run through the
national security council, General McMaster, all through the deputy's committees and the
principal's committees consuming hours and hours of time looking at the threats, how do we
address those threats, what is the intelligence that tells us -- that informs the policy
makers in terms of how they put a strategy in place.
And so what I initially thought would be a one or two time a week, 10 to 15 minute quick
brief, has turned into an everyday, sometimes exceeding 45 minutes to an hour or more just in
briefing the president. We have -- I have brought along several of our directors to come and
show the president what their agencies do and how important it is the info -- that the
information they provide how that -- for the basis of making policy decisions.
I'd like to turn to my CIA colleague to get -- let him give you, and others, to give you
their impression.
RISCH: I appreciate that. We're almost out of time but I did -- Director Pompeo you kind
of sit in the same spot we all sit in through the last several years and I kind of like your
observations along the line of Director Coats, what you feel about the matter?
POMPEO: Yeah, I think Director Coats had it right. He and I spend time with the president
everyday, briefing him with the most urgent intelligence matters that are presented to us as
-- in our roles. He asks good, hard questions. Make us go make sure we're doing our work in
the right way.
Second, you asked about engagement in the world. This administration has reentered the
battle space in places the administration -- the previous administration was completely
absent. You all travel some too...
RISCH: Yes.
POMPEO: ... you will hear that when you go travel. I've now taken two trips to places and
they welcome American leadership. They're not looking for American soldiers, they're not
looking for American boots on the ground, they're looking for American leadership around the
globe and this president has reentered that space in a way that I think will serve America's
interest very well.
RISCH: Yeah I -- I couldn't agree more and we -- we deal with them not only overseas but
they come here, as you know, regularly.
POMPEO: Yes sir.
RISCH: And the fact that the president has pulled the trigger twice as he has in -- in the
first 100 days and -- and done it in a fashion that didn't start a world war and -- and was
watched by both our friends and our enemies has made a significant and a huge difference as
far as our standing in the world. My time's up. Thank you very much Mr. Chair.
WARNER: Thank you Senator.
Senator Heinrich.
HEINRICH: Director McCabe you -- you obviously have several decades of law enforcement
experience, is it -- is it your experience that people who are innocent of wrong doing
typically need to be reassured that they're not the subject of an investigation?
MCCABE: No sir.
HEINRICH: And I ask that because I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the dismissal
letter from -- earlier this week from the president where he writes, "While I greatly
appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation."
And I'm still trying to figure out why that would even make it into a dismissal letter. But
let me go to something a little more direct.
Director, has anyone in the White House spoken to you directly about the Russia
investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
HEINRICH: Let me -- when -- when did you last meet with the president, Director
McCabe?
MCCABE: I don't think I -- I'm in...
HEINRICH: Was it earlier this week?
MCCABE: ... the position to comment on that. I have met with the president this week, but
I really don't want to go into the details of that.
HEINRICH: OK. But Russia did not come up?
MCCABE: That's correct, it did not.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you. We've heard in the news that -- that -- claims that Director
Comey had -- had lost the confidence of rank and file FBI employees. You've been there for 21
years, in your opinion is it accurate that the rank and file no longer supported Director
Comey?
MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very
closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive
assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the
Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year.
MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have
the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the
greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also
that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day.
We are a large organization, we are 36,500 people across this country, across this globe.
We have a diversity of opinions about many things, but I can confidently tell you that the
majority -- the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection to
Director Comey.
HEINRICH: Thank you for your candor. Do you feel like you have the adequate resources for
the existing investigations that the -- that the bureau is invested in right now to -- to
follow them wherever they may lead?
MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the
adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately.
If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we
face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become
an issue over time.
HEINRICH: Sure.
MCCABE: But in terms of that investigation, sir, I can -- I can assure you we are
covered.
HEINRICH: Thank you.
Director Coats, welcome back. Would you agree that it is a national security risk to
provide classified information to an individual who has been compromised by a foreign
government as a broad matter.
COATS: As a broad matter, yes.
HEINRICH: If the attorney general came to you and said one of your employees was
compromised what -- what sort of action would you take?
COATS: I would take the action as prescribed in our procedures relative to how we report
this ad how it's -- how it is processed. I mean, it's a serious -- serious issue Our -- our
-- I would be consulting with our legal counsel and consulting with our inspector general and
others as to how -- how best to proceed with this, but obviously we will take action.
HEINRICH: Would -- would one of the options be dismissal, obviously?
COATS: Very potentially could be dismissal, yes.
HEINRICH: OK, thank you Director.
BURR: Senator Collins?
COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman.
Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into
Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge?
MCCABE: I mean we have many agents involved in the investigation at many levels so I'm not
who you're referring to.
COLLINS: The lead agent overseeing the investigation.
MCCABE: Certainly, almost all of the agents involved in the investigation are still in
their positions.
COLLINS: So has there been any curtailment of the FBI's activities in this important
investigation since Director Comey was fired?
MCCABE: Ma'am, we don't curtail our activities. As you know, has the -- are people
experiencing questions and are reacting to the developments this week? Absolutely.
COLLINS: Does that get in the way of our ability to pursue this or any other
investigation?
MCCABE: No ma'am, we continue to focus on our mission and get that job done.
COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your
opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional
resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian
active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact
made?
MCCABE: I cannot confirm that request was made. As you know ma'am, when we need resources,
we make those requests here. So I -- I don't -- I'm not aware of that request and it's not
consistent with my understanding of how we request additional resources.
That said, we don't typically request resources for an individual case. And as I
mentioned, I strongly believe that the Russian investigation is adequately resourced.
COLLINS: You've also been asked a question about target letters. Now, it's my understanding
that when an individual is the target of an investigation, at some point, a letter is sent
out notifying a individual that he is a target, is that correct?
MCCABE: No ma'am, I -- I don't believe that's correct.
COLLINS: OK. So before there is going to be an indictment, there is not a target letter
sent out by the Justice Department?
MCCABE: Not that I'm aware of.
COLLINS: OK that's contrary to my -- my understanding, but let me ask you the reverse.
MCCABE: Again, I'm looking at it from the perspective of the investigators. So that's not
part of our normal case investigative practice.
COLLINS: That would be the Justice Department, though. The Justice Department...
MCCABE: I see, I see...
COLLINS: I'm -- I'm asking you, isn't it standard practice when someone is the target of
an investigation and is perhaps on the verge of being indicted that the Justice Department
sends that individual what is known as a target letter?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am I'm going have to defer that question to the Department of Justice.
COLLINS: Well, let me ask you the -- the flip side of that and perhaps you don't know the
answer to this question but is it standard practice for the FBI to inform someone that they
are not a target of an investigation?
MCCABE: It is not.
COLLINS: So it would be unusual and not standard practice for there -- it -- for there to
have been a notification from the FBI director to President Trump or anyone else involved in
this investigation, informing him or her that that individual I not a target, is that
correct?
MCCABE: Again ma'am, I'm not going to comment on what Director Comey may or may not have
done.
COLLINS: I -- I'm not asking you to comment on the facts of the case, I'm just trying to
figure out what's standard practice and what's not.
MCCABE: Yes ma'am. I'm not aware of that being a standard practice.
COLLINS: Admiral Rogers, I want to follow up on Senator Warner's question to you about the
attempted interference in the French...
ROGERS: French.
COLLINS: ... election. Some researchers, including the cyber intelligence firm Flashpoint
claim that APT28 is the group that was behind the stealing of the -- and the leaking of the
information about the president elect of France, the FBI and DHS have publicly tied APT28 to
Russian intelligence services in the joint analysis report last year after the group's
involvement in stealing data that was leaked in the run up to the U.S. elections in
November.
Is the I.C. in a position to attribute the stealing and the leaking that took place prior
to the French election to be the result of activities by this group, which is linked to
Russian cyber activity?
ROGERS: Again ma'am, right now I don't think I have a complete picture of all the activity
associated with France but as I have said publicly, both today and previously, we are aware
of specific Russian activity directed against the French election cycle in the course --
particularly in the last few weeks.
To the point where we felt it was important enough we actually reached out to our French
counterparts to inform them and make sure they awareness of what we were aware of and also to
ask them, is there something we are missing that you are seeing?
COLLINS: Thank you.
BURR: Senator King.
KING: Mr. McCabe, thank you for being here today under somewhat difficult circumstances,
we appreciate your candor in your testimony.
On March 20th, Director Comey -- then Director Comey testified to the House of
Representative, "I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI,
as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts
to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of
any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government
and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russian efforts.
As with any counter intelligence investigation this will also include an assessment of
whether any crimes were committed." Is that statement still accurate?
MCCABE: Yes sir, it is.
KING: And how many agents are assigned to this project? How many -- or personnel generally
with the FBI, roughly?
MCCABE: Yeah, sorry I can't really answer those sorts of questions in this forum.
KING: Well, yesterday a White House press spokesman said that this is one of the smallest
things on the plate of the FBI, is that an accurate statement?
MCCABE: It is...
KING: Is this a small investigation in relation to all -- to all the other work that
you're doing?
MCCABE: Sir, we consider it to be a highly significant investigation.
KING: So you would not characterize it as one of the smallest things you're engaged
in?
MCCABE: I would not.
KING: Thank you.
Let me change the subject briefly. We're -- we've been talking about Russia and -- and
their involvement in this election. One of the issues of concern to me, and perhaps I can
direct this to -- well, I'll direct it to anybody in the panel. The allegation of Russian
involvement in our electoral systems, is that an issue that is of concern and what do we know
about that? And is that being up followed up on by this investigation.
Mr. McCabe, is that part of your investigation? No I'm -- I'm not talking about the
presidential election, I'm talking about state level election infrastructure.
MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The --
the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great
concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past
several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question
that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations
of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas.
So we've seen this once, we are better positioned to see it the next time. We're able to
improve not only our coordination with -- primarily through the Department of Homeland --
through DHS, their -- their expansive network and to the state and local election
infrastructure. But to interact with those folks to defend against ; whether it's cyber
attacks or any sort of influence driven interactions.
KING: Thank you, I think that's a very important part of this issue.
Admiral Rogers, yesterday a camera crew from TAS (ph) was allowed into the Oval Office.
There was not any American press allowed, was there any consultation with you with regard to
that action in terms of the risk of some kind of cyber penetration or communications in that
incident?
ROGERS: No.
KING: Were you -- you were -- your agency wasn't consulted in any way?
ROGERS: Not that I'm aware of. I wouldn't expect that to automatically be the case; but
no, not that I'm aware of.
KING: Did it raise any concerns when you saw those pictures that those cameramen and crew
were in the Oval Office without....
ROGERS: I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of where the imaged came from.
KING: All right, thank you.
Mr. Coats -- Director Coats, you're -- you're -- you lead the intelligence community. Were
you consulted at all with regard to the firing of Director Comey?
COATS: I was not.
KING: So you had no -- there were no discussions with you even though the FBI's an
important part of the intelligence community?
COATS: There were no discussions.
KING: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
BURR: Thank you Senator King.
Senator Lankford.
LANKFORD: Thank you, let me just run through some quick questions on this. Director
McCabe, thanks for being here as well.
Let me hit some high points of some of the things I've heard already, just to be able to
confirm. You have the resources you need for the Russia investigation, is that correct?
MCCABE: Sir, we believe it's adequately resourced...
LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the
actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI,
it's still moving forward?
MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely.
LANKFORD: No agents have been removed that are the ongoing career folks that are doing the
investigation?
MCCABE: No, sir.
LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the
investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey?
MCCABE: It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this
investigation vigorously and completely.
LANKFORD: Do you need somebody to take this away from you and somebody else to do?
MCCABE: No sir.
L.. ... ...
MANCHIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for being here, I really appreciate it and I know that, Mr. McCabe, you
seem to be of great interest of being here. And we're going to look forward to really from
hearing from all of you all in a closed hearing this afternoon which I think that we'll able
to get into more detail. So I appreciate that.
I just one question for Mr. McCabe it's basically the morale of the agency, the FBI agency
and the morale basically starting back from July 5th to July 7th, October 28th, November 6th
and election day -- did you all ever think you'd be embroiled in an election such as this and
did -- what did it do to the morale?
MCCABE: Well, I -- I don't know that anyone envisioned exactly the way these things would
develop. You know, as I said earlier Senator, we are a -- a large organization. We are -- we
have a lot of diversity of opinions and -- and viewpoints on things. We are also a fiercely
independent group.
MANCHIN: I'm just saying that basically, before July 5th, before the first testimony that
basically Director Comey got involved in, prior to that, did you see a change in the morale?
Just yes or no -- yes a change or more anxious, more concern?
MCCABE: I think morale has always been good, however we had -- there were folks within our
agency who were frustrated with the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those
folks were very vocal about that -- those concerns.
MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to
the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it
risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly
concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far
outreaching as KL Labs?
Has it come with your IT people coming to you or have you gone directly to them making
sure that you have no interaction with KL or any of the contractors you do business with?
Just down the line there, Mr. Cardillo?
CARDILLO: Well, we count on the expertise of Admiral Rogers and the FBI to protect our
systems and so I value...
MANCHIN: ...But you have I -- you have IT people, right?
CARDILLO: Absolutely.
MANCHIN: Have you talked to the IT people? Has it come to your concern that there might be
a problem?
CARDILLO: I'm aware of the Kaspersky Lab challenge and/or threat.
MANCHIN: Let me tell you, it's more of a challenge -- more than a challenge, sir and I
would hope that -- I'll go down the line but I hope that all of you -- we are very much
concerned about this, very much concerned about security of our country watching (ph) their
involvement.
CARDILLO: We share that.
MANCHIN: General?
STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and
I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks.
MANCHIN: Any contractors? STEWART: Now, the contractor piece might be a little bit harder
to define but at this point we see no connection to Kaspersky and contractors supporting
(ph)...
MANCHIN: ...Admiral Rogers?
ROGERS: I'm personally aware and involved with the director on the national security
issues and the Kaspersky Lab issue, yes sir.
COATS: It wasn't that long ago I was sitting up there talking -- raising issues about
Kaspersky and its position here. And that continues in this new job.
POMPEO: It has risen to the director of the CIA as well, Senator Manchin.
MANCHIN: Great.
(UNKNOWN): He's very concerned about it, sir, and we are focused on it closely.
MANCHIN: Only thing I would ask all of you, if you can give us a report back if you've
swept all of your contractors to make sure they understand the certainty you have, concern
that you have about this and making sure that they can verify to you all that they're not
involved whatsoever with any Kaspersky's hardware. I'm going to switch to a couple different
things because of national security.
But you know, the bottom gangs that we have in the United States, and I know -- we don't
talk about them much. And when you talk about you have MS-13, the Crips, you've got Hells
Angels, Aryan Brotherhood, it goes on and on and on, it's quite a few. What is -- what are we
doing and what is it to your level -- has it been brought to your level the concern we have
with these gangs within our country, really every part of our country?
Anybody on the gangland?
MCCABE: Yes sir. So we spend a lot of time talking about that at the FBI. It's one of our
highest priorities...
MANCHIN: Did the resources go out to each one of these because they're interspersed over
the country?
MCCABE: We do, sir. We have been focused on the gang threat for many years. It -- like --
much like the online pharmacy threat. It continues to change and develop harried we think
it's likely a -- having an impact on elevated violent crime rates across the country, so
we're spending a lot of time focused on that.
... ... ..
COTTON: Inmates are running the asylum.
(LAUGHTER)
COTTON: So, I think everyone in this room and most Americans have come to appreciate the
aggressiveness with which would Russia uses active measures or covert influence operations,
propaganda, call them what you will, as your agencies assess they did in 2016 and in hacking
into those e-mails and releasing them as news reports suggest they did. In the French
election last week -- that's one reason why I sought to revive the Russian active measures
working group in the FY'17 Intelligence Authorization Act.
These activities that will go far beyond elections, I think, as most of our witnesses
know. former director of the CIA, Bob Gates, in his memoir "From the Shadows," detailed
soviet covert influence campaigns designed to slow or thwart the U.S. development of nuclear
delivery systems and warheads, missile-defense systems and employment of intermediate nuclear
range systems to Europe.
Specifically on page 260 of his memoir, he writes "during the period, the soviets mounted
a massive covert action operation, aimed at thwarting INF deployments by NATO. We at CIA
devoted tremendous resources to an effort at the time to uncovering the soviet covert
campaign. Director Casey summarized this extraordinary effort in a paper he sent to Bush,
Schultz, Weinberger and Clark on January 18, 1983. We later published it and circulated it
widely within the government and to the allies, and finally, provided an unclassified version
of the public to use," end quote.
I'd like to thank the CIA for digging up this unclassified version of the document and
providing it to the committee, Soviet Strategy to derail U.S. INF deployment. Specifically,
undermining NATO's solidarity in those deployments. I have asked unanimous consent that it be
included in the hearing transcript and since the inmates are running the asylum, hearing no
objection, we'll include it in the transcript.
(LAUGHTER)
Director Pompeo, earlier this year, Dr. Roy Godson testified that he believed that Russia
was using active measures and covert influence efforts to undermine our nuclear modernization
efforts, our missile defense deployments, and the INF Treaty, in keeping with these past
practices.
To the best of your ability in this setting, would you agree with the assessment that
Russia is likely using such active measures to undermine U.S. nuclear modernization efforts
and missile defenses?
POMPEO: Yes.
COTTON: Thank you.
As I mentioned earlier, the F.Y. '17 Intelligence Authorization Act included two
unclassified provisions that I authored. One would be re-starting that old (inaudible)
Measures Working Group. A second would require additional scrutiny of Russian embassy
officials who travel more than the prescribed distance from their duty station, whether it's
their embassy or a consulate around the United States.
In late 2016, when that bill was on the verge of passing, I personally received calls from
high-ranking Obama administration officials asking me to withdraw them from the bill. I
declined. The bill did not pass. It passed last week as part of the F.Y. '17 spending
bill.
I did not receive any objection from Trump administration officials to include from our
intelligence community.
Director Coats, are you aware of any objection that the Trump administration had to my two
provisions?
COATS: No, I'm not aware of any objection.
COTTON: Director Pompeo?
POMPEO: None.
COTTON: Do you know why the Obama administration objected to those two provisions in late
2016? I would add after the 2016 presidential election.
COATS: Well, it would be pure speculation. I don't -- I couldn't read -- I wasn't able to
read the president's mind then and I don't think I can read it now.
COTTON: Thank you.
I'd like to turn my attention to a very important provision of law. I know that you've
discussed earlier section 702.
Director Rogers, it's my understanding that your agency is undertaking an effort to try to
release some kind of unclassified estimate of the number of U.S. persons who might have been
incidentally collected using 702 techniques. Is that correct?
ROGERS: Sir, we're looking to see if we can quantify something that's of value to people
outside the organization.
COTTON: Would -- would that require you going in and conducting searches of incidental
collection that have been previously unexamined?
ROGERS: That's part of the challenge. How do I generate insight that doesn't in the
process of generating the insight violate the actual tenets that...
(CROSSTALK)
COTTON: So -- so we're -- you're trying to produce an estimate that is designed to protect
privacy rights, but to produce that estimate, you're going to have to violate privacy
rights?
ROGERS: That is a potential part of all of this.
COTTON: It seems hard to do.
ROGERS: Yes, sir. That's why it has taken us a period of time and that's why we're in the
midst of a dialogue.
COTTON: Is it going to be possible to produce that kind of estimate without some degree of
inaccuracy or misleading information, or infringing upon the privacy rights of Americans?
ROGERS: Probably not.
COTTON: If anyone in your agency, or for that matter, Director McCabe, in yours, believes
that there is misconduct or privacy rights are not being protected, they could, I believe
under current law, come to your inspector general; come to your general counsel. I assume you
have open door policies.
ROGERS: Whistleblower protections in addition, yes, sir, and they can come to you.
COTTON: They can come to this committee.
So four -- at least four different avenues. I'm probably missing some, if they believe
there are any abuses in the section 702 (inaudible).
MCCABE (?): And anyone in their chain of command.
COTTON: I would ask that we proceed with caution before producing a report that might
infringe on Americans' privacy rights needlessly, and that might make it even that much
harder to reauthorize a critical program, something that, Director McCabe, your predecessor
last week just characterized, if I can paraphrase, as a must-have program, not a nice-to-have
program.
Thank you.
BURR: Thank you, Senator Cotton.
Senator Harris?
HARRIS: Thank you.
Acting Director McCabe, welcome. I know you've been in this position for only about 48
hours, and I appreciate your candor with this committee during the course of this open
hearing.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Until this point, what was your role in the FBI's investigation into the Russian
hacking of the 2016 election?
MCCABE: I've been the deputy director since February of 2016. So I've had an oversight
role over all of our FBI operational activity, including that investigation.
HARRIS: And now that you're acting director, what will your role be in the
investigation?
MCCABE: Very similar, senior oversight role to understand what our folks are doing and to
make sure they have the resources they need and are getting the direction and the guidance
they need to go forward.
HARRIS: Do you support the idea of a special prosecutor taking over the investigation in
terms of oversight of the investigation, in addition to your role?
MCCABE: Ma'am, that is a question for the Department of Justice and it wouldn't be proper
for me to comment on that.
HARRIS: From your understanding, who at the Department of Justice is in charge of the
investigation?
MCCABE: The deputy attorney general, who serves as acting attorney general for that
investigation. He is in charge.
HARRIS: And have you had conversations with him about the investigation since you've been
in this role?
MCCABE: I have. Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: And when Director Comey was fired, my understanding is he was not present in his
office. He was actually in California. So my question is: Who was in charge of securing his
files and devices when that -- when that information came down that he had been fired?
MCCABE: That's our responsibility, ma'am.
HARRIS: And are you confident that his files and his devices have been secured in a way
that we can maintain whatever information or evidence he has in connection with the
investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. I am.
HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked
Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't
believe that you need any additional resources?
MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced.
HARRIS: And will you commit to this committee that if you do need resources, that you will
come to us, understanding that we would make every effort to get you what you need?
MCCABE: I absolutely will.
HARRIS: Has -- I understand that you've said that the White House, that you have not
talked with the White House about the Russia investigation. Is that correct?
MCCABE: That's correct.
HARRIS: Have you talked with Jeff Sessions about the investigation?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: Have you talked with anyone other than Rod Rosenstein at the Department of Justice
about the investigation?
MCCABE: I don't believe I have -- you know, not recently; obviously, not in that -- not in
this position.
HARRIS: Not in the last 48 hours?
MCCABE: No, ma'am.
HARRIS: OK. What protections have been put in place to assure that the good men and women
of the FBI understand that they will not be fired if they aggressively pursue this
investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. So we have very active lines of communication with the team that's --
that's working on this issue. They are -- they have some exemplary and incredibly effective
leaders that they work directly for. And I am confident that those -- that they understand
and are confident in their position moving forward on this investigation, as my
investigators, analysts and professionals staff are in everything we do every day.
HARRIS: And I agree with you. I have no question about the commitment that the men and
women of the FBI have to pursue their mission. But will you commit to me that you will
directly communicate in some way now that these occurrences have happened and Director Comey
has been fired? Will you commit to me that given this changed circumstance, that you will
find a way to directly communicate with those men and women to assure them that they will not
be fired simply for aggressively pursuing this investigation?
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
HARRIS: Thank you.
And how do you believe we need to handle, to the extent that it exists, any crisis of
confidence in the leadership of the FBI, given the firing of Director Comey?
MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI.
That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that.
(LAUGHTER)
You know, it was completely within the president's authority to take the steps that he
did. We all understand that. We expect that he and the Justice Department will work to find a
suitable replacement and a permanent director, and we look forward to supporting whoever that
person is, whether they begin as an interim director or a permanently selected director.
This -- organization in its entirety will be completely committed to helping that person
get off to a great start and do what they need to do.
HARRIS: And do you believe that there will be any pause in the investigation during this
interim period, where we have a number of people who are in acting positions of
authority?
MCCABE: No, ma'am. That is my job right now to ensure that the men and women who work for
the FBI stay focused on the threats; stay focused on the issues that are of so much
importance to this country; continue to protect the American people and uphold the
Constitution. And I will ensure that that happens.
HARRIS: I appreciate that. Thank you.
MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.
BURR: Thank you.
Senator King?
Second round, five minutes each.
Senator Wyden?
WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to the question I asked you, Director Pompeo. And I went out and
reviewed the response that you gave to me. And of course, what I'm concerned about is the
Sally Yates warning to the White House that Michael Flynn could be blackmailed by the
Russians.
And you said you didn't have any first-hand indication of it. Did you have any indication
-- second-hand, any sense at all that the national security adviser might be vulnerable to
blackmail by the Russians? That is a yes or no question.
POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I
regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence
investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign
intelligence organization.
And I'll add only this, I was not intending to be clever by using the term "first-hand." I
had no second-hand or third-hand knowledge of that conversation either.
WYDEN: So with respect to the CIA, were there any discussion with General Flynn at
all?
POMPEO: With respect to what sir? He was for a period of time the national security
advisor.
WYDEN: Topics that could have put at risk the security and the well being of the American
people. I mean I'm just finding it very hard to swallow that you all had no discussions with
the national security advisor.
POMPEO: I spoke with the national security advisor. He was the national security advisor.
He was present for the daily brief on many occasions and we talked about all the topics we
spoke to the President about.
WYDEN: But nothing relating to matters that could have compromised the security of the
United States? POMPEO: Sir I can't recall every conversation with General Flynn during that
time period.
WYDEN: We're going to ask some more about it in closed session this afternoon. Admiral
Rogers, let me ask you about a technical question that I think is particularly troubling and
that is the S.S. 7 question in the technology threat. Last week the Department of Homeland
Security published a lengthy study about the impact on the U.S. government of mobile phone
security flaws. The report confirmed what I have been warning about for quite some time,
which is the significance of cyber security vulnerabilities associated with a signaling
system seven report says the department believes, and I quote, that all U.S. carriers are
vulnerable to these exploits, resulting in risks to national security, the economy and the
federal governments ability to reliably execute national security functions. These
vulnerabilities can be exploited by criminals, terrorists and nation state actors and foreign
intelligence organizations.
Do you all share the concerns of the Department of Human -- the Homeland Security
Department about the severity of these vulnerabilities and what ought to be done right now to
get the government and the private sector to be working together more clearly and in a
coherent plan to deal with these monumental risks. These are risks that we're going to face
with terrorists and hackers and threats. And I think the federal communications commission
has been treading water on this and I'd like to see what you want to do to really take charge
of this to deal what is an enormous vulnerability to the security of this country?
ROGERS: Sure. I hear the concern. It's a widely deployed technology in the mobile segment.
I share the concern the Department of Homeland security in their role kind of as the lead
federal agency associated with cyber and support from the federal government to the private
sector as overall responsibility here.
We are trying to provide at the national security agency our expertise to help generate
insights about the nature of the vulnerability, the nature of the problem. Partnering with
DHS, talking to the private sector. There's a couple of specific things from a technology
stand point that we're looking at in multiple forms that the government has created
partnering with the private sector.
I'm not smart, I apologize about all of the specifics of the DHS effort. I can take that
for the record if you'd like.
WYDEN: All right. I just want to respond before we break to Senator Cotton's comments with
respect to section 702. Mr. Director, glad to see my tax reform partner back in this role.
You know Mr. Director that I think it's critical the American people know how many innocent
law abiding Americans are being swept up in the program. The argument that producing an
estimate of the number is in itself a violation of privacy, is I think a far fetched argue
has been made for years. I and others who believe that we can have security and liberty, that
they're not mutually exclusive have always believed that this argument that you're going to
be invading peoples privacy doesn't add up. We have to have that number. Are we going to get
it? Are we going to get it in time so we can have a debate that shows that those of us who
understand there are threats coming from overseas, and we support the effort to deal with
those threats as part of 702. That we are not going to have American's privacy rights
indiscriminately swept up.
We need that number. When will we get it?
COATS: Senator as you recall, during my confirmation hearing, we had this discussion. I
promised to you that I would -- if confirmed and I was, talk (ph) to NSA indeed with Admiral
Rogers, try to understand -- better understand why it was so difficult to come to a specific
number. I -- I did go out to NSA. I was hosted by Admiral Rogers. We spent significant time
talking about that. And I learned of the complexity of reaching that number. I think the --
the statements that had been made by Senator Cotton are very relevant statements as to
that.
Clearly, what I have learned is that a breach of privacy has to be made against American
people have to be made in order to determine whether or not they breached privacy. So, it --
it -- there is a anomaly there. They're -- they're -- they're issues of duplication.
I know that a -- we're underway in terms of setting up a time with this committee I
believe in June -- as early as June to address -- get into that issue and to address that,
and talk through the complexity of why it's so difficult to say...
WYDEN: I'm...
COATS: ...this is specifically when we can get you the -- the number and what the number
is. So, I -- I believe -- I believe -- we are committed -- we are committed to a special
meeting with the committee to try to go through this -- this particular issue.
But I cannot give you a date because I -- I -- and -- and a number because the -- I
understand the complexity of it now and why it's so difficult for Admiral Rogers to say this
specific number is the number.
WYDEN: I'm -- I'm well over my time. The point really is privacy advocates and
technologists say that it's possible to get the number. If they say it, and the government is
not saying it, something is really out of synch.
You've got people who want to work with you. We must get on with this and to have a real
debate about 702 that ensures that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We have
to have that number.
Just hours after FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe delivered private testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, his boss,
FBI Director Christopher Wray, announced that the bureau's top lawyer would be leaving his post, an attempt to bring in "new blood"
to an agency whose reputation has been hopelessly compromised by revelations that agents' partisan bias may have influenced two high-profile
investigations involving President Donald Trump and his former campaign rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
As the
Washington Post reported, the FBI's top lawyer, James Baker, is being reassigned.
WaPo says Baker's removal is part of Wray's effort to assemble his own team of senior advisers while he tries to defuse allegations
of partisanship that have plagued the bureau in recent months.
James Baker
But reports published over the summer said Baker was "the top suspect" in an interagency leak investigation, as
we reported back in July
Three sources, with knowledge of the investigation, told Circa that Baker is the top suspect in an ongoing leak investigation,
but Circa has not been able to confirm the details of what national security information or material was allegedly leaked.
A federal law enforcement official with knowledge of ongoing internal investigations in the bureau told Circa, "the bureau
is scouring for leakers and there's been a lot of investigations."
The revelation comes as the Trump administration has ramped up efforts to contain leaks both within the White House and within
its own national security apparatus.
The news of the staff shakeup comes as Trump and his political allies have promised to "rebuild" the FBI to make it "bigger and
better than ever" following its "disgraceful" conduct over the Trump probe . Baker played a key role in the agency's handling of
major cases and policy debates in recent years, including the FBI's unsuccessful battle with Apple over the growing use of encryption
in cellphones.
Just like Clapper admitting to perjuring himself before congress and he is brought on TV to comment as if he is a decent person
instead of being thrown in prison like anyone else would be.
"... the same week that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like "an asset". ..."
Though WaPo's Josh Rogin characterizes the decision as intended to appease hawks while
seeking to avoid broader conflict escalation based on "limited arms sales" (and not approving
some of the heavier weaponry sought by Kiev), the move is likely to further ratchet up tensions
with Russia, which is ironic for the fact that the decision comes the same week that former
Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like
"an asset".
Or perhaps we will be assured this is just more 4-dimensional chess playing between
Trump and Putin to prove that not Putin but the Military Industrial Complex is once again
"unexpectedly" in charge?
"... Clapper, during his tenure as DNI, lied to Congress when directly asked if the intelligence community was spying on millions of innocent American citizens. His lies were exposed with the release of the Edward Snowden documents. ..."
"... More recently, Clapper again lied to Congress, in claiming that the intelligence community findings about Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential elections were compiled by all 17 member agencies. In later testimony in May 2017, he belatedly admitted that the report was compiled by the FBI, the CIA and the NSA, and that the authors had been hand-picked to conduct the study. ..."
"... There has been a trend in the recent presidential administrations (Clinton, Bush II, Obama) to use highly suspect legal interpretations to evade legal restrictions imposed by laws. Clapper is by no means an isolated example, he is just more visible. ..."
"... Using Clapper as an example, he defended his lying by saying that he gave a truthful (or the least untruthful) answer according to his definition of "collection of data". According to him, collection of data meant that the data was actively examined by the intelligence personnel, not just passively collected and stored for later use. So, in his view, data is only being "collected" if it's actively used and to the best of his knowledge, there was no illegal use of the data ..."
"... Similarly, Bush administration famously decided to redefine torture to exclude enhanced interrogation techniques. Obama administration redefined "imminent threat of violent attack" to mean any threat for purposes of assassinating American citizens. Obama also changed the meaning of "military coup" to mean "only those military coups that are recognized as such by the administration". None of these act have been challenged in court, so their legality is still quite dubious ..."
"... I've only ever heard rumors about Clapper but it dovetails with the Colonel's and others' previous descriptions: an inveterate liar and ass-kissing social climber. The optics remain terrible. It does nothing but further the perception that, whether right or wrong, there exists a two-tiered system of justice in the US. ..."
"... "an inveterate liar and ass-kissing social climber." SWMBO says that "incompetent" should be added to your encomium. I have "form" with this fellow. I found him to be very insecure, jealous and envious of his subordinates (sigh), and afflicted with a strange animosity for anyone who could possibly be called a WASP. ..."
"... Nevertheless my main complaint about him from the long ago is that he destroyed DIA as a world class strategic intelligence agency. He came from USAF with a deep disdain for anything that was not air targeting and files about air defense weapons. He drove the carefully educated and selected corps of ME analysts out of the agency. ..."
"... Lying to Congress is not something that Congress or the DOJ actually cares about because the hearings are a places where speeches are made by Congresscritters and the questions are merely the hooks upon which the speeches are hung ..."
"... Perhaps it's an instance of injelititis, as first described by C. Northcote Parkinson in Parkinson's Law and Other Studies in Administration: Incompetence and jealousy interacting to reinforce each other according to the formula I squared times J cubed. ..."
"... The criminal laws in this country are sufficiently broad and deep in scope that an aggressive prosecutor can always find an excuse to bring charges against anyone, especially if the target is involved in high level business or politics. Google "three felonies a day" if you need more detail. ..."
"... This is entirely intentional. Those whom the establishment wants punished are punished, and those whom the establishment does not want punished are not punished (but can be, should they stray into the first category). ..."
"... the average prosecutor is a glorified politician, and like other politicians, prosecutors are acutely sensitive to establishment concerns. ..."
"... HRC provides a instructive example. It is abundantly obvious that she violated the law; the fact that Comey was forced to misstate the law regarding specific intent* as known to every first year law student merely shows that he was trying desperately seeking a way not to bring charges. They didn't even bother trying to question The Queen so as to ensure that Her Majesty did not perjure herself or lie to investigators and thus force them to deliver another rationale not to bring charges. ..."
"... "Why isn't James Clapper behind bars?" isn't the right question. That ship's long sailed and isn't coming back i.e. one justice systems for ordinary people, another for the indispensable is well ingrained into the fabric of the U.S. polity. ..."
"... On the lying to Congress over the data collection, I will opine the reason for the lack of prosecution: It's because the laws passed by Congress specifically approve the data gathering, laws passed after 9/11, signed by George W Bush, who proudly proclaimed "we intent to get everything" in reference to date in his first SOTU address to standing applause. ..."
"... On the other hand, he is the only prominent government figure to let us know about the Russian threat to our pure American Reich: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/ss-oberfuhrer-james-clapper-subhuman-russians-genetically-driven-meddle-us-democracy ..."
"... Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators: John Brennan, CIA director; Susan Rice, National Security Advisor; Samantha Power, UN Ambassador; James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence; James Comey, FBI director; Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI director; Sally Yates, deputy Attorney General, Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG; Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence; Lisa Page, FBI lawyer; and countless other lessor and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President Obama himself. ..."
17 December 2017
HARPER: WHY ISN'T JAMES CLAPPER BEHIND BARS? One of the biggest failures of the United States Congress, IMHO, has been the
refusal to hold Executive Branch officials accountable when they lie to Congress on vital
matters of national security. And no case angers me more than that of James Clapper, the former
Director of National Intelligence under President Barack Obama, who held a series of high-level
intelligence positions during his long career as an Air Force officer.
Clapper, during his tenure as DNI, lied to Congress when directly asked if the
intelligence community was spying on millions of innocent American citizens. His lies were
exposed with the release of the Edward Snowden documents. While several individual Members
of Congress called for his resignation and a few even dared to demand his prosecution for
contempt of Congress, nothing happened.
More recently, Clapper again lied to Congress, in claiming that the intelligence
community findings about Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential elections were compiled by
all 17 member agencies. In later testimony in May 2017, he belatedly admitted that the report
was compiled by the FBI, the CIA and the NSA, and that the authors had been hand-picked to
conduct the study. According to Robert Parry in Consortium News, one of the FBI agents who
participated in the study was Peter Strzok, a Trump-hater and Hillary Clinton partisan who was
fired by Robert Mueller last July after an investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector
General revealed his biases.
I recall comments over the years by Col. Lang about his personal experiences with Clapper
while at the DIA in the early 1990s. I am interested in Col. Lang's and others' comments and
observations.
There has been a trend in the recent presidential administrations (Clinton, Bush II,
Obama) to use highly suspect legal interpretations to evade legal restrictions imposed by
laws. Clapper is by no means an isolated example, he is just more visible.
Using Clapper as an example, he defended his lying by saying that he gave a truthful
(or the least untruthful) answer according to his definition of "collection of data".
According to him, collection of data meant that the data was actively examined by the
intelligence personnel, not just passively collected and stored for later use. So, in his
view, data is only being "collected" if it's actively used and to the best of his knowledge,
there was no illegal use of the data .
Clapper's defence is predicated on allowing that such redefinition of a common term like
collection is reasonable and therefore there was no intent to deceive. I am sure he had a
similar reasoning for what "compiled" means in the context of the 17 agency report.
Similarly, Bush administration famously decided to redefine torture to exclude
enhanced interrogation techniques. Obama administration redefined "imminent threat of violent
attack" to mean any threat for purposes of assassinating American citizens. Obama also
changed the meaning of "military coup" to mean "only those military coups that are recognized
as such by the administration". None of these act have been challenged in court, so their
legality is still quite dubious .
This weaseling removes the effective checks on the executive power. Clapper is just an
example in a larger pattern by the recent administration officials of using similar or even
more brazen techniques to evade their legal responsibilities. This situation is bound to
escalate until the judiciary and the courts put a stop to it by prosecuting such behaviour.
The problem is that there is little incentive for a new administration to prosecute such
behaviour by past administrations as they like the expanded executive power themselves and
have historically had no interest in restricting it.
Because we are ruled by an alien elite through a constellation of unaccountable institutions
protected by a collection of corrupt and completely interchangeable officeholders who
supposedly represent the interests of an obese, drug-addled and digitally-distracted mob of
useless eaters.
And because too many of the best among of us have been shamed into silence and inaction
through a series of blood libels (slavery, genocide, patriarchy) that have been used to
condition our children into hating themselves, their parents and their civilization.
I've only ever heard rumors about Clapper but it dovetails with the Colonel's and others'
previous descriptions: an inveterate liar and ass-kissing social climber. The optics remain
terrible. It does nothing but further the perception that, whether right or wrong, there
exists a two-tiered system of justice in the US.
Draw a penis in the sky with a fighter jet and you will be held accountable.
Lie to the public about mass surveillance and there's a cushy board position along with
image rehabilitation in store for you.
A bit of hyperbole but, still, there's about a million other examples like this from the
last two decades or so. Not just in government, either. Media, Business, Entertainment,
Education, etc... Elites/Borg will be facing a reckoning sooner or later if there isn't any
modification in behavior, or at the very least the perception of a modification of their
behavior.
I recall comments over the years by Col. Lang about his personal experiences with Clapper
while at the DIA in the early 1990s. I am interested in Col. Lang's and others' comments
and observations.
I'm interested in them as well. Just to enjoy what this sonofabitch thought he
was getting away with, because every time he talked (on TV in public like the grand poobah he
pretended he was) he acted as if he were telling us the truth and was derisive in his
comments.
I never bought a goddam thing this oily SOB came up with.
Why should we expect people who lie as a default position to care if their man Clapper lies
to them? They consider hearings, speeches, etc. to be public theatre to gull the masses and
Clapper a particularly avuncular actor in the show. The proles like that folksy aw shucks
Clapper persona.
The people who will 'get' Clapper are certainly not elected officials, imho.
"an inveterate liar and ass-kissing social climber." SWMBO says that "incompetent"
should be added to your encomium. I have "form" with this fellow. I found him to be very
insecure, jealous and envious of his subordinates (sigh), and afflicted with a strange
animosity for anyone who could possibly be called a WASP.
Nevertheless my main complaint about him from the long ago is that he destroyed DIA as
a world class strategic intelligence agency. He came from USAF with a deep disdain for
anything that was not air targeting and files about air defense weapons. He drove the
carefully educated and selected corps of ME analysts out of the agency. At the end of
the first Gulf War DIA's analysis "bestrode the world." It was the gold standard. He
destroyed that. pl
Lying to Congress is not something that Congress or the DOJ actually cares about because
the hearings are a places where speeches are made by Congresscritters and the questions are
merely the hooks upon which the speeches are hung .
No one listens to or cares about the answers except insofar as a careless answer can be
used to impale the answerer, such as publicly impaling a general for using the wrong
honorific in calling the Senator "Ma'am" instead of by the title that she "worked
very hard for many years to earn."
It can, of course, be used more harshly to severely punish an out of favor minion for
crimes about which the "deep state" actors actually do care but which are not on any
law books, such as not adequately promoting the official story line.
Your complaint could be equally made about UK government or the French government.
I mean, after all the detailed analysis that David Habakkuk has supplied on this forum in
regards to both the murder of Litivenk as well as the Steel Dossier, why aren't any heads
rolling in the United Kingdom (or does none need the Privy Council to step in to cleanup that
mess?).
Indeed, the gravity of the latter, being nothing less than enabling the mouthing a soft
coup in the United States, thus potentially destabilizing a linchpin of global security,
resulting in the deaths of perhaps millions, would warrant, in my opinion, the merciless
application of Hara kiri to all those involved.
Clapper never made the 17 intel agencies claim. That was Clinton and a lot of MSM types.
The report itself was very clear on who produced it.
"This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI ), and The National
Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by
those three agencies."
Clapper is as Colonel Lang describes him. My only run in with him was when he tried to
"reorganize" Defense HUMINT in an attempt to weasel his way back into a government position.
The effort was pretty damned transparent to me. And his bold-faced lie about not spying on US
citizens was exceedingly stupid and duplicitous. He was told this question would be asked
before the testimony and he still managed to royally screw the pooch.
Plan A: Because President Clinton and the compliant media would cover for him.
Plan B: Because we'll get President Trump out and the compliant media will cover for him.
Plan C.....
Clapper is a swamp creature. When did the swamp start indicting it's loyal minions? Dems,
Republicans, Intel. Community, lobbyists, bureaucracy - all facing a common threat; Trump and
the "deplorables."
Perhaps it's an instance of injelititis, as first described by C. Northcote Parkinson in
Parkinson's Law and Other Studies in Administration: Incompetence and jealousy interacting to
reinforce each other according to the formula I squared times J cubed.
The criminal laws in this country are sufficiently broad and deep in scope that an
aggressive prosecutor can always find an excuse to bring charges against anyone, especially
if the target is involved in high level business or politics. Google "three felonies a day"
if you need more detail.
This is entirely intentional. Those whom the establishment wants punished are
punished, and those whom the establishment does not want punished are not punished (but can
be, should they stray into the first category).
This is not to suggest that a shadowy cabal of 1%ers get together and hold a secret email
vote as to who gets voted off the island, so to speak. Rather, the average prosecutor is
a glorified politician, and like other politicians, prosecutors are acutely sensitive to
establishment concerns.
HRC provides a instructive example. It is abundantly obvious that she violated the
law; the fact that Comey was forced to misstate the law regarding specific intent* as known
to every first year law student merely shows that he was trying desperately seeking a way not
to bring charges. They didn't even bother trying to question The Queen so as to ensure that
Her Majesty did not perjure herself or lie to investigators and thus force them to deliver
another rationale not to bring charges.
However, had charges been brought against HRC, the Great and Good of this country would
have thrown a collective hissy fit, a cri du coeur of "You can't do that! Don't you know who
she is?" so to speak.
*specific intent refers to the intent to commit a crime, rather than the intent to do the
act complained of. If you are accused of theft, the prosecutor need only show that you take
property, knowing that the property was not yours, not that you knew that doing so was
"theft" or otherwise illegal.
I actually called a former prosecutor that I know to determine whether I recalled the
principle correctly, and he conceded that I did.
That's how I recall it too, TTG. Surfaced for me in one of the much watched election campaign
debates as a claim by Clinton. ...
But generally I am very, very much with Mrs Lang: "SWMBO says that 'incompetent' should be
added to your encomium.!"
As I recall it was the most disconcerting statement for me the outsider at the time. On
the other hand I cannot remember it drew much attention here in the post debate discussions.
Only gained momentum as focus of attention later.
But I am still undecided, if I should consider it a deliberately misleading, manipulating
statement chosen to score a debate point. Or if it simply showed her incompetence.
Anyway: a complete consent within 17 agencies sounded definitively more like a information
dictatorship. Never mind there was a DNI.
"Why isn't James Clapper behind bars?" isn't the right question. That ship's long
sailed and isn't coming back i.e. one justice systems for ordinary people, another for the
indispensable is well ingrained into the fabric of the U.S. polity.
The right question is what the plebs can do about it, knowing that "official"
accountability is all but dead.
Looks like Finnish government is eager to put a thumb in their apparent Intelligence leaking
dam. Finland's Largest Newspaper Faces Treason Charges For Publishing Leaked Files On Spy Ops
Targeting Russia
On the lying to Congress over the data collection, I will opine the reason for the
lack of prosecution: It's because the laws passed by Congress specifically approve the data
gathering, laws passed after 9/11, signed by George W Bush, who proudly proclaimed "we intent
to get everything" in reference to date in his first SOTU address to standing
applause.
An effort to prosecute Clapper for lying about what they themselves have no excuse not to
be aware of could backfire rather badly on Congress. The legal can of worms for Justice in
pursuing such prosecution would be impressive as well.
Congress passed these laws and lacks the stones to retract them. And We The People refuse
to punish them for it. I have no liking of Clapper...but I believe if we prosecute him while
not changing those laws, laws which clearly state the government has the legal power to
collect this data, We The People would be hypocrites.
David Stockman on Russiagate. It seems he is speaking for a lot of people who are beginning
to ask what is really going in Washington DC. Do we have a case of national security
institutions run amok?
There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016 election, after all. But it was not
orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely homegrown affair conducted from the inner
sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and Langley----of the Imperial
City.
Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In
fact, they were lifetime beltway insiders occupying the highest positions of power in the
US government.
Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators: John Brennan, CIA
director; Susan Rice, National Security Advisor; Samantha Power, UN Ambassador; James
Clapper, Director of National Intelligence; James Comey, FBI director; Andrew McCabe,
Deputy FBI director; Sally Yates, deputy Attorney General, Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG;
Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence; Lisa Page, FBI lawyer;
and countless other lessor and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President
Obama himself.
The problem of lying before Congress points up the two parts of the issue: 1) the law, and 2)
the process, procedure, people, and organizations (PPPO) through which the law is applied and
enforced.
Unfortunately, even if "the law" is carefully and precisely worded, the PPPO can make it
meaningless and worthless.
Since a Congressional hearing is a federal proceeding and is on federal property, the
federal criminal law applies. As far as perjury and its sister -- obstruction of justice --
are concerned, here are two papers from the Congressional Research Service you can read to
get a good understanding of the federal law in this area.
The first one is "Perjury Under Federal Law: A Brief Overview", from 2014, and is 21
pages--
The second one basically includes the article on perjury. It is entitled "Obstruction of
Justice: An Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with
Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities", and is also from 2014 by the same author. It
covers areas in addition to perjury, is comprehensive, and is 89 pages--
Who is responsible to investigate, file charges, and prosecute perjury, obstruction of
justice, and other legal violations before Congress? The short and slightly general answer is
the Department that Calls Itself Justice.
In any consideration of people who hold themselves out as being from the "intelligence"
community who may be observed tap dancing before Congress, names such as former NSA and CIA
director Michael Hayden, former NSA director Keith Alexander, and John O. Brennan could well
be in the mix.
For example, here is a little video of U.S. Representative Henry "Hank" Johnson (Dem.
Georgia) back in 2012 asking Keith Alexander a few basic questions. This bit of testimony
could be a funny parody and comedy sketch, were it not so real and outrageous--
I slogged through the seven pages of the NY Mag piece and find it to be the standard "he
said, she said" hit piece which slaps mocking statements in between alleged facts to
basically declare the whole subject unworthy of anyone's time because it's all "conspiracy
theory".
"... "I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively." ..."
"... Clapper took aim at the news that Putin called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture." ..."
"... He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not all that visible." ..."
"... The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he found the message to be contradictory. ..."
"... Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security, intelligence and foreign policy officials filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen," the brief reads. ..."
"I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is.
He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said
on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively."
Clapper took aim at the news that Putin
called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent
a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture."
He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed
over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not
all that visible."
The former intelligence chief said Putin likely learned to recruit assets to help with his
interests when he served as an officer in the KBG, which was the Soviet Union's main security
agency.
"You have to remember Putin's background. He's a KGB officer, that's what they do. They
recruit assets. And I think some of that experience and instincts of Putin has come into play
here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our
president," he continued.
The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like
Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also
stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he
found the message to be contradictory.
He also pointed to his previous experiences of trying to share intelligence with the
Kremlin, stemming back to the early 1990s, describing the attempts as a "one-way street."
Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security,
intelligence and foreign policy officials
filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and
Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation
and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web
operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian
businessmen," the brief reads.
"They range from the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is
his best interest, to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to
the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced to directly advance Russian
operations and objectives," it continues.
"... Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more. ..."
"... The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc. ..."
"... This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from. ..."
"... AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card. ..."
So I see where Nunes in a ZeroHedge posting says that there might have been "incidental surveillance" of "Trump" (?Trump associates?
?Trump tower? ?Trump campaign?)
Now to the average NC reader, it kinda goes without saying. But I don't think Trump understands the scope of US government "surveillance"
and I don't think the average citizen, certainly not the average Trump supporter, does either – the nuances and subtleties of
it – the supposed "safeguards".
I can understand the rationale for it .but this goes to show that when you give people an opportunity to use secret information
for their own purposes .they will use secret information for their own purposes.
And at some point, the fact of the matter that the law regarding the "incidental" leaking appears to have been broken, and
that this leaking IMHO was purposefully broken for political purposes .is going to come to the fore. Like bringing up "fake news"
– some of these people on the anti Trump side seem not just incapable of playing 11th dimensional chess, they seem incapable of
winning tic tac toe .
Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable. But it seems like the intelligence agencies are spending
more time monitoring repubs than Al queda. Now maybe repubs are worse than Al queda – I think its time we have a real debate instead
of the pseudo debates and start asking how useful the CIA is REALLY. (and we can ask how useful repubs and dems are too)
If Obama taped the information, stuffed the tape in one of Michelle's shoeboxes, then hid the shoebox in the Whitehouse basement,
he could be in trouble. Ivanka is sure to search any shoeboxes she finds.
Oh the Trump supporters are all over this, don't worry. There are many more levels to what is going on than what is reported
in the fakenews MSM.
Adm Roger of NSA made his November visit to Trump Tower, after a SCIF was installed there, to .be interviewed for a job uh-huh
yeah.
Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with
over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more.
The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled
by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there,
detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part
of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after
finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump
sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors,
which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore
the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked,
angry, disturbed etc.
You all should be happy, because although Pres Trump has been vindicated here on all counts, the more important story for you
is that the old line Democratic Party looks about to sink under the wieght of thier own lies and illegalities. This all stems
from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level
analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from.
AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual
"I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card.
"... During a hearing in March, Clapper said the NSA does not "wittingly" collect bulk information on all Americans. After Snowden leaked a trove of NSA documents, it was revealed that the agency collects metadata from all U.S. phones. Clapper has since apologized for the statement ..."
"... And I really think that in order to restore confidence in our intelligence community, I think James Clapper should resign," Paul said ..."
"... Paul said both Clapper and Snowden have broken the law, but suggested that Snowden could be considered a whistle-blower since a judge ruled earlier this week that the collection program appeared to be unconstitutional. ..."
"... Paul said the report released Wednesday by a group of advisers to President Obama recommending curbs to the NSA is an acknowledgement that the agency needs to be reined in ..."
Paul also floated the idea of prosecuting Clapper for perjury.
Paul said Clapper's misleading testimony to a Senate panel earlier this year about a
National Security Agency program that collected phone records has hurt the United States far
worse than anything leaker Edward Snowden has done.
"I find really that Clapper is lying to
Congress is probably more injurious to our intelligent capabilities than anything Snowden did
because Clapper has damaged the credibility of the entire intelligence apparatus, and I'm not
sure what to believe anymore when they come to Congress," Paul said in an interview with CNN.
Paul has been consistently critical of Clapper and the surveillance program since its public
disclosure this year.
During a hearing in March, Clapper said the NSA does not "wittingly" collect bulk
information on all Americans. After Snowden leaked a trove of NSA documents, it was revealed
that the agency collects metadata from all U.S. phones. Clapper has since apologized for the
statement .
" And I really think that in order to restore confidence in our intelligence community,
I think James Clapper should resign," Paul said .
When asked if the Justice Department should file criminal charges against Clapper, Paul said
that if they do not, "you're just encouraging people to lie to us."
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, said Clapper was
put in a tough spot in an open hearing, but he should not resign.
"I don't think he should," Chambliss said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "I've known Jim Clapper
for years and years. He is a man of integrity, and he has done a good job."
Paul said both Clapper and Snowden have broken the law, but suggested that Snowden could
be considered a whistle-blower since a judge ruled earlier this week that the collection
program appeared to be unconstitutional.
"But at the same time, there is some question whether or not you can be a whistle-blower in
our society, and whether you can release information that you think that the government is
breaking the law, and that is the argument here, and now it's been upheld by a federal court
saying that the government is breaking the law," he said.
Paul said the report released Wednesday by a group of advisers to President Obama
recommending curbs to the NSA is an acknowledgement that the agency needs to be reined in
.
"I think even the president's own team now is coming up with recommendations that
acknowledge that the president has allowed this to get away from himself," Paul said.
Yet another "national security parasite". Watt intentionally lied about wiretapping
Notable quotes:
"... "When he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, former FBI agent Clint Watts described how Russians used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans. ..."
"... In an interview Monday with NPR's Kelly McEvers, Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says the Russian misinformation campaign didn't stop with the election of President Trump. ..."
"... One example, he says, is Trump's claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration. "When they do that, they'll then respond to the wiretapping claim with further conspiracy theories about that claim and that just amplifies the message in the ecosystem," Watts says. ..."
"... The White House has blamed Democrats for the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying the theory is a way to shift the blame for their election loss. ..."
"How Russian Twitter Bots Pumped Out Fake News During The 2016 Election"
Listen 4:17
'Heard on All Things Considered' by Gabe O'Connor & Avie Schneider...April 3, 2017...4:53 PM ET
"When he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, former FBI agent Clint Watts described how Russians
used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans.
"So that way whenever you're trying to socially engineer them and convince them that the information is true, it's much more
simple because you see somebody and they look exactly like you, even down to the pictures," Watts told the panel, which is investigating
Russia's role in interfering in the U.S. elections.
In an interview Monday with NPR's Kelly McEvers, Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says
the Russian misinformation campaign didn't stop with the election of President Trump.
"If you went online today, you could see these accounts -- either bots or actual personas somewhere -- that are trying to connect
with the administration. They might broadcast stories and then follow up with another tweet that tries to gain the president's
attention, or they'll try and answer the tweets that the president puts out," Watts says.
Watts, a cybersecurity expert, says he's been tracking this sort of activity by the Russians for more than three years.
"It's a circular system. Sometimes the propaganda outlets themselves will put out false or manipulated stories. Other times,
the president will go with a conspiracy."
One example, he says, is Trump's claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration. "When they do
that, they'll then respond to the wiretapping claim with further conspiracy theories about that claim and that just amplifies
the message in the ecosystem," Watts says.
"Every time a conspiracy is floated from the administration, it provides every outlet around the world, in fact, an opportunity
to amplify that conspiracy and to add more manipulated truths or falsehoods onto it."
Watts says the effort is being conducted by a "very diffuse network." It involves competing efforts "even amongst hackers between
different parts of Russian intelligence and propagandists -- all with general guidelines about what to pursue, but doing it at
different times and paces and rhythms."
The White House has blamed Democrats for the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying the theory
is a way to shift the blame for their election loss.
But Watts says "it's way bigger" than that. "What was being done by nation-states in the social media influence landscape was
so much more significant than the other things that were being talked about," including the Islamic State's use of social media
to recruit followers, he says."
If FBI paid money for Steele dossier that would be a big scandal that can bury Mueller and Comey...
Notable quotes:
"... Congressional Republicans have long been suspicious of the dossier and now that it was discovered who funded, now Republicans are questioning whether the Justice Department and FBI are involved in it as well. ..."
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to say on Wednesday in front of
the House Judiciary Committee, whether the FBI paid for the infamous Trump dossier,
reports The
Daily Caller . He would neither confirm nor deny the FBI's involvement in the now-disproved
dossier that started the whole Russian collusion investigation against President Trump.
Rosenstein, who was grilled by the House Judiciary Committee, suggested that he knew the
answer to the question, which was posed by Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis.
"Did the FBI pay for the dossier?" DeSantis asked.
"I'm not in a position to answer that question," Rosenstein responded.
"Do you know the answer to the question?" the Republican DeSantis followed up.
"I believe I know the answer, but the Intelligence Committee is the appropriate committee "
Rosenstein began.
DeSantis interjected to assert that the Judiciary panel has "every right to the information"
about payments for the dossier.
The Russian dossier, which was written by British spy Christopher Steele and
commissioned to do so by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, has
been the starting point to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian collusion
in the 2016 election.
Congressional Republicans have long been suspicious of the dossier and now that it was
discovered who funded, now Republicans are questioning whether the Justice Department and FBI are
involved in it as
well.
"'According to some reports published earlier this year, Steele and the FBI struck an
informal agreement that he would be paid to continue his investigation into Trump's ties to
Russia. It has been reported that Steele was never paid for his work, though the FBI and DOJ
have not publicly disclosed those details,' reports The Daily Caller."
CNN had reported earlier this year that Steel was already compensated for some expenses from
his work investigating Trump and trying to dig up any dirt he could on the president.
The Deputy Attorney General told the House Judiciary Committee that he saw no good cause to
fire Mueller from conducting the investigation, but many Republicans believe the whole
investigation is now wrapped up in too many overlapping conflicts of interest
Conway appeared on Jesse Watters program, Watters' World, to talk about the newly
revealed content of text messages sent between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
When asked what she thought they meant when they said "they need to protect America from
Trump and need to have an insurance policy against his presidency," Conway tore into the
investigation's credibility.
"The fix was in against Donald Trump from the beginning, and they were pro-Hillary. We
understand that people have political views but they are expressing theirs with such animus and
such venom towards the now president of the United States they can't possibly be seen as
objective or transparent or even-handed or fair," she said.
As she spoke, the banner below Conway and Watters screamed "A COUP IN AMERICA?"
Watters proceeded to ask "how dangerous" Conway thought it was that people were "plotting
what appears to be some sort of subversion campaign" against Trump.
"It's toxic, it's lethal, and it may be fatal to the continuation of people arguing that
that matter is since behind us, he won he's the president, and the Mueller investigation is
something separate," she answered.
Conway then slammed critics for defending the integrity of the probe by alleging that Trump
is against the FBI, repeating the claim that he isn't under investigation, "we're told."
Released on Tuesday, Strzok and Page's messages referred to Trump as an "idiot" and "douche.
At one point, Strzok told Page he was considering "an insurance policy" if Trump were elected.
Page had also told Strzok that maybe he was meant to "protect the country from that menace,"
according to records reviewed by
Politico.
Watters assessed the texts as evidence of a coup, or sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of
power from the government, in America.
"The investigation into Donald Trump's campaign has been crooked from the jump. But the
scary part is we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his presidency
for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters. Now, if
that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America," he said.
It's pretty interesting fact: "Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID."
While you can't exclude that Russia favored Trump over Clinton and might be provided some token of support, you can't compare
Russia and Israel as for influence on the US domestic and foreign policy. And GB also have a say and connections (GB supported
Hillary and MI6 probably used dirty methods). KSA provided money to Hillary. Still there is multiple investigations of Russia
influence and none for those two players. That makes the current Russiagate current witch hunt is really scary.
The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large. ..."
"... Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin. ..."
"... There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com . ..."
"... Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017. ..."
"... The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria." ..."
"... "America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement." ..."
"... "The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher." ..."
"... How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur. ..."
"... Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID. ..."
"... And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism. ..."
"... It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. ..."
"... As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war. ..."
"... JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. ..."
"... As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items: ..."
"... The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States. ..."
"... Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises.... ..."
"... It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle ..."
"... All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed. ..."
"... They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it. ..."
"... "American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking". ..."
"... Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it". ..."
"... This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap. ..."
"... But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof. ..."
"... It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". ..."
"... Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA". ..."
"... I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation. ..."
"... After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House ..."
"... Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that. ..."
"... Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever. ..."
"... Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians. ..."
"... "German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency." ..."
"The two (Trump and Clinton) cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one
another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their
respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room."
"Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: Disgrace!"
- Vladimir Zhirinovsky - prominent Russian politician, leader of a major party in
parliament.
The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious
and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from
9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body
politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil
liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our
political elites and the country at large.
This time the generalized paranoia started under the nominally left of center administration
of Barack Obama in the closing months of his presidency. It has been fanned ever since by the
centrists in both Democratic and Republican parties who want to either remove from office or
politically cripple Donald Trump and his administration, that is to say, to overturn the
results at the ballot box on November 8, 2016.
Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was
the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking
the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our
enemies in the Kremlin.
Americans are wont to forget that there is a world outside the borders of the USA and that
others follow closely what is said and written in our media, especially by our political
leadership and policy elites. They forget or do not care how the accusations and threats we
direct at other countries in our domestic political squabbling, and still more the sanctions we
impose on our ever changing list of authoritarians and other real or imagined enemies abroad
might be interpreted there and what preparations or actions might be taken by those same
enemies in self-defense, threatening not merely American interests but America's physical
survival.
In no case is this more relevant than with respect to Russia, which, I remind readers, is
the only country on earth capable of turning the entire Continental United States into ashes
within a day. In point of fact, if Russia has prepared itself for war, as the latest issue of
Newsweek magazine tells us, we have no one but our political leadership to blame for
that state of affairs. They are tone deaf to what is said in Russia. We have no concern for
Russian national interests and "red lines" as the Russians themselves define them. Our Senators
and Congressmen listen only to what our home grown pundits and academics think the Russian
interests should be if they are to fit in a world run by us. That is why the Senate can vote
98-2 in favor of making the sanctions against Russia laid down by executive order of Barack
Obama into sanctions under federal legislation as happened this past summer.
There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have
been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication
from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium
News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the
side of the angels include TruthDig.com and
Antiwar.com .
The Russia-gate story has permutated over time as one or another element of the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Kremlin has become more or less
promising. But the core issue has always been the allegation of Russian hacking of DNC
computers on July 5, 2016 and the hand-over of thousands of compromising documents to Wikileaks
for the purpose of discrediting putative Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and throwing the
election to Donald Trump, who had at that time nearly clinched the Republican nomination.
Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian
hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former
intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an
inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons
outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in
Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017.
The VIPS material was largely ignored by mainstream media, as might be expected. An
editorial entitled "The unchecked threat from Russia" published by The Washington Post
yesterday is a prime example of how our media bosses continue to whip up public fury against
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin even when, by their own admission, "no
conclusive proof has surfaced."
The VIPS piece last July was based on the laws of physics, demonstrating that speed
limitations on transfer of data over the internet at the time when the crime is alleged to have
taken place rendered impossible the CIA, NSA and FBI scenario of Russian hacking In what
follows, I will introduce a very different type of evidence challenging the official US
intelligence story of Russian hacking and meddling in general, what I would call
circumstantial evidence that goes to the core issue of what the Kremlin really wanted.
Let us consider whether Mr. Putin had a motive to put his thumb on the scales in the American
presidential election.
In the U.S., that is a slam-dunk question. But that comes from our talking to ourselves in
the mirror. My evidence comes precisely from the other side of the issue: what the Kremlin
elites were saying about the US elections and their preferred candidate to win while the
campaign was still going on. I present it on a privileged basis because it is what I gathered
on my several visits to Moscow and talks with a variety of insiders close to Vladimir Putin
from September through the start of November, 2016. Moreover, there is no tampering with this
evidence on my part, because the key elements were published at the time I gathered them, well
before the US election. They appeared as incidental observations in lengthy essays dealing with
a number of subjects and would not have attracted the attention they merit today.
* * * *
Political talk shows are a very popular component of Russian television programming on all
channels, both state-run and commercial channels. They are mostly carried on prime time in the
evening but also are showing in mid-afternoon, where they have displaced soap operas and
cooking lessons as entertainment for housewives and pensioners. They are broadcast live either
to the Moscow time zone or to the Far East time zone. Given the fact that Russia extends over 9
time zones, they are also video recorded and reshown locally at prime time. In the case of the
highest quality and most watched programs produced by Vesti 24 for the Rossiya One channel,
they also are posted in their entirety and in the original Russian on youtube, and they are
accessible worldwide by anyone with a computer or tablet phone using a downloadable free
app.
I underline the importance of accessibility of these programs globally via live streaming or
podcasts on simple handheld gadgets. Russian speaking professionals in the States had every
opportunity to observe much of what I report below, except, of course, for my private
conversations with producers and panelists. But the gist of the mood in Moscow with respect to
the US elections was accessible to anyone with an interest. As you know, no one reported on it
at the time. American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking
since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be
thinking.
The panelists appearing on these different channels come from a rather small pool of Russian
legislators, including chairmen of the relevant committees of the Duma (lower house) and
Federation Council (upper house), leading journalists, think tank professors, retired military
brass. The politicians are drawn from among the most visible and colorful personalities in the
Duma parties, but also extend to Liberal parties such as Yabloko, which failed to cross the
threshold of 5% in legislative elections and received no seats in parliament.
Then there are very often a number of foreigners among panelists. In the past and at the
present, they are typically known for anti-Kremlin positions and so give the predominantly
patriotic Russian panelists an opportunity to cross swords, send off sparks and keep the
audience awake. These hostile foreigners coming from Ukraine or Poland are Russian speakers
from their childhood. The Americans or Israelis who appear are generally former Soviet citizens
who emigrated, whether before or after the fall of Communism, and speak native Russian.
"Freshness" is an especially valued commodity in this case, because there is a considerable
overlap in the names and faces appearing on these talks whatever the channel. For this there is
an objective reason: nearly all the Russian and even foreign guests live in Moscow and are
available to be invited or disinvited on short notice given that these talk programs can change
their programming if there is breaking news about which their audiences will want to hear
commentary. In my own case, I was flown in especially by the various channels who paid airfare
and hotel accommodation in Moscow as necessary on the condition that I appear only on their
shows during my stay in the city. That is to say, my expenses were covered but there was no
honorarium. I make this explicit to rebut in advance any notion that I/we outside panelists
were in any way "paid by the Kremlin" or restricted in our freedom of speech on air.
During the period under review, I appeared on both state channels, Rossiya-1 and Pervy
Kanal, as well as on the major commercial television channel, NTV. The dates and venues of my
participation in these talk shows are as follows:
September 11 – Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, Rossiya 1
September 26 - Sixty Minutes with Yevgeni Popov and Olga Skabeyeva, Rossiya 1
November 8-9 Time Will Tell.
For purposes of this essay, the pertinent appearances were on September 11 and 26. To this I
add the Sixty Minutes show of October 20 which I watched on television but which aired content
that I believe is important to this discussion.
My debut on the number one talk show in Russia, Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, on
September 11 was invaluable not so much for what was said on air but for the exchange I had
with the program's host, Vladimir Soloviev, in a five minute tête-à-tête in
the guests' lounge before the program went on air.
Soloviev obviously had not yet read his guest list, did not know who I am and stood ready to
respond to me when I walked up to him and unceremoniously put to him the question that
interested me the most: whom did he want to see win the US presidential election. He did not
hesitate, told me in no uncertain terms that he did not want to see Trump win because the man
is volatile, unpredictable and weak. Soloviev added that he and others do not expect anything
good in relations with the United States in general whoever won. He rejected the notion that
Trump's turning the Neocons out of government would be a great thing in and of itself.
As I now understand, Soloviev's resistance to the idea that Trump could be a good thing was
not just an example of Russians' prioritizing stability, the principle "better the devil you
know," meaning Hillary. During a recent chat with a Russian ambassador, someone also close to
power, I heard the conviction that the United States is like a big steamship which has its own
inertia and cannot be turned around, that presidents come and go but American foreign policy
remains the same. This view may be called cynical or realistic, depending on your taste, but it
is reflective of the thinking that comes out from many of the panelists in the talk shows as
you will find below in my quotations from the to-and-fro on air. It may also explain Soloviev's
negativism.
To appreciate what weight the opinions of Vladimir Soloviev carry, you have to consider just
who he is. That his talk show is the most professional from among numerous rival shows, that it
attracts the most important politicians and expert guests is only part of the story. What is
more to the point is that he is as close to Vladimir Putin as journalists can get.
In April, 2015 Vladimir Soloviev conducted a two hour interview with Putin that was aired on
Rossiya 1 under the title "The President." In early January 2016, the television documentary
"World Order," co-written and directed by Soloviev, set out in forceful terms Vladimir Putin's
views on American and Western attempts to stamp out Russian sovereignty that first were spoken
at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and have evolved and become ever more frank
since.
Soloviev has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of World Economics and International
Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was an active entrepreneur in the 1990s and spent
some time back then in the USA, where his activities included teaching economics at the
University of Alabama. He is fluent in English and has been an unofficial emissary of the
Kremlin to the USA at various times.
For all of these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that Vladimir Soloviev represents the
thinking of Russian elites close to their president, if not the views of Putin himself.
On September 27 , I took part in the Sixty Minutes talk show that was presented as a post
mortem of the first Trump-Clinton debate the day before. I direct attention to this show
because it demonstrates the sophistication and discernment of commentary about the United
States and its electoral process. All of this runs against the "slam-dunk" scenario based on a
cartoon-like representation of Russia and its decision makers.
The show's hosts tried hard to convey the essence of American political culture to their
audience and they did some effective research to this end. Whereas French and other Western
media devoted coverage on the day after the debates to the appearance of the American
presidential candidates and especially to Hillary (what else attracts comment from the male
world of journalism if not a lady's hair styling and sartorial choices), 'Sixty Minutes'
tweaked this aspect of the debates to find politically relevant commentary.
To make their point, presenter Yevgeny Popov came on stage in a blue suit and blue tie very
similar in coloring to Trump's, while his wife and co-presenter Olga Skabeyeva was wearing a
garment in the same red hue as Hillary. They proceeded to note that these color choices of the
candidates represented an inversion of the traditional colors of the Democratic and Republican
parties in American political tradition. And they took this a step further by declaring it to
be in line with the inversion of policies in the electoral platforms of the candidates. Hillary
had taken over the hawkish foreign policy positions of the Republicans and their
Neoconservative wing. Donald had taken over the dovish foreign policy positions normally
associated with Democrats. Moreover, Donald also had gone up against the free trade policies
that were an engrained part of Republican ideology up until now and were often rejected by
Democrats with their traditional financial backers from among labor unions. All of these
observations were essentially correct and astute as far as the campaigns went. It is curious to
hear them coming from precisely Russian journalists, when they were largely missed by West
European and American commentators.
As mentioned above, foreigners are often important to the Russian talk shows to add pepper
and salt. In this case, we were largely decorative. The lion's share of the program was shared
between the Russian politicians and journalists on the panel who very ably demonstrated in
their own persona that Russian elites were split down the middle on whether Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton was their preferred next occupant of the Oval Office
The reasons given were not what you heard within the USA: that Trump is vulgar, that Trump
is a bigot and misogynist. Instead the Russian Trump-skeptics were saying that he is impulsive
and cannot be trusted to act with prudence if there is some mishap, some accidental event
occurring between US and Russian forces in the field, for example. They gave expression to the
cynical view that the positions occupied by Trump in the pre-election period are purely
tactical, to differentiate himself from all competitors first in his own party during the
primaries and now from Hillary. Thus, Trump could turn out to be no friend of Russia on the day
after the elections.
A direct answer to these changes came from the pro-Trump members of the panel. It was best
enunciated by the senior politician in the room, Vyacheslav Nikonov. Nikonov is a Duma member
from Putin's United Russia party, the chair of the Education Committee in the 6th Duma. He is
also chair of a government sponsored organization of Russian civil society, Russian World,
which looks after the interests of Russians and Russian culture in the diaspora abroad.
Nikonov pointed to Trump's courage and determination which scarcely suggest merely tactical
considerations driving his campaign. Said Nikonov, Trump had gone up against the entire US
political establishment, against the whole of corporate mainstream media and was winning.
Nikonov pointed to the surge in Trump poll statistics in the couple of weeks preceding the
debate. And he ticked off the 4 swing states which Trump needed to win and where his fortunes
were rising fast. Clearly his presentation was carefully prepared, not something casual and
off-the-cuff.
During the exchange of doubters and backers of Trump among the Russians, one doubter spoke
of Trump as a "non-systemic" politician. This may be loosely interpreted a meaning he is
anti-establishment. But in the Russian context it had an odious connotation, being applied to
Alexei Navalny and certain members of the American- and EU-backed Parnas political movement,
and suggesting seditious intent.
In this connection, Nikonov put an entirely different spin on who Trump is and what he
represents as an anti-establishment figure. But then again, maybe such partiality runs in the
family. Nikonov is the grandson of Molotov, one of the leading figures who staged the Russian
Revolution and governed the young Soviet state.
Who won the first Trump-Clinton debate? Here the producers of Sixty Minutes gave the final
verdict to a Vesti news analyst from a remote location whose image was projected on a
wall-sized screen. We were told that the debate was a draw: Trump had to demonstrate that he is
presidential, which he did. Clinton had to demonstrate she had the stamina to resist the
onslaught of 90 minutes with Trump and she also succeeded.
The October 20 program Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, which I watched on television from
abroad, was devoted to the third Clinton-Trump debate. My single most important conclusion from
the show was that, notwithstanding the very diverse panel, there was a bemused unanimity among
them regarding the US presidential electoral campaign: that it was deplorable. They found both
candidates to be disgraceful due to their flagrant weaknesses of character and/or records in
office, but they were also disturbed by the whole political culture. Particular attention was
devoted to the very one-sided position of the American mass media and the centrist
establishments of both parties in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton. When Russians and
former Russians use the terms "McCarthyism" and "managed democracy" to describe the American
political process as they did on the show, they know acutely well whereof they speak.
Though flamboyant in his language the nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of
the LDPR Party, touched on a number of core concerns that bear repeating extensively, if not in
full:
"The debates were weak. The two cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to
one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by
their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room.
Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: disgrace! This is the worst
electoral campaign ever. And mostly what we see is the style of the campaign. However much
people criticize the USSR – the old fogies who ran it, one and the same, supposedly the
conscience of the world.
Now we see the same thing in the USA: the exceptional country – the country that has
bases everywhere, soldiers everywhere, is bombing everywhere in some city or other. They are
making their 'experiments.' The next experiment is to have a woman in the White House. It
will end badly.
Hillary has some kind of dependency. A passion for power – and that is dangerous for
the person who will have her finger on the nuclear button. If she wins, on November 9th the
world will be at the brink of a big war "
Zhirinovsky made no secret of his partiality for Trump, calling him "clean" and "a good man"
whereas Hillary has "blood on her hands" for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to her
policies as Secretary of State. But then again, Zhirinovsky has made his political career over
more than 30 years precisely by making outrageous statements that run up against what the
Russian political establishment says aloud. Before Trump came along, Zhirinovsky had been the
loudest voice in Russian politics in favor of Turkey and its president Erdogan, a position
which he came to regret when the Turks shot down a Russian jet at the Syrian border, causing a
great rupture in bilateral relations.
The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the
moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very
bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main
theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria."
This being Russia, one might assume that the deeply negative views of the ongoing
presidential election reflected a general hostility to the USA on the part of the presenter and
panelists. But nothing of the sort came out from their discussion. To be sure, there was the
odd outburst from Zhirinovsky, who repeated a catchy line that he has delivered at other talk
shows: essentially that the USA is eating Russia and the world's lunch given that it consumes
the best 40% of what the world produces while it itself accounts for just 20% of world GDP. But
otherwise the panelists, including Zhirinovsky, displayed informed respect and even admiration
for what the United States has achieved and represents.
The following snippets of their conversation convey this very well and do not require
attribution to one or another participant:
"America has the strongest economy, which is why people want to go there and there is a
lot for us to borrow from it. We have to learn from them, and not be shy about it."
"Yes, they created the conditions for business. In the morning you file your application.
After lunch you can open your business."
"America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand
precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever
becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach
agreement."
"The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it
attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers,
composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people
are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher."
How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the
US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military
powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between
Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that
the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to
its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay
will concur.
* * * *
Ever since his candidacy took off in the spring of 2016, both Liberal Interventionists and
Neoconservatives have been warning that a Donald Trump presidency would mean abandonment of US
global leadership. They equated Donald's "America First" with isolationism. After all, it was
in the openly "isolationist period" of American political history just before the outbreak of
WWII that the original America First slogan first appeared.
However, isolationism never left us, even as the United States became engaged in and
eventually dominated the world after the end of the Cold War. Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID.
And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often
just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their
concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives,
concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated
from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism.
It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual
pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations,
and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. Indeed, that is very often the case in
other countries, as well. The distinction is that the US footprint in the world is vastly
greater than that of other countries and policy decisions taken in Washington, especially in
the past 20 years of militarized foreign-policy making, spell war or peace, order or chaos in
the territories under consideration.
As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and
over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the
world into nuclear war.
It is a luxury we manifestly cannot afford to indulge ourselves.
But we all have to agree that the USA is the more infantile of all The Nations, and since
the end of the last war they have made no effort to grow up. They have created RussiaGate
where no other nation would dream up such Trivia.
JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. When the
American president is enemy, you are not American
Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell
up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq
was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no
exercises....
It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country.
They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in
an African jungle.
Please cut out the announcements of exercises after exercises, it is clogging the
airwaves. We are all tired of your stupid exercises... if you want to attack go ahead and get
your fat asses whipped like a slave running away from its masters.
Shameless cowards are now becoming highly annoying... it can be called Propaganda
terrorism. Cut that nonsense out. You cannot beat North Korea, you know it, the rest of the
world knows it. You cannot fight China or Russia, the rest of the world knows it ... so
please shut up once and for all.
You are terrorizing the airwaves with your exercise after exercise after exercise.
Practice control of the ships that are becoming a maritime hazzard to commercial ships. That
is what you need to practice.
Nobody is impressed with your over-bloated expensive war equipment which fail under war
conditions. Cut out the exercises before we start turning off our ears for your
propaganda.
YELLOW BELIED COWARDS!!!!! Go poison an innocent person or kill a child....it may make you
feel better... Big fat cowards.!
I am also very tired of the bluster . They flap their gums and taunt. Enough already . You
have made fools of yourselves in the eyes of the world .
All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea
paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South
Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is
a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly
being displayed.
They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made
to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it.
"American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since
that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking".
Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it".
The whole thing is orchestrated by the Zionist state within a state which controls not only America but most of the West -
and own the entire mainstream media. They cannot forgive Trump for wanting to make peace with Russia. Their hatred of
Christian Russia is visceral and unhinged.
'...by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."'
This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language
routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must
follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced.
Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all -
not the slightest scrap.
But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey
quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof.
It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not
going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".
Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding
Israel picked the "president of the USA".
That American children are murdering innocent children in foreign lands, for the benefit of,
not Israel, it is just a figment of the imagination, as the USSR was, and the USA is, but the
owners of Israel, City of London, Usury bankers.
Pedophile scum!
- understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".
The fraud is in every election district. Israel cannot afford the bussing of Liberals.
This is too large for some poor nation like Israel. You are making up "Israel", just like
Gordon Duff. It tells me you are the same as Gordon Duff.
What an excellent article. If only people who have a very small knowledge of Russia/USA
relations would bother to read this and reflect upon it, a lot of misconceptions could be
cleared up if goodwill is part of the picture.
I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror
operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's
the world we appear to have: selective cooperation.
I don't know if the FSB has the levels of electronics signals intelligence the US has, I
do know the US and Russia may have cooperated in raids resulting in deaths of two Caucaus
Emirates leaders in 2014-2015. I believe that group has since disbanded and members probably
blended into other terror groups.
The thing that is absolutely ridiculous is that the American media and Deep State are what
is causing this trouble. I don't know why they want to have a World War so badly, but the
only thing keeping our two countries from destruction is Vladimir Putin's hard work and good
nature, and Trump's defiance of his "staff."
These Deep State actors in the US have
hidey-holes they can run to in case of the unthinkable, but they couldn't care less about the
people of the US -- let alone Russia. Their day is coming, and they'll be praying for their
mountains to fall on them when it does.
Anyone in the US that's paying any attention at all
knows the real story on this, and none of those who do are blaming anyone in Russia. If the
day ever comes that the US Deep State takes to their bunkers, they better be prepared to stay
in there--Balrogs or no Balrogs--because those of us who manage to survive above will be
looking for their sorry azzes when they come out!!!
Just to take your comment a little further ;- get to know every plumber and builder in
your area as I am, get on a friendly basis and ask about these "Deep State actors in the US
have hidey-holes" over a pint or two.
Then I am starting a crowdfunding fund to bring in "hundreds of thousands" to pay them to
screw up their sewage facilities in their hidey-holes SO THEY CAN down in their own BS.
After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in
the White House - Uranium One gives Russia something they know all the details of and
something they know the US public won't take lightly, so they could easily have blackmailed Hitlery with leaking those details.
Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again,
looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that.
No need for paranoia, it is a veritable American love fest at the Kremlin, RIA, etc., ever
since the CIA informed Moscow that they had "information" on an imminent attack in
Russia.
Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even
stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever.
Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in
the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians.
Some people talk a good game while some people actually take action.
For those of you that have some video viewing time available , you will probably enjoy the
lecture at the National Press Club , not nearly well attended I might add for this quality
venue, of Gilbert Doctoro.
New legatum prosperity index is up: Europeans enjoy the greatest quality of life
worldwide, Russians fall into more impoverishment and low quality of life. Its no secret that, for the past 150 years, Russian's wealth, quality of life and life
expectancy is unacceptably low for European standards).
Norway, Finland,
Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark occupying the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th
places respectively.
- low for European standards ... ) .... Norway, Finland, Switzerland,
Sweden Netherlands and Denmark
When you do copyworks, include your source. RI is not for illiterate globalist bots who
cannot read an answer. The quality of trolls is now too low. The globalists are now hiring
junk?
"German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with
information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency."
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to
The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers
and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.
The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before
moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail
Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to
assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.
Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt
gripping the nation , believes that this
falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping
at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed
intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop
any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.
Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute
a "grave American national security threat."
"... Comey, for his part, wrote a memo alleging Trump had asked him to drop his investigation into Flynn, an act which some say could constitute obstruction of justice and thus grounds for seeking Trump's impeachment. ..."
Comey, for his part, wrote a memo alleging Trump had asked him to drop his investigation into Flynn, an act which some say
could constitute obstruction of justice and thus grounds for seeking Trump's impeachment.
"... Here you had Obama's people using the NSA to spy on his adversaries, and apparently include the CIA, the FBI, and members of the Department of Justice in that loop, in a manner that was not approved of by any court, that was not approved by even a FISA court – the special court that monitors certain kinds of surveillance," he said. ..."
"... "Just because a conversation involves a foreign official doesn't allow you to illegally tape it, illegally monitor it, or illegally record it when a U.S. citizen is on there, particularly when it's your political adversary," Barnes explained. ..."
"Yes, there is," Barnes replied. "In fact, it's one of the directions that a future
investigation can take. A future investigation doesn't have to focus on whatever it is the
Democrats or liberals want. It can focus on the illegal leaks that took place."
"As I mentioned the other day to a liberal lawyer friend of mine, the worst thing ever
accused concerning Nixon was about using private resources to try to illegally spy on people.
Here you had Obama's people using the NSA to spy on his adversaries, and apparently include
the CIA, the FBI, and members of the Department of Justice in that loop, in a manner that was
not approved of by any court, that was not approved by even a FISA court – the special
court that monitors certain kinds of surveillance," he said.
"Just because a conversation involves a foreign official doesn't allow you to illegally
tape it, illegally monitor it, or illegally record it when a U.S. citizen is on there,
particularly when it's your political adversary," Barnes explained.
"I'm sure the liberals would go nuts if Trump tomorrow started listening in on every
conversation Obama had with anybody that's foreign, or that Bill Clinton had with anybody
that's foreign, or that Hillary Clinton had with anybody that's foreign. So it's a dangerous,
precarious path that Obama has opened up, and hopefully there is a full investigation into that
activity," he said.
"You clearly also have lots of illegal leaks going on, particularly as it related to the
recent Yemen issue involving the widow of the Navy SEAL who passed way, that became a big issue
at the State of the Union. There you had people reporting that no intelligence was gathered.
Well, that's an illegal leak. It turns out that they're wrong, they were lying about
what intelligence developed or the fact that intelligence did develop, but they
shouldn't have been out there saying anything like that," he noted.
"There are people willing to leak the most sensitive national security secrets about any
particular matter, solely to have a one-day political hit story on Trump. These are people who
are violating their oath, and violating the law. Hopefully there is ultimately criminal
punishment," Barnes urged.
"This is far worse than the Plame matter that got all that attention, that got a special
prosecutor in W's reign. This is far, far worse than any of that. This is putting national
security at risk. This is an effective de facto coup attempt by elements of the deep state. So
hopefully there's a meaningful investigation and a meaningful prosecution of these people who
have engaged in reckless criminal acts for their personal political partisan purposes," he
said.
rumors
, denials, whistleblowers
,
backlash , demands, threats,
lies , bias, and
anti-bias surrounding Robert Mueller and his investigation, President Trump said Sunday
that he is not considering firing the Special Counsel.
"No, I'm not," Trump told reporters, when asked if he intended to fire Mueller, according to
Politico .
The president was returning to the White House from a weekend at the Camp David presidential
retreat.
Trump's allies complained
this weekend about the way Mueller's team went about obtaining from the presidential
transition. Mueller's spokesman Peter Carr said Sunday that the office had followed appropriate
steps to obtain the transition emails. Pro-Trump lawmakers and pundits also have accused the
special counsel's office of bias after it was revealed that two FBI officials who previously
served on Mueller's team had exchanged anti-Trump text messages.
And while Trump said "I'm not,"
Axios notes that he did criticize the fact that Mueller accessed
"many tens of thousands" of emails from the presidential transition, saying it was "not
looking good."
seth? he was the guy that stole the dnc and podesta emails (well at least the dnc emails)
and got them to julian assange. after he was murdered (well at least shot twice) on the
streets of d.c. (he actually died in a hospital; probably bears some looking into), julian
offered a reward for info on it, making many believe he was wiki's source.
seymour hersh, who followed the case closely, thinks the same, but agrees with the d.c.
police that he was just mugged, not shot by say hillary and podesta using imran awan or
something. http://archive.is/lD4BV if
so, for a lucky lady that hillary clinton has some real bad luck. but it is poetically
fitting that someone who actually killed dozens of people as a private citizen (and maybe a
million as a public servant), would be convicted in the public's eye of the one she didn't
really do.
Mueller has painted himself into a cesspool that is exploding. If he had an ounce of sense
or honor he would get the eff out before he has to start covering his own tracks. But don't
bet on Mueller doing the right thing. His pals in politics and the press have made him out to
be some kind of saint when he really is all t'aint, no saint (don't ask me what t'aint is,
ask someone else.)
Don't fire Mueller now- the cesspool is bursting at the seems and Mueller is standing
right under it.
It makes little sense to me that if Seth Rich was an idealistic young man, standing on
principle and conviction, who along with his brother contacted WikiLeaks and arranged to give
it evidence of Hillary's and Debbie's treachery against Sanders, why he would then have been
reported to be looking forward to joining the Hillary campaign staff in the Brooklyn
headquarters.
CrowdStrike (run by Shawn Henry, who is a former FBI official, promoted by Mueller), which
provided the narrative to the DNC that the "Russians did it," has never been independently
verified in their conclusions by the FBI. Or Mueller. Pull that thread and the sweater starts
to unravel.
Mueller doesn't have it in him to step aside. Therefore he needs to be indicted for
prosecutorial abuse. Slap his ass down hard. Handcuffs would be a nice touch.
Mueller didn't oppose the raid of Paul Manafort at 5 a.m. in the morning with guns drawn.
Sounds like a good law enforcement technique for the buzzard.
"... Scared and panicking Evelyn Farkas spilled the beans. By saying "I became very worried..." she's obviously trying to justify her behavior in case a legal bomb is dropped on her. This is a side effect of Nunes' dramatized little trip to the White House intelligence secure facilities: as long as they don't know Nunes and Trump's hands, panic will bring more people to come forward and look for some kind of justification and/or protection. ..."
Obama and Clinton thought they had the election in the bag. They broke surveillance laws thinking that Clinton would be in
the Whitehouse to cover it anyway. Imagine their shock on election day when they realized how many felonies would be exposed when
Trump took over.........cover-up.
Look at her face at 2:06 ... Scared and panicking
Evelyn Farkas spilled the beans. By saying "I became very worried..." she's obviously trying to justify her behavior in case a
legal bomb is dropped on her. This is a side effect of Nunes' dramatized little trip to the White House intelligence secure facilities:
as long as they don't know Nunes and Trump's hands, panic will bring more people to come forward and look for some kind of justification
and/or protection.
"... Morell is "priming" the public, cushioning the landing as it were, for the eventual revelation that the Russian collusion narrative has been entirely fabricated. ..."
"... He's not doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but in an attempt to minimize the intelligence community's inevitable, and i might add deserved, loss of credibility over the fiasco. ..."
"... That guy wanted to "kill Russians" and "kill Iranians". He's not a good guy by any stretch of the imagination. ..."
Former CIA Director Michael Morell said in an interview that he thought if there was
evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller
would have found it already and that the evidence would've been leaked by now. RT America's
Anya Parampil has more.
Morell is "priming" the public, cushioning the landing as it were, for the eventual
revelation that the Russian collusion narrative has been entirely fabricated.
He's not doing it out of the goodness of his heart, but in an attempt to minimize the
intelligence community's inevitable, and i might add deserved, loss of credibility over the
fiasco.
What boggles the mind is there are 3 or 4 solid ways to go after Trump that don't involve
Russia, but the media doesn't seem to be interested in those.
That is because a) it doesn't exonerate the DNC over it's shitty performance in 2016, and
b) it doesn't push the new cold war (which in turn boosts arms sales, and gives the elite a
way to terrify and therefore control the populace). They thought it was going to work, but
it's becoming increasingly apparent that the Nothingburger is about to be exposed for what it
is.
American politics is a clown show and it's actually embarrassing to watch, the world is
laughing at America because it's like a badly written soap opera live on TV.
Michael Morell is a psychopath and the kind of guy who'd usually be pushing the Russia
narrative. If he is saying this - well that's a mind blowing death blow to the big lie.
Amazing. For once in his pathetic life he actually makes a correct analysis. Fuck
me.
CIA INFILTRATED TOP LEVEL OFFICIALS OF THE FBI. CIA MUST BE BLOWN TO PIECES LIKE PRESIDENT
KENNEDY SAID. IF THE CIA WOULD STICK TO THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION, THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE
IN THE MESS IT IS IN NOW.
Morell didn't think through the implications of his actions! If that's the case it would
be the first move in his life he hadn't thought through. These people think we are cabbages
and believe anything, whether its Comey schoolboy act or Morell lack of foresight, we are
expected to suck it up, its just plain insulting they don't even try and mask their deceit
anymore
Former Acting Director of the CIA, Michael Morell, gives a surprisingly honest interview in
which he admits that leaking and bashing by the intelligence community against an incoming
president might not have been the best idea.
People need to go to jail for this. Too much power is in the hands of the shadow
government. The democratic party along with the republican establishment need to be exposed
for the snakes that they really are, thank you HA !!
"... House and Senate Committees are also trying to get to the bottom of a report last Monday by Fox News which revealed that recently demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS - the firm behind the Trump-Russia dossier. It was also later uncovered by internet sleuths that Nellie Ohr represented the CIA's "Open Source Works" group at a 2010 working group on organized crime, which she participated in along with her husband Bruce and Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS. ..."
"... Last Tuesday, FBI Deputy Director McCabe unexpectedly cancelled a scheduled testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee -- thought to be related to the Fox report on Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Text messages between Strzok and Page were released the same day . ..."
"... Of course he won't, yet those who still support Trump will continue to perform mental gymnastics to explain why. Trump picked Sessions, just like he picked Cohn, Munchkin, Pence, etc. ..."
"... I've always been very uncomfortable with the nearly unlimited mandate afforded Special Prosecutors. Arguments that Mueller has exceeded his mandate and is now on a fishing expedition show a complete disregard for the law. Mueller is allowed to do that, just as Ken Starr was. That's the problem. Mueller hasn't done anything unlawful and nobody has seriously alleged that he has. The problem is that the law allows him to do whatever he wants. ..."
"... If by "insurance policy" Strzok meant the dossier, which was the basis for a FISA warrant, I'd say they were outside the law. ..."
"... Have you noticed that everyone with these impeccable, beyond reproach, do it by the book reputations are all really nothing more than reptilian scumbags? Comey, Mueller, McCain, Sessions....... ..."
In November. Sessions
pushed back on the need for a special counsel to investigate a salacious anti-Trump dossier
paid for in part by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and whether or not the FBI used the largely
unverified dossier to launch the Russia investigation. Sessions told Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
that it would take "a factual basis that meets the standard of a special counsel," adding "You
can have your idea but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it
meets the standards it requires. I would say, 'looks like' is not enough basis to appoint a
special counsel "
A flood of GOP lawmakers along with President Trump's outside counsel Jay Sekulow have
renewed calls for a separate special counsel investigation of the Department of Justice and the
FBI amid revelations that top FBI officials
conspired to tone down former FBI Director James Comey's statement exonerating Hillary
Clinton - altering or removing key language which effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's
beahvior. The
officials implicated are former FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe,
Peter Strzok, Strzok's supervisor E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and DOJ Deputy General
Counsel Trisha Anderson .
Also under recent scrutiny are a trove of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok to
his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page showing extreme bias against then-candidate Trump, while
both of them were actively engaged in the Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia
investigation. GOP lawmakers claim the FBI launched its investigation into Russian collusion
based on the 34-page dossier created by opposition research firm Fusion GPS - which hired the
CIA wife of a senior DOJ official to assist in digging up damaging information on
5then-candidate Trump .
A particularly disturbing text message between Strzok and Page was leaked to the press last
week referencing an "
insurance policy " in case Trump were to be elected President. Strzok wrote to Page: " I
want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way
he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk ." It's like an insurance policy in
the unlikely event you die before you're 40.... "
House and Senate Committees are also trying to get to the bottom of a report last Monday by
Fox News which revealed that recently demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for
Fusion GPS - the firm behind the Trump-Russia dossier. It was also later uncovered by internet
sleuths that Nellie Ohr represented the CIA's "Open Source Works" group at a 2010 working group
on organized crime, which she participated in along with her husband Bruce and Glenn Simpson,
co-founder of Fusion GPS.
Bruce and Nellie Ohr
Last Tuesday, FBI Deputy Director McCabe unexpectedly cancelled a scheduled testimony in
front of the House Intelligence Committee -- thought to be related to the Fox report on Bruce
and Nellie Ohr. Text messages between Strzok and Page were
released the same day .
So with Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying things may have "more innocent explanations"
here are some specific questions for the AG to answer:
Did Peter Strzok innocently tell his mistress that there was an " insurance policy"
against a Trump win, which likely referenced the Russia investigation which GOP lawmakers
think was based on an unverified dossier?
Was Peter Strzok innocently texting Lisa Page " F Trump " while he was the lead
investigator on the Clinton email case?
Was Peter Strzok's edit of the phrase "Gross negligence" to "extremely careless"
innocent? It very innocently changed the entire legal standing of the case from criminal
conduct to a layman's opinion of carelessness.
18 U.S. Code '
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
Was Peter Strzok innocently calling Trump " a f*cking idiot " and a "
loathsome human" before investigating him?
Did FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's "damage control team" innocently change their
conclusion that Hillary Clinton's server was " possibly " hacked, rather than " reasonably
likely " - language which significantly altered the seriousness of Clinton's mishandling of
classified information?
Were all references to the FBI working with other members of the intelligence community
on Clinton's private server innocently scrubbed from Comey's exoneration statement - making
it look like a much smaller investigation?
Before he was demoted for doing so - did senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr innocently meet
with MI6 spy Christopher Steele who assembled the salacious 'Trump-Russia' dossier, and then
also innocently meet with Glenn Simpson, co-founder of opposition research firm Fusion GPS?
Fusion commissioned Steele to create the dossier, which relied on senior Russian
officials.
Did Fusion GPS innocently hire Bruce Ohr's CIA wife, Nellie Ohr, to gather damaging
information on President Trump? If there weren't such innocent explanations for everything,
one might think Nellie Ohr could have possibly passed information from the DOJ to Fusion GPS
and vice versa.
Did Hillary Clinton and the DNC innocently pay Fusion GPS $1,024,408 through law firm
Perkins Coie, which then paid Steele $168,000?
In addition to the 'Trump-Russia' dossier, did Fusion GPS innocently arrange the Trump
Tower "setup" meeting between Trump Jr. and a Russian Attorney? Or
attempt to link Donald Trump to billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein ? Or try to push
the debunked claim that a secret email server existed between Trump Tower and Moscow's Alfa
bank - which Alfa bank executives are suing Fusion GPS over?
The list goes on and on, but hey: sometimes things that might appear to be bad in the press
have more innocent explanations...
No! The true explanation cuts across the grain of the existing miasma currently being
perpetrated as truth by the senior management at the FBI. One being ignored and covered up by
the mainstream media. We have senior management at the top federal law enforcement agency
that has willfully chosen to elevate their personal political opinion and beliefs above their
sworn duty to uphold constitutional law. And this "explanation" is just the latest attempt to
reinforce a violently shaking house of cards. The question that presents itself is whether we
have the moral backbone as a country to correct our course. The outcome is questionable. And
yet there is room for hope.
"Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake" Appointing a second Special Counsel could be interpreted as an interruption. I'm not
defending Sessions here, he simply might be doing exactly what his boss is asking him to
do.
Of course he won't, yet those who still support Trump will continue to perform mental
gymnastics to explain why. Trump picked Sessions, just like he picked Cohn, Munchkin, Pence, etc.
"The AAZ Empire the Judiciary domain is like central banking and media a goy-free zone. All
lawyers, attorneys, judges, etc. are members of the BAR association, a private, Zion
controlled monopoly, whose internal rules and regulations, that all BAR members are sworn to,
supersedes the constitutions and laws of all nation states."
This quote is not mine,but it reflects exactly what I think. If you do not believe this,do
a search about BAR association.
Look at her picture. You know she's a "chosen",even without knowing her name
Sessions is a gatekeeper. Like the Donald.
The simple fact that Hillary Clinton is not in jail, with the OVERWHELMING evidence we have
against her, that the Weiner lap top has disappeared with all 650 000 incriminating
e-mails, that all the Clinton dead pool is OVERFLOWING, including with the recent death of Dr.
Dean Lorich, who had knowledge about the Clinton Foundation doings in Haiti, Seth Rich's
death, etc. ALL THESE are proofs that we do not have a DOJ, an AG(which are named by the
EXECUTIVE branch) .
This leads to only one conclusion=there is one party, having two wings ,to
create an illusion of "democracy" and that voting matters.
Yes, the full-court press is on to end the Special Prosecutor investigation, and maybe
even the entire law authorizing it. There appear to be no legal grounds for any of this. This
seems to be pure politics and PR manipulation attempts.
I've always been very uncomfortable with the nearly unlimited mandate afforded Special
Prosecutors. Arguments that Mueller has exceeded his mandate and is now on a fishing
expedition show a complete disregard for the law. Mueller is allowed to do that, just as Ken
Starr was. That's the problem. Mueller hasn't done anything unlawful and nobody has seriously
alleged that he has. The problem is that the law allows him to do whatever he wants.
And investigators are allowed to communicate with each other. They shouldn't have affairs
with each other, but they do. Nobody serious, in a position to say or do anything that
counts, alleges that they did anything unlawful, or anything that should be handled any other
way than the way it was handled, which is a job reassignment and possible termination.
Prosecutors are biased against the people they investigate. That's their job. I don't like
that either, but that's the deal.
I'd have a lot more respect for Sessions if he didn't blather on about the Constitution
and State's Rights and Freedom, and then cheerlead enthusiastically for a violent police
state and suspension of the rule of law for profit. But as you say, in this situation, he is
indeed correct.
And the fatuousness of the campaign to discredit Mueller, which assiduously avoids any
legitimate political argument, is a very bad sign. President Trump's attorneys are in way
over their head and they're panicking. Perhaps with good reason. But it would be better for
America if Trump could have retained any competent representation. Clearly all the good
lawyers decided they wanted no part of him as a client.
Have you noticed that everyone with these impeccable, beyond reproach, do it by the book
reputations are all really nothing more than reptilian scumbags? Comey, Mueller, McCain,
Sessions.......
"... It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign in July 2016, shortly before the Russiagate investigation was launched. ..."
"... The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. ..."
"... Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier. ..."
"... It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of persons involved in the election campaign of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump. ..."
"... Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the basis for a warrant to spy on Americans. ..."
"... There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress because of the failure of the FBI and the Justice Department to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas. ..."
"... As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been provided with the Trump Dossier ..."
"... As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the narrative frame narrative when questioning witnesses about their role in Russiagate. ..."
"... These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain the surveillance warrants it obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards. ..."
"... Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there has also to be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump administration at the start of the year. ..."
"... On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton's opponent ..."
"... Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive to draw attention away from their own activities. ..."
"... Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what I said nine months ago in March . Congressman Jordan has again recently called for a second Special Counsel to be appointed . When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair. ..."
"... Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during the election as the focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel. ..."
"... There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance of US citizens during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier. ..."
It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump
Dossier, who is now known to have been in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign in
July 2016, shortly before the Russiagate investigation was launched.
Whilst there is some confusion about whether the FBI actually paid Steele for his
information, it is now known that Steele was in contact with the FBI throughout the election
and after, and that the FBI gave credence to his work.
Recently it has also come to light that Steele was also directly in touch with Obama's
Justice Department, a fact which was only disclosed recently. The best
account of this has been provided by Byron York writing for The Washington Examiner
The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general
at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally
Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016, Ohr's office was just
steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump's initial travel ban
executive order and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice
Department.
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts
with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with
Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the
Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.
Word that Ohr met with Steele and Simpson, first reported by Fox News' James Rosen and
Jake Gibson, was news to some current officials in the Justice Department. Shortly after
learning it, they demoted Ohr, taking away his associate deputy attorney general title and
moving him full time to another position running the department's organized crime drug
enforcement task forces.
It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of
information in the Trump Dossier – obtained at least one warrant from the FISA court
which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of
persons involved in the election campaign of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
In response to subpoenas issued at the instigation of the Congressman Devin Nunes the FBI
has recently admitted that the Trump Dossier cannot be verified.
However the FBI and the Justice Department have so far failed to provide in response to
these subpoenas information about the precise role of the Trump Dossier in triggering the
Russiagate investigation.
The FBI's and the Justice Department's failure to provide this information recently provoked
an angry exchange between FBI Director Christopher Wray and Congressman Jim Jordan during a
hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
During that hearing Jordan said to Wray the following
Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and
the Clinton campaign, which we now know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid
Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together a report that
we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been
reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and
presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the basis for a warrant to
spy on Americans.
In response Wray refused to say whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI
obtaining the FISA warrants, even though it was previously disclosed that it did. This is
despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been
provided in response to Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress because of the failure of the FBI and the Justice
Department to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee
Jordan also had this to say
Here's what I think -- I think Peter Strozk (sic) Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he's
the guy who took the application to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened, if
you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats' campaign, taking opposition
research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it
to the FISA court so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong
as it gets
Peter Strzok is the senior FBI official who is now known to have had a leading role in both
the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's misuse of her private server and in the Russiagate
investigation.
Strzok is now also known to have been the person who changed the wording in Comey's
statement clearing Hillary Clinton for her misuse of her private email server to say that
Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless'" as opposed to "grossly negligent".
Strzok – who was the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence – is now
also known to have been the person who signed the document which launched the Russiagate
investigation in July 2016.
Fox News has
reported that Strzok was also the person supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn.
It is not clear whether this covers to the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017
during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with Russian ambassador. However it
is likely that it does.
If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's to the FBI during this
interview which made up the case against him to which he has now pleaded guilty, and given the
indications that Flynn's interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was a
set-up intended to entrap him .
As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was
Strozk who was the official within the FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher
Steele, and who would have been provided with the Trump Dossier.
Recently it has been disclosed that Special Counsel Mueller sacked Strzok from the
Russiagate investigation supposedly after it was discovered that Strzok had been sending
anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he was having
an affair.
These messages were sent by Strzok to his lover during the election, but apparently only
came to light in July this year, when Mueller supposedly sacked Strzok because of them.
It seems that since then Strzok has been working in the FBI's human resources department, an
astonishing demotion for the FBI's former deputy director for counter-intelligence who was
apparently previously considered the FBI's top expert on Russia.
Some people have questioned whether the sending of the messages could possibly be the true
reason why Strzok was sacked. My colleague Alex Christoforou has reported
on some of the bafflement that this extraordinary sacking and demotion has caused.
Business Insider reports the anguished comments of former FBI officials incredulous that
Strzok could have been sacked for such a trivial reason. Here is what Business Insider
reports one ex FBI official Mark Rossini as having said
It would be literally impossible for one human being to have the power to change or
manipulate evidence or intelligence according to their own political preferences. FBI agents,
like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs. If
anything, the overwhelming majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
This is obviously right. Though the ex-FBI officials questioned by Business Insider are
clearly supporters of Strzok and critics of Donald Trump,
the same point has been made from the other side of the political divide by Congressman Jim
Jordan
If you get kicked off the Mueller team for being anti-Trump, there wouldn't be anybody
left on the Mueller team. There has to be more
Adding to the mystery about Strzok's sacking is why the FBI took five months to confirm
it.
Mueller apparently sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation in July and it was
apparently then that Strzok was simultaneously sacked from his previous post of deputy director
for counter-espionage and transferred to human resources. The FBI however only disclosed his
sacking now five months later in response to demands for information from Congressional
investigators.
There is in fact an obvious explanation for Strzok's sacking and the strange circumstances
surrounding it and I am sure that it is the one Congressman Jordan was thinking during his
angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Recently the FBI admitted to Congress that it has failed to verify the Trump Dossier.
I suspect that Congressman Jordan believes that the true reason why Strzok was sacked is
that Strzok's credibility had become so tied to the Trump Dossier that when its credibility
collapsed over the course of the summer when the FBI finally realised that it could not be
verified his credibility collapsed with it. If so then I am sure that Congressman Jordan is
right.
We now know from a variety of sources but first and foremost from the testimony to Congress
of Carter Page that the Trump Dossier provided the frame narrative for the Russiagate
investigation until just a few months ago.
We also know that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report
about supposed Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows
that at the start of the year the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community
– Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
The June 2017 article in the Washington Post (discussed by me here ) also all but confirms
that it was the Trump Dossier that provided the information which the CIA sent to President
Obama in August 2016 alleging that the Russians were interfering in the election.
As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the Trump
Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence
Community, who appears to be very close to some of the FBI investigators involved in the
Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the
narrative frame narrative when questioning witnesses about their role in Russiagate.
These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided
the information which the FBI used to obtain the surveillance warrants it obtained from the
FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards.
Strzok's position as the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence makes it highly
likely that he was amongst those senior FBI and US intelligence officials who gave the Trump
Dossier credence, whilst his known actions during the Hillary Clinton private server
investigation and during the Russiagate investigation make it highly likely that it was he who
was the official within the FBI who sought and obtained the FISA warrants.
Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to
its start in July 2016, there has also to be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind
many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump administration
at the start of the year.
This once again points to the true scandal of the 2016 election.
On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign
the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community carried out surveillance
during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Donald Trump,
Hillary Clinton's opponent .
Given the hugely embarrassing implications of this for the FBI, it is completely
understandable why Strzok, if he was the person who was ultimately responsible for this debacle
– as he almost certainly was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks
– as he likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when the utter
falsity of the Trump Dossier could no longer be denied.
It would also explain why the FBI sought to keep Strzok's sacking secret, so that it was
only disclosed five months after it happened and then only in response to questions from
Congressional investigators, with a cover story about inappropriate anti-Trump messages being
spread about in order to explain it.
This surely is also the reason why in defiance both of evidence and logic the Russiagate
investigation continues to grind on.
Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are
facing, it is completely understandable why they should want to keep the Russiagate
investigation alive to draw attention away from their own activities.
Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the
surveillance which is the wrongdoing the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is
what I said nine
months ago in March . Congressman Jordan has again recently called for
a second Special Counsel to be appointed . When the suggestion of appointing a second
Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the second
Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair.
That always struck me as misconceived not because there may not be things to investigate in
the Uranium One case but because the focus of any new investigation should be what happened
during the 2016 election, not what happened during the Uranium one case.
Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the
US national security bureaucracy during the election as the focus of the proposed investigation
to be conducted by the second Special Counsel.
In truth there should be no second Special Counsel. Since there is no Russiagate collusion
to investigate the Russiagate investigation – ie. the investigation headed by Mueller
– should be wound up.
There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real
scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance of US citizens during the election by the US
national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of
Congress such as Congressman Nunes (recently cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately
by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman Jordan are starting to
demand it is a hopeful sign.
In five month is is clear how wrong Pat Buchanan was. I expected from him a much better analysis with less prejudies. But he is absolutely
right about leaks. Actually now it is clear that one of the requests from Trump team to Russian ambassador was about help Israel in UN, so this not a
Russiagate. There is also suspection that Strzok was the person who had thrown Flynn under the bus and propagated
Steele dossier within FBI. May be acting as Brennan agent inside FBI.
Notable quotes:
"... Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn. ..."
"... Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page 1 ..."
"... Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality. ..."
"... Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to fence them once stolen and repainted. ..."
"... Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out? ..."
"... Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic? ..."
"... Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck. ..."
"... People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for. ..."
"... Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the control of globalists. But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing. ..."
"... Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks." What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually lying creeps? ..."
"... No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of worse barbarians. ..."
"... There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election" black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to influence US politics. ..."
"... If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's) elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics by Israel in particular. ..."
"... If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious "influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country. ..."
For a year, the big question of Russiagate has boiled down to this: Did Donald Trump's
campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC? And until last week, the answer was
"no."
As ex-CIA director Mike Morell said in March, "On the question of the Trump campaign
conspiring with the Russians there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There's no little
campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark."
Well, last week, it appeared there had been a fire in Trump Tower. On June 9, 2016, Donald
Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with Russians -- in anticipation of promised
dirt on Hillary Clinton's campaign. While not a crime, this was a blunder. For Donald Jr. had
long insisted there had been no collusion with the Russians. Caught in flagrante, he went full
Pinocchio for four days.
And as the details of that June 9 meeting spilled out, Trump defenders were left with egg on
their faces, while anti-Trump media were able to keep the spotlight laser-focused on where they
want it -- Russiagate.
This reality underscores a truth of our time. In the 19th century, power meant control of
the means of production; today, power lies in control of the means of communication.
Who controls the media spotlight controls what people talk about and think about. And
mainstream media are determined to keep that spotlight on Trump-Russia, and as far away as
possible from their agenda -- breaking the Trump presidency and bringing him down.
Almost daily, there are leaks from the investigative and security arms of the U.S.
government designed to damage this president.
Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting
between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the
firing of Flynn.
An Oval Office meeting with the Russian foreign minister in which Trump disclosed that
Israeli intelligence had ferreted out evidence that ISIS was developing computer bombs to
explode on airliners was leaked. This alerted ISIS, damaged the president, and imperiled
Israeli intelligence sources and methods.
Some of the leaks from national security and investigative agencies are felonies, not only
violations of the leaker's solemn oath to protect secrets, but of federal law.
Yet the press is happy to collude with these leakers and to pay them in the coin they seek.
First, by publishing the secrets the leakers want revealed. Second, by protecting them from
exposure to arrest and prosecution for the crimes they are committing.
The mutual agendas of the deep-state leakers and the mainstream media mesh perfectly.
Consider the original Russiagate offense.
Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks. And who was the third and indispensable party in this
"Tinker to Evers to Chance" double-play combination?
The media itself. While deploring Russian hacking as an "act of war" against "our
democracy," the media published the fruits of the hacking. It was the media that revealed what
Podesta wrote and how the DNC tilted the tables against Bernie Sanders.
If the media believed Russian hacking was a crime against our democracy, why did they
publish the fruits of that crime?
Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic
political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page
1?
Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge
that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic
disloyalty and criminality.
Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to
fence them once stolen and repainted.
Some journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of
their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what
the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much
hope.
And thus does democracy die in darkness.
Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government
who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs
not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out?
Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members
of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic?
Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck.
People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal.
Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell
the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald
Trump both for who he is and what he stands for.
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly undermining
your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please write this
out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe then it
will sink in.
There is nothing there.
Let the media cry Russia Russia Russia forever. Trump can do other things. People will lose interest in this. This is different from Watergate because there really was a burglary and a coverup. There's nothing remotely like this here.
1. If Russians really did it, they did it on their own. Trump team had nothing to do with
it.
2. If Russians didn't do it, this is just the media wasting its resources and energy on
nothing.
Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be
distracted by Trump does something real. Because Buchanan lived through Watergate, I think he's over-thinking this. It's like
dejavu to him. Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the
control of globalists. But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but
unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing.
Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the
integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or
deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks." What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually
lying creeps?
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period
where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an
unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the
trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of
worse barbarians.
Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and
their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President),
imo.
There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he
covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election"
black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest
credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true
criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to
influence US politics.
Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?
Clearly not, as far as anybody knows based upon information in the public domain. There's
no evidence Russia's government hacked anything anyway. A meeting by campaign representatives
with Russians claiming to have dirt on Trump's rival is not evidence of collusion in
hacking.
Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.
Again, Buchanan seems to be needlessly conceding ground to known liars and deluded
zealots.
If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and
should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding
and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's)
elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics
by Israel in particular.
If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about
foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious
"influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically
including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country.
That would quickly result in the shutting down of mainstream media complaints about
foreign influence.
Yipes -- What is the matter with Buchanan? Is he taking weird prescription drugs for
Alzheimers ?
He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that
the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper
and Mika etc etc etc
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
It already didn't end well and it pains me to say this. What it may become only is worse.
At this stage I don's see any "better" scenarios. The truth has been revealed.
Last month Seth Rich, a data analyst who worked for the DNC, was shot near his home in Washington DC. He was on the phone to his
girlfriend when it happened. Police were called to the scene and discovered the young man's body at roughly 4.20am. It was reported
that Rich was "covered in bruises", shot "several times" and "at least once in the back".
The New York Daily News reported:
" police have found little information to explain his death. At this time, there are no suspects, no motive and no witnesses
in Rich's murder.
While initial theories were that the killing was robbery or mugging gone wrong, the Washington Post said:
" There is no immediate indication that robbery was a motive in the attack but it has not been ruled out as a possibility."
Rich's family have also reported that nothing was taken:
" [Rich's] hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they
never took anything."
On August 9th Julian Assange gave an interview on Dutch television in which he seemed to imply that Rich's death was politically
motivated, and perhaps suggest he had been a source for the DNC e-mail leak:
That same day wikileaks tweeted that they were offering a $20,000 dollar reward for information on the killing of Mr Rich.
These are the facts of the case, so far. And they are undisputed.
I'm not going to take a position on the motive for Mr Rich's killing, or possible suspects. But I do want to point out the general
level of media silence. Take these facts and change the names – imagine Trump's email had been hacked, and then a staffer with possible
ties to wikileaks was inexplicably shot dead. Imagine this poor young man had been a Kremlin whistleblower, or a Chinese hacker,
or an Iranian blogger.
If this, as yet unsolved, murder had ties to anyone other than Hillary Clinton, would it be being so ritually and rigourously
ignored by the MSM?
"... ccording to the charge sheet , Flynn first made contact with Kislyak to discuss the Israel vote. We found out this weekend his reason for doing so. "[Special counsel Robert] Mueller's investigators have learned through witnesses and documents that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the Trump transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel," ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... In short, the first known contact between the Trump campaign and Russia after the election occurred in the service of a different foreign power, Israel, and was ultimately fruitless. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... * Aaron Maté is a host/producer for The Real News Network. ..."
"... Published in www.newcoldwar.org (New Cold War: Ukraine and Beyond) ..."
Why are the media paying scant attention to Michael Flynn's admissions about Israel?
The indictment of former national-security adviser Michael Flynn on December 1 has confirmed
that Donald Trump's inner circle colluded with a foreign power before entering the White House
-- just not the foreign power that has been the subject of our national fixation for the past
year. To be sure, the jury is still out on Russia, though there are new grounds for questioning
the case for a plot tying the Kremlin to Trump Tower. But with Flynn's plea, we can now say for
certain that the Trump team did collude -- with Israel.
To recap, Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his conversations
with then–Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the period after Trump's November 2016
victory. As Foreign Policy
previously reported , Flynn reached out to Kislyak as part of "a vigorous diplomatic bid"
to undermine President Obama's decision to allow a December 2016 Security Council resolution
condemning illegal Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Territories. The indictment
fills in some details.
According to the charge sheet ,
Flynn first made contact with Kislyak to discuss the Israel vote. We found out this weekend his
reason for doing so. "[Special counsel Robert] Mueller's investigators have learned through
witnesses and documents that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the Trump
transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel,"
The New York Times
reported after Flynn's court appearance on Friday. "Investigators have learned that Mr.
Flynn and [Trump son-in-law Jared] Kushner took the lead in those efforts" -- efforts which
failed to change a single vote, including Russia's, which backed the measure in defiance of the
Trump-Netanyahu subversion attempt.
In short, the first known contact between the Trump campaign and Russia after the election
occurred in the service of a different foreign power, Israel, and was ultimately fruitless.
The next contact between Flynn and Kislyak was more productive. In late December, Obama
imposed new sanctions on Russia for its alleged meddling in the 2016 election. A day later,
Flynn called the Russian ambassador to request that the Kremlin, according to the plea
document, "only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner." Flynn's overture came
after a Trump transition colleague told him that the incoming administration "did not want
Russia to escalate the situation." By all accounts, Russia complied.
Whatever one thinks about this covert attempt to reduce tensions with a nuclear-armed power,
it demonstrates an effort by the Trump transition, as with the Israel vote, to undermine the
outgoing administration's policy. Trump critics have seized on that
as a violation of the Logan Act, which bars citizens from having unauthorized negotiations with
foreign governments in a dispute with the United States. But the Logan Act has seldom been used
except as a partisantalkingpoint
, not a prosecutable offense. More importantly, there's the question as to whether Flynn's
overture on sanctions prove a quid pro quo [a favor or advantage granted or expected in return
for something].
Notwithstanding the post-election contact with Flynn, not only has Russia failed to gain a
reduction in sanctions but its relations with Washington have deteriorated. In early August,
Trump signed new sanctions on Russia overwhelmingly approved by Congress. The administration
recently presented lawmakers with a list of targets that "reads like a who's who of the Russian
defense and intelligence sectors," The New York Times noted. In September, Trump shut
down the Russian consulate in San Francisco and two annexes in New York City and Washington,
DC. Just last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson denounced Russia's "malicious tactics"
against the West and vowed that sanctions imposed over Russian's role in Ukraine "will remain
in place until Russia reverses the actions that triggered them."
Meanwhile, Trump has enlarged NATO over Russia's objections, carried out the "biggest
military exercise in Eastern Europe since the Cold War" on Russia's border, appointed several
anti-Russia hawks to key posts, and continues to deliberate over whether to supply Ukraine with
a weapons package that Obama himself rejected out of fear it would worsen the country's civil
war.
In the latest flare-up, Russia has ordered international media outlets to register as
foreign agents in retaliation for the Justice Department first doing so to Washington-based
RT America .
It is, of course, possible that all of this is an elaborate ruse to mask the secret, as yet
unproven, conspiracy that many insist will lead to Trump's downfall. The fact that Flynn is now
a cooperating witness has refueled hopes that this day is finally approaching. After all, why
would Flynn lie about his contacts with Russia if he did not have something to hide? And why
would Mueller offer him a plea deal if Flynn wasn't offering him a bigger fish to fry? (One
plausible motive,
as Buzzfeed notes , is that Flynn may have lied to hide his potential Logan Act
violation.)
Only time will tell whether Flynn has something to offer Mueller, or whether Mueller has
gotten from him what he can. In the meantime, more than a year after the election, we still
have exactly zero evidence of any cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian
government -- nor, it must be repeated, any evidence to back up U.S. intelligence officials'
claims that the Russian government meddled in the election. We do have instances of Trump
campaign figures' -- namely, Donald Trump Jr. and low-level adviser George Papadopoulos --
making contact with people that they thought were Russian government intermediaries. But
whatever they were told or believed, there is still no proof that their contacts led to an
actual Kremlin connection.
What we do have is evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Israel to subvert the U.S.
government's official position at the United Nations Security Council. Yet reaction to that
news has been quite a departure from the standards of Russiagate when it comes to foreign
meddling.
The contrast was put on stark display on Sunday, when Jared Kushner appeared with
billionaire Israeli-American media tycoon Haim Saban at the latter's annual forum on
U.S.-Israel relations. Saban took a moment to thank Kushner for his role in the subversion
effort that Flynn admitted to have undertaken on Israel's behalf. "To be honest with you, as
far as I know there's nothing illegal there," Saban told his stage companion. "But I think that
this crowd and myself want to thank you for making that effort, so thank you very much."
For all of the fears of Russian oligarchs' having influence over Trump, the comment from
this American oligarch reveals a great deal about who really influences practically everyone in
Washington, Republican or Democrat. Saban was not a Trump donor. He is, in fact, Bill and
Hillary Clinton's top all-time financial supporter,
to the tune of more than $25 million ; a benefactor whose generosity has helped build not
just the Clinton Library but also the Democratic National Committee's
headquarters.
But there has been no outrage from democracy-defending #Resistance stalwarts over Saban's
comments (and the Israeli subversion effort he endorsed). The same for
news of Kushner's failure to disclose his leadership of a group that funded the illegal
Israeli settlements that he tried to protect at the United Nations. And now we await to see how
those who agonize over foreign influence on Trump will respond to his reported plans to move
the American embassy to Jerusalem -- "a decision that would break with decades of U.S. policy
and could fuel violence in the Middle East," as Haaretz
notes .
It is unlikely that Trump will be challenged on Israel, because his approach is harmonic
with a bipartisan consensus cemented in large part by the financial contributions of
billionaires like Saban and his Republican pro-Israeli government counterpart, Sheldon Adelson.
Hence, there are no editorials or opinion pieces denouncing Israel's ' Plot Against
America ' or '
War on America ', or warnings that ' Odds Are, Israel Owns
Trump ', or explorations of ' What
Israel Did to Control the American Mind '. Likewise, there will be no new groups forming
dubbed the ' Committee to Investigate
Israel ' or the ' Tel Aviv
Project '. In fact it is more than likely that, going forward, the media will give
Israelgate the same treatment as cable's top Russiagate sleuth, MSNBC 's Rachel
Maddow, gave during her exhaustive Flynn coverage so far, which is to not even mention it.
This weekend furnished us with another important contrast. Flynn's indictment was followed
hours later by the passage of the Senate Republican tax bill, which stands to be one of the
largest upward transfers of wealth in U.S. history. If protecting democracy is our goal, we may
want to tune out the Russia-obsessed pundits and look closer to home.
* Aaron Maté is a host/producer for The Real News Network.
Published in www.newcoldwar.org
(New Cold War: Ukraine and Beyond)
"... In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information." ..."
"... It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Johnson's letter also questions an " insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...." ..."
"... One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. (h/t @TheLastRefuge2 ) ..."
"... That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information is being discussed. ..."
"... And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know they weren't hacked, they were leaked. ..."
"... Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's nothing here. ..."
"... Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets. ..."
"... They have had a year to destroy the evidence. Why should the CIA controlled MSM report the truth? ..."
"... Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means "I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer their statements to figure out what they did. ..."
"... And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7. Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS. ..."
FBI Edits To Clinton Exoneration Go Far Beyond What Was Previously Known; Comey, McCabe, Strzok ImplicatedTyler Durden Dec 15, 2017 10:10 AM 0 SHARES
detailed in a
Thursday letter from committee chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray.
James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok
The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement
with senior FBI officials , including Peter Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor
, E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by
Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in what was a coordinated
conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton's conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information,
and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate
Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.
Heather Samuelson and Heather Mills
Also mentioned in the letter are the immunity agreements granted by the FBI in June 2016 to top Obama advisor Cheryl Mills and
aide Heather Samuelson - who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the remaining 30,000 records to
the State Department. Of note, the FBI agreed to destroy evidence on devices owned by Mills and Samuelson which were turned over
in the investigation.
Sen. Johnson's letter reads:
According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy
Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa,
and an employee on the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise dates of the edits and identities
of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey's statement
in at least three respects .
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department after anti-Trump text messages to his mistress were
uncovered by an internal FBI watchdog - was responsible for downgrading the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal
charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless."
"Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary,
gross negligence is " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.
According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to "gross negligence": "What my client
did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option
but to recommend prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing
defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared
that Hillary had broken the law.
In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification
for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on
Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly
negligent in their handling of that information."
Also removed from Comey's statement were all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in investigating Clinton's
private email server.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the Intelligence Community to assess
potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. The original statement read:
[W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what
indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.
The edited version removed the references to the intelligence community:
[W]e have done extensive work [removed] to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection
with the personal e-mail operation.
Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey's statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors,
changing their language from "reasonably likely" to "possible" - an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase
"Gross negligence." To put it another way, "reasonably likely" means the probability of a hack due to Clinton's negligence is above
50 percent, whereas the hack simply being "possible" is any probability above zero.
It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion
of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
The original draft read:
Given the combination of factors, we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's
private email account."
The edited version from Director Comey's July 5 statement read:
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal
e-mail account.
Johnson's letter also questions an "
insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa
Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected
-- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...."
One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on
August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became
the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to
Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a
counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
(h/t @TheLastRefuge2 )
Transcript , James Comey Testimony to House Intel Committee, March 20, 2016
The letter from the Senate Committee concludes; "the edits to Director Comey's public statement, made months prior to the conclusion
of the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI's public evaluation of the implications
of her actions . This effort, seen in the light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the
Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an "insurance policy" against Mr. Trump's election, raise profound questions
about the FBI's role and possible interference in the 2016y presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel
Mueller's investigation of President Trump ."
Johnson then asks the FBI to answer six questions:
Please provide the names of the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who comprised the "mid-year review team" during the
FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server.
Please identify all FBI, DOJ, or other federal employees who edited or reviewed Director Comey's July 5, 2016 statement .
Please identify which individual made the marked changes in the documents produced to the Committee.
Please identify which FBI employee repeatedly changed the language in the final draft statement that described Secretary Clinton's
behavior as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless. " What evidence supported these changes?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to remove the reference to the Intelligence Community . On what
basis was this change made?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to downgrade the FBI's assessment that it was "reasonably likely"
that hostile actors had gained access to Secretary Clinton's private email account to merely that than [sic] intrusion was "possible."
What evidence supported these changes?
Please provide unredacted copies of the drafts of Director Comey's statement, including comment bubbles , and explain the
basis for the redactions produced to date.
We are increasingly faced with the fact that the FBI's top ranks have been filled with political ideologues who helped Hillary
Clinton while pursuing the Russian influence narrative against Trump (perhaps as the "insurance" Strzok spoke of). Meanwhile, "hands
off" recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions and assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein don't seem very excited to explore the
issues with a second Special Counsel. As such, we are now almost entirely reliant on the various Committees of congress to pursue
justice in this matter. Perhaps when their investigations have concluded, President Trump will feel he has the political and legal
ammunition to truly clean house at the nation's swampiest agencies.
All I see in this story is that the FBI edits their work to make sure the terminology is consistent throughout. This is not
a smoking gun of anything, except bureaucratic procedure one would find anywhere any legal documents are prepared.
That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once
the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires
a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information
is being discussed.
Now, if Hillary hadn't been such an arrogant bitch, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If she had just take the locked-down
Android of iOS phone they issued her, instead of having to forward everything to herself so she could use her stupid Blackberry
(which can't be locked down to State Dep't. specs), everything would have been both hunky and dory.
And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know
they weren't hacked, they were leaked.
Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing
will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's
nothing here.
That obongo of all crooks is involved is a sure fact, but I'd like to see how many remaining defenders of the cause are still
motivated to lose everything for this thing...
In other terms, what are the defection rates in the dem party, because now this must be an avalanche.
Please, EVERYONE with a Twitter account send this message Every Day (tell your friends on facebook):
Mr. President, the time to purge the Obama-Clinton holdovers has long passed. Please get rid of them at once. Make your base
happy. Fire 100+ from DOJ - State - FBI. Hire William K. Black as Special Prosecutor
Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for
more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access
to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets.
Of course, they may all be related, since Debbie Wasserman-Shits brought them in and set them up, then intertwined their work
in Congress with their work for the DNC.
Just more theater. Throwing a bone to the few citizens who think for themselves. Giving us false hope the US legal system isn't
corrupt. This will never be prosecuted, because the deep state remains in control. They've had a year to destroy the incriminating
evidence.
Ryan and his buddies in Congress will make strained faces (as if taking a dump) and wring their hands saying they must hire
a "Special" Investigator to cover up this mess.
They tweet that crap all the time. Usually just a repeat with different names, but always blaming a Ruskie. About every 6 months
they hit on a twist in the wording that causes it to go viral.
Before Trump was elected , I thought the only way to get our country back was through a Military Coup, but it appears there
may be some light at the end of the tunnel.
I wonder if that light is coming from the soon to be gaping hole in the FBI's asshole when the extent of this political activism
by the agency eventually seeps into the public conciousness.
you can't clean up a mess of this magnitude. fire everyone in washington---senator, representative, fbi, cia, nsa ,etc and
start over---has NO chance of happenning
the only hope for a non violent solution is that a true leader emerges that every decent person can rally behind and respect,
honor and dignity become the norm. unfortunately, corruption has become a culture and i don't know if it can be eradicated
Just expose the Congress, McCabe, Lindsey, McCabe, Clinton, all Dem judges, Media, Hollywood, local government dems as pedos;
that will half-drain the swamp.
If Trump gets the swamp cleaned without a military coup, he will be one of our greatest Presidents. There will be people who
hate that more than they hate being in jail.
Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means
"I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer
their statements to figure out what they did.
And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty
Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7.
Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS.
I have - it's was NBC Nightly News - they spent time on the damning emails from Strozk. Maybe 2-3 minutes. Normal news segment
time. Surprised the hell out of me.
the "MSM" needs to cover their own asses ...like "an insurance policy" just in case the truth comes out... best to be seen
reporting on the REAL issue at least for a couple minutes..
"... The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump. Hardly anyone in the media, mainstream or fringe, are writing about this fact and trying to rally public support for action. What is one to say when confronted with the fact that the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump that was initially commissioned by the Clinton campaign. And who is the FBI Agent paying for the dossier? Why a fellow now revealed as a Clinton partisan. ..."
"... How much of what we see is the real DJT and how much is a projected public persona? ..."
"... DJT's threat to "drain the swamp" has created fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the swamp folk. They naturally fight back. By definition, all swamp critters must toe the neocon line else they would have been fired by previous incumbents. They are all therefore fair game for DJT. ..."
"... I admire your persistence and agree with the points you make in this and your other posts on the topic of Trump. This is an extremely important subject matter. A President was elected, lawfully, and a bunch of stupid ninnies got their panties in a knot over that and are therefore more or less willing to support a Borgist ("deep state", if you prefer) coup d'état. Said ninnies are immune to the rational arguments you present because they are not intelligent, they are hyper emotional and many of them belong to a cult called "[neo]liberalism" (or the "progressive movement", if you prefer). ..."
"... You mention briefly the Steele affair. I still find it difficult to believe that an ex-UK Intelligence Officer can get mixed up in American politics to this extent and scarcely an eyebrow raised. Surely someone's asking questions somewhere about this? The facts are clear enough, for once. ..."
"... And, off stage, a slow but powerful campaign exposing many of Trumnp's enemies as corrupt, perverted hypocrites. And, from time to time, unexpected presents like Brazile's book. But faster please ..."
"... I agree about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has afflicted the media. I think they are suffering from O.C.T.D.: Obsessive Compulsive Trump Disorder. There are some in the media who are of the opinion that this may not be working with most Americans. ..."
"... The crucial point is not about respect for the man. It is respect for the office. All men are flawed, and high position exposes additional flaws. It is evident, to this outside observer, that Trump won "fair and square" according to the established procedures. The variety of "dirty tricks" used against him, both before the election and after, is astounding. There was a "back room" negotiation on election eve, visible in public as the long delay in final over-the-top results, and Trump's apology to his supporters for the delay, "it was complicated". ..."
"... He was smart enough to get elected, defeating a dozen professional republicans and the Democratic machinery along with the MSM. "In the end you will see that he does not live up to your expectations." I thought he was a boor and a mediocre showman. In that regard he's exceeded mine by surviving this long. ..."
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that the information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... Hillary, Bush, Obama and "the establishment" knew unconsciously not to "rock the boat". Trump was seen as too independent and uneducated in the ways of The Borg to be trusted. He had un-borg-like views like "..what the hell are we doing supporting Al Quida?" "...grab her in the pussy.." "..lets make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.." "lets get along with Russia.." "..the Media is fake and biased.." all very un-PC and un-borg-like positions. Too disruptive of the status quo. Might actually solve some problems and reduce the importance of government. ..."
"... I think the Borg determined he was N.O.K. (Not Our Kind). And he has royally pissed off the Media and he is in a death fight with the Media. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
"... Are you aware that the Office of Inspector General has been investigating politicization of the FBI and DOJ for 11 months now? The investigation was brought about at the recommendation of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe. Among the allegations being looked into is that DOJ/FBI have highly political agents that should have at least recused themselves from certain investigations and that their politics may have influenced the course of the investigations. ..."
"... Given the revelations around Strzok, Rhee and Weissman, on Mueller's team, you'd think we'd be hearing more about OIG case. IMO, we are about to though. ..."
"... I'm also stunned by the stupidity of the Democrats. Any liberal who believes the intelligence agencies is a fool. They've just shown us their true nature by blocking the release of several thousand pages of records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. ..."
"... If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would in 2017 consider Fox News to be the most reliable MSM news outlet, I would have rolled around on the ground laughing hysterically. Yet it is true. I am not quite sure what I should deduce from this but I think it is something along the lines of "one cannot be too cynical about the news media". ..."
"... He certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. However, I believe a great deal of the vituperative outrage directed at him has much (possibly primarily) to do with exactly whom he bested in the general election. Not to pile on, but see David E. Solomon's comments on this thread. ..."
"... One can't underestimate the cult of personality that was so carefully crafted around Hillary Clinton for the past two decades. Their chosen strategy of identity politics only kicked it into hyper-drive over the past eight years. ..."
That sure sounds a lot like the current state of the media. We have witnessed this type of hysteria ourselves in just the last
two days. First there was the Brian Ross debacle, which entailed Ross peddling the lie that Trump ordered Flynn to contact the Russians.
That "fake news" elicited an emotional orgasm from Joy Behar on The View. She was on the verge of writhing on the floor as she prematurely
celebrated what she thought would seal the impeachment of Donald Trump. Whoops. Ross had to retract that story.
... ... ...
Watergate and "Russiagate" do share a common trope. During Watergate the Washington Post was mostly a lone voice covering the
story. Washington Post publisher at the time, Kate Graham, reportedly remarked that she was worried that none of the other papers
were covering the story. And it was an important story. It exposed political corruption and abuse of power and a threat to our democracy.
How is that in common with Russiagate? The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to
destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump. Hardly anyone in the media, mainstream or fringe, are writing about this fact and trying
to rally public support for action. What is one to say when confronted with the fact that the FBI paid money to a former British
spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump that was initially commissioned by the Clinton campaign. And who is the FBI Agent paying for
the dossier? Why a fellow now revealed as a Clinton partisan.
It is a shame you wanted to start the discussion with such a stupid comment. I have made no representation whatsoever about the
intelligence or lack of intelligence of Trump. I have expressed nothing regarding "my expectations" for him or his policies. I
get it. You don't like the man and want to grind a meaningless axe.
How much of what we see is the real DJT and how much is a projected public persona?
There's truth and lies, but then there's just plain old bullshit which has nothing to do with either. He seems to throw a ton
of it around as a diversionary tactic. I understand the technique, but I can't see through the smoke screen to divine what he's
up to or who he really is. So I continue to dispassionately observe.
DJT's threat to "drain the swamp" has created fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the swamp folk. They naturally fight back.
By definition, all swamp critters must toe the neocon line else they would have been fired by previous incumbents. They are all
therefore fair game for DJT.
Maybe a citation could be offered here, but there does not appear to be any support for the assertion made by the author of this
piece that "...the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump...".There were reports that the FBI
'considered' paying Steele to continue his work, ( a not altogether uncommon practice), yet within the more responsibly researched
reports it was also clearly stated that in the end the FBI did not in fact pay Steele anything for any work at all.
PT, I admire your persistence and agree with the points you make in this and your other posts on the topic of Trump. This is an
extremely important subject matter. A President was elected, lawfully, and a bunch of stupid ninnies got their panties in a knot
over that and are therefore more or less willing to support a Borgist ("deep state", if you prefer) coup d'état. Said ninnies
are immune to the rational arguments you present because they are not intelligent, they are hyper emotional and many of them belong
to a cult called "[neo]liberalism" (or the "progressive movement", if you prefer).
When you belong to a cult, you must suspend reason; make it subordinate to the hive mind. You lose all perspective. They believe
all kids of ridiculous notions that fail to withstand the most basic rational scrutiny; like Islam and feminism can be allies,
socialism would work if only it were applied correctly, if a man puts on a dress he has actually become a woman and that such
a person would make a good 11 series in the military, low skill/low IQ immigrants - legal or otherwise - are actually good for
the country......so of course they believe that a coup d'état is appropriate when the target is Trump. In their madness they have
convinced themselves that Trump is uniquely dangerous. He is going to destroy the world via ignoring global warming, tax cuts,
immigration reform, pushing the nuclear button just for fun; all of the above and maybe more. You know this, of course. You did
mention "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
As for the rest of the subject matter, personally, I feel that what with all that has been revealed about the FBI, CIA and
NSA, someone should be bringing the involved members of these agencies up on charges related to treason, sedition or whatever
legal terms are correct. Actually, these people should have their doors kicked down and be brought out in hand cuffs. Death sentences
should be on the table and should be applied when legally possible.
This is no more Watergate than a man in a dress is a woman.
The depths to which the govt, populace and values of this country have degenerated have never been more on display than in
this witch hunt. We are in very bad shape. The media is thoroughly scurrilous. Officials in bureaucracies are treasonous and have
no respect for the rule of law. Half of the citizens are insane and support the media and the traitors.
If someone doesn't at least just pull the plug on this "investigation", it's going to ruin what's left of this country. It
may be too late. A lot of ninnies are going to wake up to a very harsh reality.
From day one the Republicans were trying to impeach Bill Clinton by investigating every dark corner of the Clintons' past and
present until they could find something that would stick. Same thing with Trump except this time it goes far beyond the opposition
party to include elements of the government, most of the media and even leading members of his own party. Elections be damned,
we have an empire to maintain and he is seen by the establishment as too impulsive, unstable and so far uncontrollable to be allowed
to stay in power. While no threat to the sacred cows of Wall Street and Israel or even to drain the swamp they are terrified of
his unpredictability, hence the full court press unprecedented in American history to remove him from office. My very low opinion
of Trump doesn't blind me to the dangers inherent in this effort. \
PT - Isn't the point you've just made central? The issues here are far more important than the personalities?
I like what I've seen of our PM, Mrs May. Nice person, to my outsider's way of thinking. Doesn't alter the fact that I consider
her policies and philosophy to be hopeless. And since we're never going to meet her in the pub that's what counts. Would it not
be possible to separate things out in the same way with Trump? Set on one side the partisan arguments about his personality -
politics is not a TV show - and consider him on the basis of what he may or may not do or be able to do?
You mention briefly the Steele affair. I still find it difficult to believe that an ex-UK Intelligence Officer can get
mixed up in American politics to this extent and scarcely an eyebrow raised. Surely someone's asking questions somewhere about
this? The facts are clear enough, for once.
Actually, I think he shares many of Bismark's qualities: "a political genius of a very unusual kind [whose success] rested on
several sets of conflicting characteristics among which brutal, disarming honesty mingled with the wiles and deceits of a confidence
man. He played his parts with perfect self-confidence, yet mixed them with rage, anxiety, illness, hypochrondria, and irrationality.
... He used democracy when it suited him, negotiated with revolutionaries and the dangerous Ferdinand Lassalle, the socialist
who might have contested his authority. He utterly dominated his cabinet ministers with a sovereign contempt and blackened their
reputations as soon as he no longer needed them. He outwitted the parliamentary parties, even the strongest of them, and betrayed
all those ... who had put him into power. By 1870 even his closest friends ... realized that they had helped put a demonic figure
into power.[6]"-wiki
I think, I hope, I believe, I persuade myself that all is unfolding as it should. Mueller turns up nothing but further examples
of officials pimping themselves out to foreign governments; meanwhile revelations of bias on his team; meanwhile chewing away
at the Fusion GPS thing (one of the key pillars); meanwhile investigation of the FBI. And, off stage, a slow but powerful
campaign exposing many of Trumnp's enemies as corrupt, perverted hypocrites. And, from time to time, unexpected presents like
Brazile's book. But faster please
I agree about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has afflicted the media. I think they are suffering from O.C.T.D.: Obsessive
Compulsive Trump Disorder. There are some in the media who are of the opinion that this may not be working with most Americans.
I saw two pieces this morning from BBC and The New York Times:
Perhaps this is the start of a change or a recognition that the MSM's habitual crying wolf behavior is not resonating with
Main Street. I can only hope, but I stopped watching the national news long ago.
The crucial point is not about respect for the man. It is respect for the office. All men are flawed, and high position exposes
additional flaws. It is evident, to this outside observer, that Trump won "fair and square" according to the established procedures.
The variety of "dirty tricks" used against him, both before the election and after, is astounding. There was a "back room" negotiation
on election eve, visible in public as the long delay in final over-the-top results, and Trump's apology to his supporters for
the delay, "it was complicated".
That truly is water under the bridge, and at least must be so, if you wish to preserve
your republic. You all have the right to withhold consent and trash what you and your fathers and grandfathers have achieved.
Most will not like the outcome. But I sincerely hope that you, each and collectively, instead will choose the positive aspects
of this model:
"... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these
are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed."
The ABC story had to be "clarified" given they originally reported Flynn had contacted the Russians DURING the election when in
fact it was AFTER the election. The story had consequences on the stock market:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4129355-cost-fake-news-s-and-p-500
This all happened on the eve of the passage of Trump's tax cuts and it seemed timed to hurt the stock market. It may even possibly
have torpedoed the tax cuts by putting into question Trump's legal standing as president.
I detest Trump as a person but still acknowledge that he is our current President. I will continue to fight against the implementation
of his policies and work hard to to try to insure he does not win a second term. Other than that in 3 more years the American
people will have an opportunity to judge his performance and make a decision on his worthiness to continue as President. That
is as it should be.
Trump has taken some hard shots, some deserved and some not. That is the nature of our current political system. When Trump
traveled the nation proclaiming Obama was not American born and thus an illegitimate President is also an example of "all is fair
in War and politics".
He was smart enough to get elected, defeating a dozen professional republicans and the Democratic machinery along with
the MSM. "In the end you will see that he does not live up to your expectations." I thought he was a boor and a mediocre showman.
In that regard he's exceeded mine by surviving this long.
You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over
relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that the information
in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.
is this doom-and-gloom or hope-assaulting-experience? Am guessing that the only thing he has shares with Old Otto is a preference
for the classic method of donning trousers.
OOPS! there's this (was reminded of it by the hyperventilatory "breaking news" about Blackwater/Erik Prince):
Bismarck held von Holstein in high esteem, and when the latter went to him with his plan for establishing a vast organization
of almost universal spying, the Chancellor of the new German Empire immediately grasped the advantages he could obtain from
it. ....
Von Holstein ... had one great ambition; that of knowing everything about everybody and of ruling everybody through fear
of the disclosures he could make were he at any time tempted to do so. ....
The German Foreign Office knew everything and made use of everything .... In the Prussian Intelligence Department as Holstein
organized it there was hardly a person of note or consequence in Europe about whom everything was not known, including, of
course, his weaknesses and cupboard skeletons. And this knowledge was used when necessary without any compunction or remorse.
....
His first care, whenever an individual capable at a given moment of playing a part, no matter how humble, in the great drama
attracted his attention, was to ferret out all that could be learned about him or her. With few exceptions he contrived to
lay his finger on a hidden secret. Once this preliminary step had been performed to his satisfaction, the rest was easy. The
unfortunate victim was given to understand that he would be shamed publicly at any time, unless . . . unless . . .
As this has been the SOP of Karl Rove (presumably), of Jedgar, and before that [__fill in the blanks___], the only thing unprecedented
about the Prince/Blackwater story is the disregard for omerta.
DISCLAIMER: The Princess Radziwill who published the passage on von Holstein was an opportunistic swashbucklereuse type and
[guessing] would have been so even in less horrifically interesting times.
My humble opinion on what is going on. "The Borg" are individuals whose self-interest is tied to perpetuating "business as usual"
in Washington DC. FBI agents, CIA, NSA need domestic and foreign conflict to aggrandize and justify their positions. They do not
want our national problems solved...god forbid, budgets, salaries, bonuses, future contracting and consulting jobs might be reduced
or eliminated.
Hillary, Bush, Obama and "the establishment" knew unconsciously not to "rock the boat". Trump was seen as too independent
and uneducated in the ways of The Borg to be trusted. He had un-borg-like views like "..what the hell are we doing supporting
Al Quida?" "...grab her in the pussy.." "..lets make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.." "lets get along with Russia.." "..the
Media is fake and biased.." all very un-PC and un-borg-like positions. Too disruptive of the status quo. Might actually solve
some problems and reduce the importance of government.
I think the Borg determined he was N.O.K. (Not Our Kind). And he has royally pissed off the Media and he is in a death
fight with the Media.
I find the whole idea that "Deutsche Bank has branches in Russia and lends money to Russian borrowers, therefore Russians control
Deutsche Bank" idea to be comical.
I have clients who also regularly borrow money from Deutsche Bank. Are they now Russians? Are they controlled now by Russians?
Do Russians control them? What role does DB play in all this web of control?
If I have my mortgage at the same bank as a slum lord/toxic waste generator/adult bookstore owner/CIA operative, am I now his
puppet?
Asking for a friend.
Does nobody understand how banking law works? (in Germany and the US, banks are forbidden to lend to any client or client group
in an amount that would give the borrower de facto control over the operations of the bank). Of course the smarter conspiracy
theorists understand this. Any stick to beat a dog.
This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger
Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier
in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.
What I fail to understand is why Democrats are
sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe
that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.
Are you aware that the Office of Inspector General has been investigating politicization of the FBI and DOJ for 11 months
now? The investigation was brought about at the recommendation of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe.
Among the allegations being looked into is that DOJ/FBI have highly political agents that should have at least recused themselves
from certain investigations and that their politics may have influenced the course of the investigations.
Given the revelations around Strzok, Rhee and Weissman, on Mueller's team, you'd think we'd be hearing more about OIG case.
IMO, we are about to though.
I'm also stunned by the stupidity of the Democrats. Any liberal who believes the intelligence agencies is a fool. They've
just shown us their true nature by blocking the release of several thousand pages of records relating to the assassination of
President Kennedy. If they can't allow the truth to come out after 54 years, they surely can't be trusted to be truthful
about today's information.
Fox News, which has been fairly reliable of late, reported last night that the FBI OIG report will be finalized and made public
sometime in the next 4-5 weeks.
If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would in 2017 consider Fox News to be the most reliable MSM news outlet, I would
have rolled around on the ground laughing hysterically. Yet it is true. I am not quite sure what I should deduce from this but
I think it is something along the lines of "one cannot be too cynical about the news media".
He certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. However, I believe a great deal of the vituperative outrage directed at him
has much (possibly primarily) to do with exactly whom he bested in the general election. Not to pile on, but see David E. Solomon's
comments on this thread.
One can't underestimate the cult of personality that was so carefully crafted around Hillary Clinton for the past two decades.
Their chosen strategy of identity politics only kicked it into hyper-drive over the past eight years.
Still, this phenomenon existed long before Trump, The Politician, and even before Obama and his own cult. Many of these
people were able to put their expectations on hold for eight long years. Obama was a result they could at least live with temporarily
- " Just eight more years, and then they owe her. "
They had their very structures of reality built around a certain outcome, which didn't come to pass. So, the disappointment
was all the more bitter when they realized that their waiting was in vain. That's a tidal wave of cognitive dissonance unleashed
by that unimaginable (for some) occurrence of her defeat. He didn't put paid to Martin O'Malley or even Bernie Sanders. He vanquished
The Queen. That sort of thing never goes down lightly.
" As I've said before, I think Trump only ran for President for 1) ego, and 2) he knows he will have access to billions
of dollars of business deals once he leaves office, with the cachet of having been President.
You might as well assert that lions only hang out around watering holes because 1) there's water there, and 2) gazelles and
zebras have to drink water. Can you point me to one President from living memory who did not 1) run for the Office at least partially
out of ego, and 2) take advantage in his subsequent "private life" of these exact perks of having held the Office? I ask seriously,
because it seems you are pining for a nobility in presidential politics which to my recollection hasn't existed for at least three
generations. Cincinnatus, they ain't. Maybe Ike, but anyone else is a real stretch.
"... How is your Debbie Wasserman doing -- did not she threatened the DC police investigator for doing his job of investigating the Awan affair? Debbie has been a major protector of the Awan family that accomplished the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity. And how is your Nobel Peace Laureate doing -- collecting nice fees from banksters for his betrayal of democracy in the US? ..."
Are you shocked about Seth Rich murder? Wikileaks has offered a reward to speed up a
search for the murderers, whereas DNC did nothing. Nothing! But the DNC was very active when
certain Mr. Awan needed legal protection.
How is your Debbie Wasserman doing -- did not she threatened the DC police investigator for
doing his job of investigating the Awan affair? Debbie has been a major protector of the Awan
family that accomplished the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity. And how is your Nobel
Peace Laureate doing -- collecting nice fees from banksters for his betrayal of democracy in
the US?
"... Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " ..."
During yesterday's Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, James Clapper, former director
of national intelligence, put the kibosh on a major anti-Donald Trump talking point that 17
federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election.
That talking point was amplified last October, when Hillary Clinton
stated the following at the third presidential debate: "We have 17, 17 intelligence
agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these
cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence
our election. I find that deeply disturbing."
Clinton was referring to an October 7, 2016 joint
statement from the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National
Intelligence claiming, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian
Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions,
including from U.S. political organizations."
The statement was followed by a January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community report assessing
Russian intentions during the presidential election.
While the U.S. Intelligence Community is indeed made up of 17 agencies, Clapper made clear
in his testimony yesterday that the community's assessments regarding alleged Russian
interference were not the product of all seventeen agencies but of three – the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security
Agency (NSA).
Referring to the assessments, Clapper
stated : "As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA and
the FBI, not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my
former office."
Later in the hearing, Clapper corrected Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) when Franken claimed that
all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded Russia attempted to influence the election.
FRANKEN: And I want to thank General Clapper and – and Attorney General Yates for
– for appearing today. We have – the intelligence communities have concluded all 17
of them that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that's right.
CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only
three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office
FRANKEN: But all 17 signed on to that?
CLAPPER: Well, we didn't go through that – that process, this was a special situation
because of the time limits and my – what I knew to be to who could really contribute to
this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment to restrict it
to those three. I'm not aware of anyone who dissented or – or disagreed when it came
out.
The January 6 U.S. intelligence community report is titled, "Background to
'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and
Cyber Incident Attribution."
The report makes clear it is a product of three intelligence agencies and not 17.
The opening states: "This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated
among the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the
National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and
disseminated by those three agencies."
Following Clinton's presidential debate
claim about "17 intelligence agencies," PolitiFact rated her statement as "true."
However, within its ruling, PolitiFact conceded:
We don't know how many separate investigations into the attacks there were. But the Director
of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country's 17 federal intelligence agencies,
released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia
is behind recent hacks into political organizations' emails.
PolitiFact's "true" judgement was the basis for a USA Today
piece titled, "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking."
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He
is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio." Follow him onTwitter @AaronKleinShow.Follow him
onFacebook.
Fusion GPs is an interesting part of the whole puzzle.
Notable quotes:
"... On Wednesday morning, Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, responded to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' unclear position on appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's ties to Fusion GPS and Russia and the Uranium One deal orchestrated by the Clinton State Department during the Obama administration. ..."
"... "It needs to be about everything, including Mr. Comey's handling of the Clinton investigation in 2016," Jordan said. "The inspector general is looking into that right now. We're going to look into it as a congressional committee, but it needs to be the full gambit because frankly it's all tied together, and we think in many ways Mr. Rosenstein and many ways Mr. Mueller is compromised; they're not going to look at some of these issues." ..."
On Wednesday morning, Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, responded to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions' unclear position on appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's
ties to Fusion GPS and Russia and the Uranium One deal orchestrated by the Clinton State
Department during the Obama administration.
Jordan, appearing on "Fox & Friends," said the appointment of a special prosecutor to
investigate the full breadth of Clinton's potentially illegal activities "needs to happen."
"It needs to be about everything, including Mr. Comey's handling of the Clinton
investigation in 2016," Jordan said. "The inspector general is looking into that right now.
We're going to look into it as a congressional committee, but it needs to be the full gambit
because frankly it's all tied together, and we think in many ways Mr. Rosenstein and many ways
Mr. Mueller is compromised; they're not going to look at some of these issues."
"But the biggest part, I do believe, is the dossier," Jordan stressed. "The fact, as I said
yesterday, the fact that a major political party can finance this dossier at the same time it
looks like Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier, was being paid by the FBI."
"So are they complicit in putting together this dossier, which was National Enquirer
baloney, turning it into an intelligence document, getting a warrant, and spying on Americans?
If that happened in this great country, that is just so wrong. That's why it warrants a special
examination of this whole issue."
Asked by Ainsley Earhardt why the Department of Justice hasn't asked for a special counsel
yet, Jordan said he thinks it's because "some of the career people at the Justice Department
just don't want to go there." Jordan also said that Attorney General Sessions, who is "a good
man," may feel compromised by his recusal from some aspects of the Russia investigation and
therefore unwilling to push hard against those who don't want to go after Clinton.
On Tuesday, the attorney general testified before the House Judiciary Committee. When asked
by Rep. Jordan if he would appoint a special counsel to investigate Clinton, Sessions
demurred.
In a recently released Aug. 15, 2016 text message from Peter Strzok, a senior FBI
counterintelligence official, to his reputed lover, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Strzok
referenced an apparent plan to keep Trump from getting elected before suggesting the need for
"an insurance policy" just in case he did.
A serious investigation into Russia-gate might want to know what these senior FBI officials
had in mind.
"... Sir Andrew Wood is a close friend of Christopher Steele (of the Steele Dossier) and an associate of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd., which is Steele's private spy agency. [Does Steele still work for the British SIS, MI6?] "Before the election Steele had gone to Wood and shown him the dossier." (p.38). Wood is wired into the arch-NWO Chatham House, which is home to The Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the companion organization of which is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (q.v. "Tragedy and Hope" by Carrol Quigley; "The Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States foreign Policy" by Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter; "Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2104" by Laurence H. Shoup). ..."
"... I am starting to wonder if Luke Harding might be MI6 with journalism for a cover. ..."
Lately, I have been reading Luke Harding's "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win."
Harding is a journalist who works as a foreign correspondent for the Guardian newspaper. His book draws heavily upon the "Steele
Dossier." (q.v. Wikipedia: Donald Trump-Russian Dossier) Harding's Wikipedia page is also very interesting, as is some of the
information that he generously supplies in "Collusion." For example, on pp.37-38, Harding describes a three-day event in November
of 2016 that was sponsored by the Halifax International Security Forum in Halifax, N.S. Harding describes the objective of the
gathered international group as making sense of the world in the aftermath of Trump's stunning victory. Interestingly, Senator
John McCain was one of the delegates; however, the participation of Sir Andrew Wood, a former Ambassador to Russia from 1995-2000
is perhaps even more interesting. Wood and McCain were participants in the Ukraine panel.
Sir Andrew Wood is a close friend of Christopher Steele (of the Steele Dossier) and an associate of Orbis Business Intelligence
Ltd., which is Steele's private spy agency. [Does Steele still work for the British SIS, MI6?] "Before the election Steele had
gone to Wood and shown him the dossier." (p.38). Wood is wired into the arch-NWO Chatham House, which is home to The Royal Institute
for International Affairs (RIIA), the companion organization of which is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (q.v. "Tragedy
and Hope" by Carrol Quigley; "The Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States foreign Policy" by Laurence
H. Shoup and William Minter; "Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics,
1976-2104" by Laurence H. Shoup).
At this conference in Halifax, Harding reports that Wood briefed McCain about the contents of the Steele Dossier [rattle-tat-tattle-tale
MI6's "ScuttleTrump" operation seems to proceeding swimmingly at this point]. The senile senator from Arizona evidently decided
that " the implications [of the dossier] were sufficiently alarming to dispatch a former senior U.S. official to meet with Steele
and find out more." The emissary, David Kramer, is currently a senior director at the McCain institute for International Leadership:
Kramer was formerly the President of the highly questionable Freedom House, a nest of NWO neocons and neoliberals. (q.v. Wikipedia
article, Freedom House, especially the section on Criticism/Relationship with the U.S. Government.) Please, recall McCain's role
in the coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014.
I am starting to wonder if Luke Harding might be MI6 with journalism for a cover. Then there is the bizarre case of
Carter Page, the former U.S. Marine intelligence officer and purported lover of all things Russian and of Putin. This obsessive
enthusiast is beginning to remind me of another obsessive Russian enthusiast, U.S. Marine, and defector to the soviet Union; Patsy
Oswald. I am starting to look at this Trump-Russia fraud as more than a takedown of the crooked Don. It seems to be an ingenious
way of further demonizing Putin and the Russians, and, if so, it is working like a charm. The MSM echo chamber cannot get enough
of it. and neither can the NWO.
If "our plan" exist, then Michael Morell should be persecuted.
Notable quotes:
"... Politico's interview with a somewhat repentant Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled with a discovery of FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital? Just say'n. ..."
"... Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_76241.shtml ..."
Philip Giraldi writes about a shift occurring over at the CIA in Trump's favor, Politico's interview with a somewhat repentant
Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled
with a discovery of FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital? Just say'n.
Anna , December 14, 2017 at 1:11 am
"You all keep hating on Democracy."
-- Amazing how energetically the "democrats" are uniting with the CIA! Exhibit No 1 is Mr. Michael Morell (the former director
of the CIA)) who has just confessed his treason in support of H. Clinton:
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_76241.shtml
Your "democracy" was nowhere when Mr. Clinton had been molesting underage girls on Lolita express. Your "democracy on the march,"
Clinton-Kagan style, has destroyed Libya and Ukraine. Millions of innocent civilians of all ages (including an enormous number
of children) died thanks to your Israel-first & oil-first Clinton & Obama policies.
Very democratic ("We came, we saw, he died ha, ha, ha" – and the gem of Northern Africa has become a hell for Libyan citizens).
One does not need to be Trump apologist to sense the stench of your rotten Clinton-Obama-CIA-FBI "democracy."
Fox reporter Shannon Brem tweeted that Fox News producer Jake Gibson has obtained 10k texts
between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, one of which says "Trump should go f himself," and "F
TRUMP."
... ... ...
In another tweet posted by Bream, Peter Strzok says "I am riled up. Trump is
a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherrent answer ," and "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE
F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!"
Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."
... ... ...
In another tweet posted by Bream, Peter Strzok says "I am riled up. Trump is
a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherrent answer ," and "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE
F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!"
Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."
... ... ...
The messages between Strzok and Page make it abundantly clear that the agents investigating
both candidates for President were extremely biased against then-candidate Trump, while going
extremely easy on Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.
... ... ...
The messages sent between Strzok and Page, as well as Strzok's conduct in the
Clinton investigation and several prior cases are now under review for political bias by the
Justice Department . Furthermore, the fact that the reason behind Strzok's firing was kept a
secret for months is of keen interest to House investigators. According to
Fox News two weeks ago :
"While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the
Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators."
"Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now
directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI
director, Christopher Wray." -Fox News
Strzok also relied on the Trump-Russia dossier created by opposition research firm Fusion
GPS. In August, 2016 - nine months before Robert Mueller's Special Counsel was launched, the
New York Times reported that Strzok was hand picked by FBI brass to supervise an investigation
into allegations of Trump-Russia collusion . The FBI investigation grew legs after they
received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and decided to act on its salacious and largely
unproven claims, According to
Fox News
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the
project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. - Fox
News
Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed to pay former MI6 agent and
Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could verify the claims contained within
the dossier - which relied on the cooperation of two senior Kremlin officials.
... ... ...
When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI wouldn't
pay him according to the New York Times .
Mr. Steele met his F.B.I. contact in Rome in early October, bringing a stack of new
intelligence reports. One, dated Sept. 14, said that Mr. Putin was facing "fallout" over his
apparent involvement in the D.N.C. hack and was receiving "conflicting advice" on what to
do.
The agent said that, if Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the
F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 for his efforts, according to two people familiar with the
offer. Ultimately, he was not paid . - NYT
Did you catch that? Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier,
Peter Strzok used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team
. Steele was ultimately paid
$168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier.
There's more - according to journalist Sara Carter there are more anti-Trump messages
exchanged between other members of Mueller's team
Sean Hannity: I'm hearing rumors all over the place Sara Carter that there are other
anti-Trump text-emails out there. And we know about them.
Sara Carter: I think you're hearing correctly Sean and I think a lot more is going to come
out. In fact, I know a lot more is going to come out based on the sources I've spoken to.
... ... ...
The text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are highly compromising , and prove
that both FBI investigations into Clinton and Trump were headed by a man, aided by his
mistress, who did not want to see Trump win the White House. Furthermnore, if anti-Trump text
messages were exchanged between other members of Robert Mueller's special counsel, which are
apparently on deck for later this month or January, it's hard to imagine anyone taking anything
concluded by this dog-and-pony show seriously.
So let's see here, I'm looking for the parts about the FBI?/special investigation, or even
anything relevant to the subject matter in your post Jack. Nope nothing there except a
speculation about something that has long since passed and with no real way to determine
actual facts. But hey thanks for taking up all the unused space here on the forum.
Back to revelant speculation...
Melissa Hodgman is the wife of the FBI scum. Guess what she does? She is head of the SEC
enforcement division. I guess that's where 'ol Pete learned how to turn "grossly negligent"
into "extremely careless". I guess that's good enough for the SEC so it should be good enough
for the Effing Bee Eye.
funny how two libtards who are cheating on their partners, can have the audacity to
believe theyre the intelligent ones. Lost, hollow, carcases of human beings they are.
You can not be serious. A FBI investigator can't let any bias influence their
investigations regardless of their personal feelings one way or the other. This Agent saying
that he was in a position to protect the country from Trump puts his bias on full display. I
expect FBI agents to be all Joe Friday all of the time.
When law enforcement is taking pro-active actions to protect Hillary and insure her
presidency...should anyone be shocked that a 'rat' inside her campaign gets murdered and no
one cares?
Sexual Blackmail rings have been around forever. Every 1st world clandestine intel agency
has long since perfected these types of traps. Starts with basic Honey Traps and goes to kids
and much worse crimes than sexual misconduct (think the Godfather when the Senator was set up
at the Brothel and you get a good idea).
Before someone becomes a dependable tool you need to have them by the balls. It has been
estimated that 1 in 3 politicians in D.C. are comprimised this way at some point during their
career. This is how the CIA controls politicians outside the US. It gets quid pro quo from
other intel agencies for internal control (Mossad, MI6, or other). It's an old game. Epstein
is Mossad. The island is a trap outside of U.S. Why would alan dershowitz go there? Simple he
was lured and trapped. Think about it, if you are in this dirty business, how do get a good
Lawyer? Good lawyers who are 'committed' to your cause always come in handy.
This is how real power is and has been aquired. With power comes control.
They're "going all in." Doesn't matter what Hand the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous
Seditious Psychopaths at the Deep State & their cohorts have been dealt.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted
False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections / Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full
retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
The misconception is that individuals believe we are dealing with normal, sane human
beings. We're not. Far from it. What we are dealing with are sick, twisted, Pure Evil
Criminal, Psychopathic, Satanic / Lucerferian elements from the CIA / Pentagram Temple of Set
Scum literally making Hell on Earth.
What's at Stake is the Deep State Global network of MultiNational Central Banking,
Espionage, Murder, War, Torture, Destabilization Campaigns, BlackMail, Extortion, Child /
Human Trafficking, Drug / Gun Running, Money Laundering, Corruption, NSA spying, Media
control & control of the 17 Intelligence Agencies.
Most importantly, The Deep State controls all the distribution lines of the
aforementioned. Especially the Coaxial Cable Communication lines of Espionage spying &
Surveillance State Apparatus / Infrastructure.
Agencies all built on the British Model of Intelligence. Purely Evil & Highly
Compartmentalized Levels which function as a Step Pyramid Model of Authority / Monarch Reign
Pyramid Model of Authority.
That's what's at Stake. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The Pure Evil Criminal
Psychopath Rogue elements of the Deep State will not go quietly. If not dealt with now,
they'll disappear only to resurface at a later date with one objective:
Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination they seek through Power & Control.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep
State Top that have had control since the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for
decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
This impure evil has been running the world since the time of the Pharoahs, it's ancient
Babylonian mysticism/paganism and it is nothing more than the worship of Lucifer; it has
never died out, it just re-emerges as something far more wicked, vile and sinister. They are
all the sons and daughters of satan and do what he does - kill, steal and destroy.
It would be Nieve to think that hundreds of thousands of years of control over mankind be
simply turned over by the Criminal Pure Evil Psychopathic Elite.
The Deep State will always exist.
However, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopathic Highly Compartmentalized Rogue Levels of it
are being delt with. Which is what the World is witnessing.
"President Trump needs to do mass firings at the corrupt FBI/DOJ"
Firings? Firings are for Starbucks employees who dip into the cash register. When people
afforded this level of "trust" and responsibility show how deeply corrupt they are - in that
they openly aid and abet horrific criminals (HRC et al) they need to go to JAIL. FOREVER. And
their supervisors - who goddamn well knew what the fuck they were doing - need to be their
cellmates.
The FBI and DOJ have lost ALL integrity, honor, and moral authority. At this point, if I
saw an FBI agent on fire, I wouldn't piss on him to put him out.
Two FBI officials who
would later be assigned to the special counsel's investigation into Donald Trump's
presidential campaign described him as an "idiot" and "loathsome human" in a series of text
messages last year, according to copies released on Tuesday.
One said in an election night text that the prospect of a Trump victory was
"terrifying".
the fact that Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed gave this story a new interesting light.
Notable quotes:
"... The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First was former British spy Christopher Steele's largely unverified dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate. ..."
"... And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used faulty software it was later forced to rewrite . The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server. ..."
"... The Huffington Post published my piece on Nov. 5, 2016, that predicted three days before the election that if Clinton lost she'd blame Russia. My point was confirmed by the campaign-insider book Shattered, which revealed that immediately after Clinton's loss, senior campaign advisers decided to blame Russia for her defeat. ..."
"... I published another piece , which the Huffington Post editors promoted, called, "Blaming Russia To Overturn The Election Goes Into Overdrive." I argued that "Russia has been blamed in the U.S. for many things and though proof never seems to be supplied, it is widely believed anyway." ..."
"... BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election. ..."
Under increasing pressure from a population angry about endless wars and the transfer of wealth to the one percent, American
plutocrats are defending themselves by suppressing critical news in the corporate media they own. But as that news emerges on
RT and dissident websites, they've resorted to the brazen move of censorship, which is rapidly spreading in the U.S. and Europe.
I know because I was a victim of it.
At the end of October, I wrote an
article for Consortium
News about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign paying for unvetted opposition research that became
the basis for much of the disputed story about Russia allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election.
The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First
was former British spy Christopher Steele's
largely unverified
dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate.
And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery
of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used
faulty software
it was later forced to
rewrite
. The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server.
My piece also described the dangerous consequences of partisan Democratic faith in Russia-gate: a sharp increase in geopolitical
tensions between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S., and a New McCarthyism that is spreading fear -- especially in academia, journalism
and civil rights organizations -- about questioning the enforced orthodoxy of Russia's alleged guilt.
After the article appeared at Consortium News , I tried to penetrate the mainstream by then publishing a version of the
article on the HuffPost, which was
rebranded from the Huffington Post in April this year by new management. As a contributor to the site since February 2006,
I am trusted by HuffPost editors to post my stories directly online. However, within 24 hours of publication on Nov. 4, HuffPost
editors retracted
the article without any explanation.
This broke with the earlier principles of journalism that the Web site espoused. For instance, in 2008, Arianna Huffington
told radio host Don Debar that, "We welcome all opinions,
except conspiracy theories." She said: "Facts are sacred. That's part of our philosophy of journalism."
But Huffington stepped down as editor in August 2016 and has nothing to do with the site now. It is
run by Lydia Polgreen, a former New York Times reporter and editor, who evidently has very different ideas. In April,
she completely redesigned the site and renamed it HuffPost.
Before the management change, I had published several articles on the Huffington Post about Russia without controversy.
For instance, The Huffington Post published my
piece on Nov. 5,
2016, that predicted three days before the election that if Clinton lost she'd blame Russia. My point was confirmed by the
campaign-insider book Shattered, which revealed that immediately after Clinton's loss, senior campaign advisers decided to
blame Russia for her defeat.
On Dec. 12, 2016, I published another
piece , which the Huffington Post editors promoted, called, "Blaming Russia To Overturn The Election Goes Into Overdrive."
I argued that "Russia has been blamed in the U.S. for many things and though proof never seems to be supplied, it is widely believed
anyway."
After I posted an updated version of the Consortium News piece -- renamed "On the Origins of Russia-gate" -- I was informed
23 hours later by a Facebook friend that the piece had been retracted by HuffPost editors. As a reporter for mainstream media
for more than a quarter century, I know that a newsroom rule is that before the serious decision is made to retract an article the
writer is contacted to be allowed to defend the piece. This never happened. There was no due process. A HuffPost editor ignored
my email asking why it was taken down.
Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take
up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union
rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals
in such situations on principle, not preference.
In terms of their responsibilities for defending journalism and protecting civil liberties, their personal opinions about whether
Russia-gate is real or not are irrelevant. The point is whether a journalist has the right to publish an article skeptical of it.
I worry that amid the irrational fear spreading about Russia that concerns about careers and funding are behind these decisions.
One online publication decidedly took the HuffPost's side. Steven Perlberg, a media reporter for BuzzFeed, asked
the HuffPost why they retracted my article. While ignoring me, the editors issued a statement to BuzzFeed saying that
"Mr. Lauria's self-published" piece was "later flagged by readers, and after deciding that the post contained multiple factually
inaccurate or misleading claims, our editors removed the post per our contributor terms of use." Those terms include retraction for
"any reason," including, apparently, censorship.
Perlberg posted the HuffPost statement
on Twitter. I asked him if he inquired of the editors what those "multiple" errors and "misleading claims" were. I asked him to contact
me to get my side of the story. Perlberg totally ignored me. He wrote nothing about the matter. He apparently believed the HuffPost
and that was that. In this way, he acquiesced with the censorship.
BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though
the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed
reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most
ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian
consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became
clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election.
That Russia-gate has reached this point, based on faith and not fact, was further illustrated by a Facebook exchange I had with
Gary Sick, an academic who served on the Ford and Carter national security staffs. When I pressed Sick for evidence of Russian interference,
he eventually replied: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck " When I told him that was a very low-bar for such serious
accusations, he angrily cut off debate.
When belief in a story becomes faith-based or is driven by intense self-interest, honest skeptics are pushed aside and trampled.
True-believers disdain facts that force them to think about what they believe. They won't waste time making a painstaking examination
of the facts or engage in a detailed debate even on something as important and dangerous as a new Cold War with Russia.
This is the most likely explanation for the HuffPost 's censorship: a visceral reaction to having their Russia-gate faith
challenged.
Looks like Browder was connected to MI6. That means that intellignece agances participated in economic rape of Russia That's explains a lot, including his change of citizenship from US to UK. He wanted better
protection.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War. ..."
"... Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale. ..."
"... Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme. ..."
"... Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy. ..."
"... That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along. ..."
"... By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son. ..."
"... But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post. ..."
"... There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past. ..."
"... Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen." ..."
"... So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War. ..."
"... Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false." ..."
"... First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue. ..."
"... From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available. ..."
"... Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you. ..."
"... Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis. ..."
"... Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes. ..."
"... Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it. ..."
"... I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant. ..."
"... Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it. ..."
"... Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years. ..."
"... Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product. ..."
"... "[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row? ..."
"... "The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement. ..."
"... "The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD. ..."
"... Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination. ..."
"... Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not). ..."
"... I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them. ..."
"... backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries. ..."
"... I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. ..."
"... I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up. ..."
"... The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ..."
Exclusive: A documentary debunking the Magnitsky myth, which was an opening salvo in the New Cold War, was largely blocked from
viewing in the West but has now become a factor in Russia-gate, reports Robert Parry.
Near the center of the current furor over Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 is a documentary that
almost no one in the West has been allowed to see, a film that flips the script on the story of the late Sergei Magnitsky and his
employer, hedge-fund operator William Browder.
The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented
a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death
in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S.
Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called
the first shot in the New Cold War.
According to Browder's narrative, companies ostensibly under his control had been hijacked by corrupt Russian officials in furtherance
of a $230 million tax-fraud scheme; he then dispatched his "lawyer" Magnitsky to investigate and – after supposedly uncovering evidence
of the fraud – Magnitsky blew the whistle only to be arrested by the same corrupt officials who then had him locked up in prison
where he died of heart failure from physical abuse.
Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became
a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of
President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov
even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale.
However, the project took an unexpected
turn when Nekrasov's research kept turning up contradictions to Browder's storyline, which began to look more and more like a
corporate cover story. Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky
– rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme.
So, the planned docudrama suddenly was transformed into a documentary with a dramatic reversal as Nekrasov struggles with what
he knows will be a dangerous decision to confront Browder with what appear to be deceptions. In the film, you see Browder go from
a friendly collaborator into an angry adversary who tries to bully Nekrasov into backing down.
Blocked Premiere
Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for
a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats
– the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part,
brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy.
Film director Andrei Nekrasov, who produced "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes."
As a lawyer defending Prevezon, a real-estate company registered in Cyprus, on a money-laundering charge, she
was dealing with U.S. prosecutors in New York City and, in that role, became an advocate for lifting the U.S. sanctions, The
Washington Post reported.
That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the
sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian
government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump
campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along.
By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky
Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One
source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump
Tower with Trump's son.
But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's
blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.
There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the
Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm
the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations
in the past.
Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams,
the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen."
In an article about the controversy in June 2016, The New York Times
added that "A screening at the Newseum is especially controversial because it could attract lawmakers or their aides." Heaven
forbid!
One-Time Showing
So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion
moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially
shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment
of the New Cold War.
Financier William Browder (right) with Magnitsky's widow and son, along with European parliamentarians.
After the Newseum presentation,
a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing
his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov
of using "facts highly selectively" and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin's "campaign to discredit Mr. Browder
and the Magnitsky Act."
The Post also misrepresented the structure of the film by noting that it mixed fictional scenes with real-life interviews and
action, a point that was technically true but willfully misleading because the fictional scenes were from Nekrasov's original idea
for a docu-drama that he shows as part of explaining his evolution from a believer in Browder's self-exculpatory story to a skeptic.
But the Post's deception is something that almost no American would realize because almost no one got to see the film.
The Post concluded smugly: "The film won't grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin's increasingly
sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television
networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky's family.
"We don't worry that Mr. Nekrasov's film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully
exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions."
The Post's gleeful editorial had the feel of something you
might read in a totalitarian
society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for
saying something that almost no one heard.
New Paradigm
The Post's satisfaction that Nekrasov's documentary would not draw a large audience represents what is becoming a new paradigm
in U.S. mainstream journalism, the idea that it is the media's duty to protect the American people from seeing divergent narratives
on sensitive geopolitical issues.
Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about
"Russian propaganda" and "fake
news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets
eagerly awaiting algorithms
that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false."
First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such
as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of
Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue.
In the meantime, there is the ad hoc approach that was applied to Nekrasov's documentary. Having missed the Newseum showing, I
was only able to view the film because I was given a special password to an online version.
From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was.
I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
But the Post's editors were right in their expectation that "The film won't grab a wide audience." Instead, it has become a good
example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call "the other side of the story." The film
now, however, has unexpectedly become a factor in the larger drama of Russia-gate and the drive to remove Donald Trump Sr. from the
White House.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't
Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You
did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give
us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you.
Rob Roy , July 13, 2017 at 2:45 pm
Parry isn't keeping the film viewing a secret. He was given a private password and perhaps can get permission to let the readers
here have it. It isn't up to Parry himself but rather to the person(s) who have the rights to the password. I've come across this
problem before.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 4:01 pm
Parry wrote: I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
Any link?? I am willing to buy it.
Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:28 pm
This may not be of much help, as the film is dubbed in Russian. If you want to look for the Russian versions on the internet,
search for: "????? ?????? ????????? "????? ???????????. ?? ????????"
Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain
in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the
Russian financial crisis.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes.
incontinent reader , July 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Well stated.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Mr. Parry,
Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding
Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the
film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it.
Is there any chance you can share information regarding a means of accessing the forbidden film?
I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding
back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America
and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and
1984 not so distant.
Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews.
I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into
accurately reporting it.
Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars.
The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial,
at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years.
Demonizing other countries is bad enough, but wilfully ignoring the potential for a nuclear war to end not only war, but life
as we know it, is appalling.
"After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson "
Am I the only one who thinks that Max Boot should have been institutionalized for some time already? He is not well.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 9:41 pm
Anna,
Perhaps Max can share a suite with John McCain. Sadly, the illness is widespread and sometimes seems to be in the majority. Neo
con/lib both are adamant in finding enemies and imposing punishment.
Finding splinters, ignoring beams. Changing regimes everywhere. Making the world safe for Democracy. Unless a man they don't
like get elected
Max Boot parents are Russain Jews who seemingly instilled in him a rabid hatred for everything Russian. The same is with Aperovitch,
the CrowdStrike fraudster. The first Soviet (Bolshevik) government was 85% Jewish. Considering what happened to Russia under Bolsheviks,
it seems that Russians are supremely tolerant people.
Anna, Anti-Semitism will get you NOWHERE, and you should be ashamed of yourself for injecting such HATRED into the rational
discussion here.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Dear orwell
re Anna
Its not anti Semitic if its true .and its true he is a Russian Jew and its very obvious he hates Russia–as does the whole Jewish
Zionist crowd in the US.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:02 am
orwell, I wonder why the truth always turns out to be so anti-semitic!?
Taras77 , July 13, 2017 at 11:17 pm
I hope you caught the preceding tucker interview with Ralph Peters, who says he is a retired us army LTC. He came off as completely
deranged and hysterical. The two interviews back to back struck me as neo con desperation and panic. My respect for Tucker
just went up for taking on these two wackos.
Zachary Smith , July 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm
The fact that the film is being suppressed by everybody is significant to me. I don't know a thing about the "facts" of the
Magnitsky case, and a quick look at the results of a Google search suggests this film isn't going to be available to me unless
I shell out some unknown amount of money.
If the producers want the film to be seen, perhaps they ought to release it for download to any interested parties for a nominal
sum. This will mean they won't make any profit, but on the other hand they will be able to spit in the eyes of the censors.
Dan Mason , July 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm
I went searching the net for access to this film and found that I was blocked at every turn. I did find a few links which all
seemed to go to the same destination which claimed to provide access once I registered with their site. I decided to avoid that
route. I don't really have that much interest in the Magnitsky affair, but I do wonder why we are being denied access to information.
Who has this kind of influence, and why are they so fearful. I'm really afraid that we already live in a largely hidden Orwellian
world. Now where did I put that tin foil hat?
The Orwellian World is NOT HIDDEN, it is clearly visible.
Drew Hunkins , July 13, 2017 at 2:53 pm
Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and
took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary
film product.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Drew – good comment. It's very hard to "turn", isn't it? I wonder if many people appreciate what it takes to do this. Easier
to justify, turn a blind eye, but to actually stop, question, think, and then follow where the story leads you takes courage and
strength.
Especially when your bucking an aggressive billionaire.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:49 am
BannanaBoat – that too!
Zim , July 13, 2017 at 3:11 pm
This is interesting:
"In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary
of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank!
for which he was paid $500,000.
"Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives
were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.
Members of Congress wrote to Mrs. Clinton in 2010 seeking to deny visas to people who had been implicated by Russian accountant
Sergei Magnitsky, who was jailed and died in prison after he uncovered evidence of a large tax-refund fraud. William Browder,
a foreign investor in Russia who had hired Mr. Magnitsky, alleged that the accountant had turned up evidence that Renaissance
officials, among others, participated in the fraud."
The State Department opposed the sanctions bill at the time, as did the Russian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov pushed Hillary Clinton to oppose the legislation during a meeting in St. Petersburg in June 2012, citing that U.S.-Russia
relations would suffer as a result."
"[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some
past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row?
Now I remember that Post editorial. I was one of only 20 commenters before they shut down comments. It was some heavy pearl
clutching.
afterthought couldn't the film be shown on RT America?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:11 am
Would that not enable Bowder's employees online to claim that this documentary is Russian state propaganda, which it obviously
is not because it would have been made available for free everywhere already just like RT. I believe that Nekrasov does not like
RT and RT probably still does not like Nekrasov. The point of RT has never been the truth then the alternative point of view,
as they advertised: Audi alteram partem.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 3:41 pm
"The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical
blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein
and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a
body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better
indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement.
Moreover, when one reflects on the fact much of this 'body of reporting' was shoehorned after the fact into an analytical
premise predicated on a single source of foreign-provided intelligence, that statement suddenly loses much of its impact.
"The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of
Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic.
The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and
decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed
in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD.
'President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those
who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet
nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of
'analysis of alternatives' mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments
and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA's vaunted 'Red Cell' was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments
of premises such as 'What if President Putin is telling the truth?'
'Throughout its history, the NIC has dealt with sources of information that far exceeded any sensitivity that might attach
to Brennan's foreign intelligence source. The NIC had two experts that it could have turned to oversee a project like the Russia
NIA!the NIO for Cyber Issues, and the Mission Manager of the Russian and Eurasia Mission Center; logic dictates that both should
have been called upon, given the subject matter overlap between cyber intrusion and Russian intent.
'The excuse that Brennan's source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to
them, is ludicrous!both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA's mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the
most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into
Russian meddling in the American electoral process.
'President Trump has come under repeated criticism for his perceived slighting of the U.S. intelligence community in repeatedly
citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure when downplaying intelligence reports, including the Russia
NIA, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Adding insult to injury, the president's most recent comments were made
on foreign soil (Poland), on the eve of his first meeting with President Putin, at the G-20 Conference in Hamburg, Germany, where
the issue of Russian meddling was the first topic on the agenda.
"The politics of the wisdom of the timing and location of such observations aside, the specific content of the president's
statements appear factually sound."
Thanks Abe once again, for providing us with news which will never be printed or aired in our MSM. Brennan may ignore the NIC,
as Congress and the Executive Branch constantly avoid paying attention to the GAO. Why even have these agencies, if our leaders
aren't going to listen them?
Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:16 pm
Abe, I'm always amazed at how much you know. Thank you for sharing. If you have your comments in article form or on a site
where they can be shared, I'd really like to know about it. I've tried, but I garble the many points you make when trying to explain
historical events you've told us about.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 9:08 am
Thanks Abe. You are a real asset to us here at CN.
John V. Walsh , July 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm
Very good article! The entire Magnitsky saga has become so convoluted and mired in controversy and propaganda that it is very
hard to understand. I remember vaguely the controversy surrounding the showing of the film at the Newseum. it is especially impressive
that Nekrasov changed his opinion as fcts unfolded.
I will now try to get the docudrama and watch it.
If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, please let me know via a response. here.
Thanks.
A 'Magnitsky Act' in Canada was approved by the (appointed) Senate several months ago and is now undergoing fine tuning in
the House of Commons prior to a third and final vote of approval. The proposed law has the unanimous support of the parties in
Parliament.
A column in today's Globe and Mail daily by the newspaper's 'chief political writer' tiptoes around the Magnitsky story, never
once daring to admit that a contrary narrative exists to that of Bill Browder.
Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern
about Canada following the Cold War without examination.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Roger Annis – just little lemmings following the leader. Disgusting. I hope you posted a comment at the Globe and Mail, Roger,
with a link to this article.
Britton , July 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm
Browder is a Communist Jew, his father has a Communist past according to his background so I know I can't trust anything he
says. Hes just one of many shady interests undermining Putin I've seen over the years. His book Red Notice is just as shady. Good
reporting Consortium News. Fox News promotes Browder like crazy every chance they get especially Fox Business channel.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm
"Browder is a Communist " Hedge Fund managers are hardly Communist – that's an oxymoron.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm
Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also
a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state
assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution
(in name yes, but in fact not).
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm
ToivoS,
thank you for this background information.
My main intention had been to straighten out the blurring of calling a hedge fund manager communist. Nowadays everything gets
blurred by people misrepresenting political concepts. Either the people have been dumbed-down by misinformation or misrepresenting
is done in order to keep neo-liberalism the dominant economical model. On many occasions I had read comments of people seemingly
believing that Nationalsocialism had been some variant of socialism. Even the ideas of Bernie Sanders had been misrepresented
as socialist instead of social democratic ones.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm
Joe Average – Dave P. mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book entitled "Two Hundred Years Together" the other day. I've been
reading a long synopsis of this book. What Britton says appears to be quite true. I don't know about Browder, but from what I've
read the Jews were instrumental in the communist party, in the deaths of so many Russians. It wasn't just the Jews, but they played
a big part. It's no wonder Solzhenitsyn's book has been "lost in translation", at least into English, for so many years.
I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could
(with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is
getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a
stop to them.
Dave P. , July 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm
backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and
construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial
institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work
place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going
on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All
the plunder flowed into the Western Countries.
In recent history, no country went through this kind of plunder on a scale Russia went through during ten or fifteen years
starting in 1992. Russia was a very badly ravaged country when Putin took over. Means of production, finance, all came to halt,
and society itself had completely broken down. It appears that the West has all the intentions to do it again.
I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of
the crooks looting Russia. Then he got to John McCain with all his lies and bullshit and was responsible for the sanctions
on Russia. All the comments aboutBrowders grandfather andCommunist party are all true but hardly important. Except that it probably
was how Browder was able to get his fingers on the pie in Russia. And he sure did get his fingers in the pie BIG TIME.
I am a Canadian and am aware of Maginsky Act in Canada. Our Minister Chrystal Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a
few months ago both of these two you could say are not fans of Putin, I certainly don't know what they spoke about but other than
lies from Browder there is no reason she should have been talking with him. I have made comments on other forums regarding these
two meeting. Read Browders book and hopefully see the documentary that this article is about. When I read his book I knew instantly
that he was a crook a charloten and a liar. Just the kind of folk John McCain and a lot of other folks in US politics love. You
all have a nice Peacefull day
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:38 am
Joe Average – "I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further
rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's."
No, it doesn't put the blame entirely on the Jews; it just spells out that they did play a large part. As one Jewish scholar
said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was too much of an academic, too intelligent to ever put the blame entirely on one group. But something
like 40 – 60 million died – shot, taken out on boats with rocks around their necks and thrown overboard, starved, gassed in rail
cars, poisoned, worked to death, froze, you name it. Every other human slaughter pales in comparison. Good old man, so civilized
(sarc)!
But someone(s) has been instrumental in keeping this book from being translated into English (or so I've read many places online).
Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and his other books have been translated, but not this one. (Although I just found one site
that has almost all of the chapters translated, but not all). Several people ordered the book off Amazon, only to find out that
it was in the Russian language. LOL
Solzhenitsyn does say at one point in the book: "Communist rebellions in Germany post-WWI was a big reason for the revival
of anti-Semitism (as there was no serious anti-Semitism in the imperial [Kaiser] Germany of 1870 – 1918)."
Lots of Jewish people made it into the upper levels of the Soviet government, academia, etc. (and lots of them were murdered
too). I might skip reading these types of books until I get older. Too bleak. Hard enough reading about the day-to-day stuff here
without going back in time for more fun!
I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart.
I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia
was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it
up.
Keep smiling, Joe.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:58 am
Dave P. – I told you, you are a wealth of information, a walking encyclopedia. Interesting about your co-worker. Sounds like
it was a free-for-all in Russia. Yes, I totally agree that Putin has done and is doing all he can to bring his country back up.
Very difficult job he is doing, and I hope he is successful at keeping the West out as much as he can, at least until Russia is
strong and sure enough to invite them in on their own terms.
Now go and tell your wife what I said about you being a "walking encyclopedia". She'll probably have a good laugh. (Not that
you're not, but you know what she'll say: "Okay, smartie, now go and do the dishes.")
Chucky LeRoi , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 am
Just some small scale, local color kind of stuff, but living in the USA, west coast specifically, it was quite noticeable in
the mid to late '90's how many Russians with money were suddenly appearing. No apparent skills or 'jobs', but seemingly able to
pay for stuff. Expensive stuff.
A neighbor invited us to her 'place in the mountains', which turned out to be where a lumber company had almost terra-formed
an area and was selling off the results. Her advice: When you go to the lake (i.e., the low area now gathering runoff, paddle
boats rentals, concession stand) you will see a lot of men with huge stomachs and tiny Speedos. They will be very rude, pushy,
confrontational. Ignore them, DO NOT comment on their rudeness or try to deal with their manners. They are Russians, and the amount
of trouble it will stir up – and probable repercussions – are simply not worth it.
Back in town, the anecdotes start piling up quickly. I am talking crowbars through windows (for a perceived insult). A beating
where the victim – who was probably trying something shady – was so pulped the emergency room staff couldn't tell if the implement
used was a 2X4 or a baseball bat. When found he had with $3k in his pocket: robbery was not the motive. More traffic accidents
involving guys with very nice cars and serious attitude problems. I could go on. More and more often somewhere in the relating
of these incidents the phrase " this Russian guy " would come up. It was the increased use of this phrase that was so noticeable.
And now the disclaimer.
Before anybody goes off, I am not anti-Russian, Russo-phobic, what have you. I studied the Russian language in high school
and college (admittedly decades ago). My tax guy is Russian. I love him. My day to day interactions have led me to this pop psychology
observation: the extreme conditions that produced that people and culture produced extremes. When they are of the good, loving
, caring, cultured, helpful sort, you could ask for no better friends. The generosity can be embarrassing. When they are of the
materialistic, evil, self-centered don't f**k with me I am THE BADDEST ASS ON THE PLANET sort, the level of mania and self-importance
is impossible to deal with, just get as far away as possible. It's worked for me.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm
backwardsevolution,
thanks for the info. I'll add the book to the list of books onto my to-read list. As far as I know a Kibbutz could be described
as a Communist microcosm. The whole idea of Communism itself is based on Marx (a Jew by birth). A while ago I had started reading
"Mein Kampf". I've got to finish the book, in order to see if my assumption is correct. I guess that this book puts blame for
Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's.
The most known Russian Oligarchs that I've heard of are mainly of Jewish origin, but as far as I know they had been too young
to be commissars at the time of the demise of the USSR. At least one aspect I've read of many times is that a lot of them built
their fortunes with the help of quite shady business dealings.
With regard to President Putin I've read that he made a deal with the oligarchs: they should pay their taxes, keep/invest their
money in Russia and keep out of politics. In return he wouldn't dig too deep into their past. Right at the moment everybody in
the West is against President Putin, because he stopped the looting of his country and its citizens and that's something our Western
oligarchs and financial institutions don't like.
On a side note: Several years ago I had started to read several volumes about German history. Back then I didn't notice an
important aspect that should attract my attention a few years later when reading about the rise of John D. Rockefeller. Charlemagne
(Charles the Great) took over power from the Merovingians. Prior to becoming King of the Franks he had been Hausmeier (Mayor of
the Palace) for the Merovingians. Mayor of the Palace was the title of the manager of the household, which seems to be similar
to a procurator and/or accountant (bookkeeper). The similarity of the beginnings of both careers struck me. John D. Rockefeller
started as a bookkeeper. If you look at Bill Gates you'll realize that he was smart enough to buy an operating system for a few
dollars, improved it and sold it to IBM on a large scale. The widely celebrated Steve Jobs was basically the marketing guy, whilst
the real brain behind (the product) Apple had been Steve Wozniak.
Another side note: If we're going down the path of neo-liberalism it will lead us straight back to feudalism – at least if
the economy doesn't blow up (PCR, Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers, Richard D. Wolff, and many more economists
make excellent points that our present Western economy can't go on forever and is kept alive artificially).
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:50 am
Joe Average – somehow my reply to you ended up above your post. What? How did that happen? You can find it there. Thanks for
the interesting info about John D. Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak. Some are good managers, others good at sales, while others
are the creative inventors.
Yes, Joe, I totally agree that we are headed back to feudalism. I don't think we'll have much choice as the oil is running
out. We'll probably be okay, but our children? I worry about them. They'll notice a big change in their lifetimes. The discovery
and capture of oil pulled forward a large population. As we scale back, we could be in trouble, food-wise. Or at least it looks
that way.
Thanks, Joe.
Miranda Keefe , July 14, 2017 at 5:48 am
Charlemagne did not take over from the Merovingians. The Mayor of the Palace was not an accountant.
During the 7th Century the Mayor of the Place more and more became the actual ruler of the Franks. The office had existed for
over a century and was basically the "prime minister" to the king. By the time Pepin of Herstal, a scion of a powerful Frankish
family, took the position in 680, the king was ceremonial leader doing ritual and the Mayor ruled- like the relationship of the
Emperor and the Shogun in Japan. In 687 Pepin's Austrasia conquered Neustria and Burgundy and he added "Duke of the Franks" to
his titles. The office became hereditary.
When Pepin died in 714 there was some unrest as nobles from various parts of the joint kingdoms attempted to get different
ones of his heirs in the office until his son Charles Martel took the reins in 718. This is the famous Charles Martel who defeated
the Moors at Tours in 732. But that was not his only accomplishment as he basically extended the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony.
Charles not only ruled but when the king died he picked which possible heir would become king. Finally near the end of his reign
he didn't even bother replacing the king and the throne was empty.
When Charles Martel died in 741 he followed Frankish custom and divided his kingdom among his sons. By 747 his younger son,
Pepin the Short, had consolidated his rule and with the support of the Pope, deposed the last Merovingian King and became the
first Carolingian King in 751- the dynasty taking its name from Charles Martel. Thus Pepin reunited the two aspects of the Frankish
ruler, combining the rule of the Mayor with the ceremonial reign of the King into the new Kingship.
Pepin expanded the kingdom beyond the Frankish lands even more and his son, Charlemagne, continued that. Charlemagne was 8
when his father took the title of King. Charlemagne never was the Mayor of the Palace, but grew up as the prince. He became King
of the Franks in 768 ruling with his brother, sole King in 781, and then started becoming King of other countries until he united
it all in 800 as the restored Western Roman Emperor.
When he died in 814 the Empire was divided into three Kingdoms and they never reunited again. The western one evolved into
France. The eastern one evolved in the Holy Roman Empire and eventually Germany. The middle one never solidified but became the
Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Italian states.
The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock
together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian
Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/
Since the inti-Russian tenor of the Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland is in accord with the US ziocons anti-Russian policies
(never mind all this fuss about WWII Jewish mass graves in Ukraine), "Chrysta" is totally approved by the US government.
Joe Average , July 14, 2017 at 11:32 pm
I'll reply to myself in order to send a response to backwardsevolution and Miranda Keefe.
For a change I'll be so bold to ignore gentleman style and reply in the order of the posts – instead of Ladies first.
backwardsevolution,
in my first paragraph I failed to make a clear distinction. I started with the remark that I'm adding the book "Two Hundred
Years Together" to my to-read list and then mentioned that I'm right now reading "Mein Kampf". All remarks after mentioning the
latter book are directed at this one – and not the one of Solzhenitsyn.
Miranda Keefe,
I'm aware that accountant isn't an exact characterization of the concept of a Mayor of the Palace. As a precaution I had added
the phrase "seems to be similar". You're correct with the statement that Charlemagne was descendant Karl Martel. At first I intended
to write that Karolinger (Carolings) took over from Merowinger (Merovingians), because those details are irrelevant to the point
that I wanted to make. It would've been an information overload. My main point was the power of accountants and related fields
such as sales and marketing. Neither John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs actually created their products from scratch.
Many of those who are listed as billionaires haven't been creators / inventors themselves. Completely decoupled from actual
production is banking. Warren Buffet is started as an investment salesman, later stock broker and investor. Oversimplified you
could describe this activity as accounting or sales. It's the same with George Soros and Carl Icahn. Without proper supervision
money managers (or accountants) had and still do screw those who had hired them. One of those victims is former billionaire heiress
Madeleine Schickedanz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz
). Generalized you could also say that BlackRock is your money manager accountant. If you've got some investment (that dates
back before 2008), which promises you a higher interest rate after a term of lets say 20 years, the company with which you have
the contract with may have invested your money with BlackRock. The financial crisis of 2008 has shown that finance (accountants
/ money managers) are taking over. Aren't investment bankers the ones who get paid large bonuses in case of success and don't
face hardly any consequences in case of failure? Well, whatever turn future might take, one thing is for sure: whenever SHTF even
the most colorful printed pieces of paper will not taste very well.
Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:13 pm
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks on
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks . EVER SINCE THE Emperor Constantine established the legal
position of the church in the
Many Bolsheviks fled to Germany , taking with them some loot that enabled them to get established in Germany. Lots of invaluable
art work also.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 am
Cal – read about "History's Greatest Heist" on Amazon. Sounds interesting. Was one of the main reasons for the Czar's overthrow
to steal and then flee? It's got to have been on some minds. A lot of people got killed, and they would have had wedding rings,
gold, etc. That doesn't even include the wealth that could be stolen from the Czar. Was the theft just one of those things that
happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow in the first place, get some dough and run with
it?
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm
@ backwards
" Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow"'
imo some of both. I am sure when they were selling off Russian valuables to finance their revolution a lot of them set aside
some loot for themselves.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm
Cal – thank you. Good books like this get us closer and closer to the truth. Thank goodness for these people.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 11:45 am
An autocratic oligarch would probably be a better description. He probably believes like other Synarchist financiers that they
should rightfully rule the World, and see democratic processes as heresy against "The Natural Order for human society", or some
such belief.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm
Looking up "A short definition of Synarchism (a Post-Napoleonic social phenomenon) by Lyndon LaRouche" would give much insight
into what's going on. People from the intelligence community made sure a copy of a 1940 army intelligence dossier labelled something
like "Synarchism:NAZI/Communist" got into Lyndon's hands. It speaks of the the Synarchist method of attacking a targeted society
from both extreme (Right-Left) ends of the political spectrum. I guess this is dialectics? I suppose the existence of the one
extreme legitimizes the harsh, anti-democratic/anti-human measures taken to exterminate it by the other extreme, actually destroying
the targeted society in the process. America, USSR, and (Sun Yat Sen's old Republic of) China were the targeted societies in the
pre-WWII/WWII yearsfor their "sins" of championing We The People against Oligarchy. FDR knew the Synarchist threat and sided with
Russia and China against Germany and Japan. He knew that, after dealing with the battlefield NAZIs, the "Boardroom" NAZIs would
have to be dealt with Post-War. That all changed with his death.The Synarchists are still at it today, hence all the rabid Russo-phobia,
the Pacific Pivot, and the drive towards war. This is all being foiled with Trump's friendly, cooperative approach towards Russia
and China.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Big Brother at work – always protecting us from upsetting information. How nice of him to insure our comfort. No need for us
to bother with all of this confusing stuff, he can do all that for us. The mainstream media will tell us all we need to know ..
(Virginia – please notice my use of irony.)
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Do you remember mike K when porn was censored, and there were two sides to every issue as compromise was always on the table?
Now porn is accessible on cable TV, and there is only one side to every issue, and that's I'm right about everything and your
not, what compromise with you?
Don't get me wrong, I don't really care how we deal with porn, but I am very concerned to why censorship is showing up whereas
we can't see certain things, for certain reasons we know nothing about. Also, I find it unnerving that we as a society continue
to stay so undivided. Sure, we can't all see the same things the same way, but maybe it's me, and I'm getting older by the minute,
but where is our cooperation to at least try and work with each other?
Always like reading your comments mike K Joe
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm
Joe,
when it comes to the choice of watching porn and bodies torn apart (real war pictures), I prefer the first one, although we
in the West should be confronted with the horrible pictures of what we're assisting/doing.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 5:27 pm
This is where the Two Joe's are alike.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm
I do remember those days Joe. I am 86 now, so a lot has changed since 1931. With the 'greed is good' philosophy in vogue now,
those who seek compromise are seen as suckers for the more single minded to take advantage of. Respect for rules of decency is
just about gone, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid.
Distraction from critical thinking, excellent observation ( please forget the NeoCon Demos they are responsible for half of
the nightmare USA society has become.
ranney , July 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Wow Robert, what a fascinating article! And how complicated things become "when first we practice to deceive".
Abe thank you for the link to Ritter's article; that's a really good one too!
John , July 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm
If we get into a shooting war with Russia and the human race somehow survives it Robert Parry' s name will one day appear in
the history books as the person who most thoroughly documented the events leading up to that war. He will be considered to be
a top historian as well as a top journalist.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:01 pm
"Browder, who abjured his American citizenship in 1998 to become a British subject, reveals more about his own selective advocacy
of democratic principles than about the film itself. He might recall that in his former homeland freedom of the press remains
a cherished value."
Abe – "never driven by the money". No, he would never be that type of guy (sarc)!
"It's hard to know what Browder will do next. He rules out any government ambitions, instead saying he can achieve more by
lobbying it.
This summer, he says he met "big Hollywood players" in a bid to turn his book into a major film.
"The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film," he says. "I have been approached
by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what
the best constellation of players will be on this.
"There are a lot of people looking at it. It's still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting
options, but I'm not going to name any names."
What the ..? I can see it now, George Clooney in the lead role, Mr. White Helmets himself, with his twins in tow.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:56 am
Is it not impressive how money buys out reality in the modern world? This is why one can safely assume that whatever is told
in the MSM is completely opposite to the truth. Would MSM have to push it if it were the truth? You may call this Kiza's Law if
you like (modestly): " The truth is always opposite to what MSM say! " The 0.1% of situations where this is not the case
is the margin of error.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm
"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill
Browder [ ]
"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing
billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated
British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia.
He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.
"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel,
to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection
come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?
"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum,
though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how
Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a
partner but also a mentor and friend.
"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party,
the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University,
the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising
that none of it gets mentioned.
"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that
seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."
Abe – what a web. Money makes money, doesn't it? It's often what club you belong to and who you know. I remember a millionaire
in my area long ago who went bankrupt. The wealthy simply chipped in, gave him some start-up money, and he was off to the races
again. Simple as that. And I would think that the Jews are an even tighter group who invest with each other, are privy to inside
information, get laws changed in favor of each other, pay people off when one gets in trouble. Browder seems a shifty sort. As
the article says, he leaves a lot out.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 11:37 pm
In 1988, Stanton Wheeler (Yale University – Law School), David L. Weisburd (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; George Mason University
– The Department of Criminology, Law & Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Faculty of Law). Elin Waring (Yale University
– Law School), and Nancy Bode (Government of the State of Minnesota) published a major study on white collar crime in America.
Part of a larger program of research on white-collar crime supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice's
National Institute of Justice, the study included "the more special forms associated with the abuse of political power [ ] or
abuse of financial power". The study was also published as a Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper
The research team noted that Jews were over-represented relative to their share of the U.S. population:
"With respect to religion, there is one clear finding. Although many in both white collar and common crime categories do not
claim a particular religious faith [ ] It would be a fair summary of our. data to say that, demographically speaking, white collar
offenders are predominantly middle-aged white males with an over-representation of Jews."
In 1991, David L. Weisburd published his study of Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts,
Weisburd found that although Jews comprised only around 2% of the United States population, they contributed at least 9% of lower
category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes
(mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud).
Weisburg showed greater frequency of Jewish offenders at the top of the hierarchy of white collar crime. In Weisbug's sample of
financial crime in America, Jews were responsible for 23.9%.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:26 am
What I find most interesting is how Putin handles the Jews.
It is obvious that he is the one who saved the country of Russia from the looting of the 90s by the Russian-American Jewish
mafia. This is the most direct explanation for his demonisation in the West, his feat will never be forgiven, not even in history
books (a demon forever). Even to this day, for example in Syria, Putin's main confrontation is not against US then against the
Zionist Jews, whose principal tool is US. Yet, there is not a single anti-Semitic sentence that Putin ever uttered. Also, Putin
let the Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia keep their money if they accepted the authority of the Russian state, kept employing
Russians and paying Russian taxes. But he openly confronted those who refused (Berezovsky, Khodorovsky etc). Furthermore, Putin
lets Israel bomb Syria under his protection to abandon. Finally, Putin is known in Russia as a great supporter of Jews and Israel,
almost a good friend of Nutty Yahoo.
Therefore, it appears to me that the Putin's principal strategy is to appeal to the honest Jewish majority to restrain the
criminal Jewish minority (including the criminally insane), to divide them instead of confronting them all as a group, which is
what the anti-Semitic Europeans have traditionally been doing. His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews.
I still do not know if his strategy will succeed in the long run, but it certainly is an interesting new approach (unless I do
not know history enough) to an ancient problem. It is almost funny how so many US people think that the problem with the nefarious
Jewish money power started with US, if they are even aware of it.
Cal , July 16, 2017 at 5:41 am
" His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. "
The Jews have no power without their uber Jew money men, most of whom are ardent Zionist.
And because they get some benefits from the lobbying heft of the Zionist control of congress they arent going to go against them.
In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians
and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".
The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the
Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various
publications in Russia.
Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival
Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave
one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris
Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.
In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She
was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice
of America.
HIDE BEHIND , July 13, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Gramps was decended from an old Irish New England Yankee lineage and in my youth he always dragged me along when the town meetings
were held, so my ideas of American DEmocracy stem from that background, one of open participation.
The local newspapers had more social chit chat than political news of international or for that mstter State or Federal shenanigansbut
everu member in that far flung settled communit read them from front to back; ss a child I got to read the funny and sports pages
until Gramps got finidhed reading the "News Section, always the news first yhen the lesser BS when time allowed,this habit instilled
in me the sence of
priority.
Aftrr I had read his dection of paper he would talk with me,even being a yonker, in a serious but opinionated manner, of the Editorial
section which had local commentary letterd to the editor as large as somtimes too pages.
I wonder today at which section of papersf at all, is read by american public, and at how manyadults discuss importsn news worthy
tppics with their children.
At advent of TV we still had trustworthy journalist to finally be seen after years of but reading their columns or listening on
radios,almost tottaly all males but men of honesty and character, and worthy of trust.
They wrre a part of all social stratas, had lived real lives and yes most eere well educated but not the elitist thinking jrrks
who are no more than parrots repeating whatevrr a teleprompter or bias of their employers say to write.
Wrll back to Gramps and hid home spun wisdom: He alwsys ,and shoeed by example at those old and somrtimes boistrous town Halls,
that first you askef a question, thought about the answer, and then questioned the answer.
This made the one being question responsible for the words he spoke.
So those who have doubts by a presumed independent journalist, damn right they should question his motives, which in reality begin
to answer our unspoken questions we can no longer ask those boobs for bombs and political sychophants and their paymasters of
popular media outlets.
As one who likes effeciency in prodution one monitors data to spot trends and sny aberations bring questions so yes I note this
journalist deviation from the norms as well.
I can only question the why, by looking at data from surrounding trends in order to later be able to question his answers.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:07 am
Hide Behind – sounds like you had a smart grandpa, and someone who cared enough about you to talk things over with you (even
though he was opinionated). I try to talk things over with my kids, sometimes too much. They're known on occasion to say, "Okay,
enough. We're full." I wait a few days, and then fill them up some more! Ha.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Here's a thought; will letting go of Trump Jr's infraction cancel out a guilty verdict of Hillary Clinton's transgressions?
I keep hearing Hillary references while people defend Donald Trump Jr over his meeting with Russian Natalia Veselnitskaya.
My thinking started over how I keep hearing pundits speak to Trump Jr's 'intent'. Didn't Comey find Hillary impossible to prosecute
due to her lack of 'intent'? Actually I always thought that to be prosecuted under espionage charges, the law didn't need to prove
intent, but then again we are talking about Hillary here.
The more I keep hearing Trump defenders make mention of Hillary's deliberate mistakes, and the more I keep hearing Democrates
point to Donald Jr's opportunistic failures, the more similarity I see between the two rivals, and the more I see an agreed upon
truce ending up in a tie. Remember we live in a one party system with two wings.
Am I going down the wrong road here, or could forgiving Trump Jr allow Hillary to get a free get out of jail card?
F. G. Sanford , July 14, 2017 at 12:42 am
I've been saying all along, our government is just a big can of worms, and neither side can expose the other without opening
it. But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers like it's a game of chicken. My guess is, everybody is gonna get
a free pass. I read somewhere that Preet Bharara had the goods on a whole bunch of bankers, but he sat on it clear up to the election.
Then, he got fired. So much for draining the swamp. If they prosecute Hillary, it looks like a grudge match. If they prosecute
Junior, it looks like revenge. If they prosecute Lynch, it looks like racism. When you deal with a government this corrupt, everybody
looks innocent by comparison. I'm still betting nobody goes to jail, as long as the "deep state" thinks they have Trump under
control.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 1:29 am
It's like we are sitting on the top of a hill looking down at a bunch of little armies attacking each other, or something.
I'm really screwy, I have contemplated to if Petraues dropped a dime on himself for having a extra martial affair, just to
get out of the Benghazi mess. Just thought I'd tell you that for full disclosure.
When it comes to Hillary, does anyone remember how in the beginning of her email investigation she pointed to Colin Powell
setting precedent to use a private computer? That little snitch Hillary is always the one when caught to start pointing the finger
.she would never have lasted in the Mafia, but she's smart enough to know what works best in Washington DC.
I'm just starting to see the magic; get the goods on Trump Jr then make a deal with the new FBI director.
Okay go ahead and laugh, but before you do pass the popcorn, and let's see how this all plays out.
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
Joe
Lisa , July 14, 2017 at 4:22 am
"Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see."
Joe, where does this quote originate? Or is it a paraphrase?
I once had an American lecturer (political science) at the university, and he stressed the idea that we should not believe anything
we read or hear and only half of what we see. This was l-o-o-ng ago, in the 60's.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 10:59 am
The first time I ever heard that line, 'believe nothing of what you see', was a friend of mine said it after we watched Roberto
Clemente throw a third base runner out going towards home plate, as Robert threw the ball without a bounce to the catcher who
was standing up, from the deep right field corner of the field .oh those were the days.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 9:12 pm
JT,
Clemente had an unbelievable arm! The consummate baseball player I have family in western PA, an uncle your age in fact who remembers
Clemente well. Roberto also happened to be a great human being.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm
I got loss at Forbes Field. I was seven years old, it was 1957. I got separated from my older cousin, we got in for 50 cents
to sit in the left field bleachers. Like I said I loss my older cousin so I walked, and walked, and just about the time I wanted
my mum the most I saw daylight. I followed the daylight out of the big garage door, and I was standing within a foot of this long
white foul line. All of a sudden this Black guy started yelling at me in somekind of broken English to, 'get off the field, get
out of here'. Then I felt a field ushers hand grab my shoulder, and as I turned I saw my cousin standing on the fan side of the
right field side of the field. The usher picked me up and threw me over to my cousin, with a warning for him to keep his eye on
me. That Black baseball player was a young rookie who was recently just drafted from the then Brooklyn Dodgers .#21 Roberto Clemente.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:12 pm
You were a charmed boy and now you are a charmed man. Great story life is a Field of Dreams sometimes.
Zachary Smith , July 15, 2017 at 9:00 pm
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
My introduction to this had the wording the other way around:
"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."
This was because the workplace was saturated with rumors, and unfortunately there was a practice of management and union representatives
"play-acting" for their audience. So what you "saw" was as likely as not a little theatrical production with no real meaning whatever.
The two fellows shouting at each other might well be laughing about it over a cup of coffee an hour later.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 am
Sanford – "But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers " That's funny writing.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm
yessir, love it
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:41 am
Absolutely, one of the best political metaphors ever (unfortunately works in English language only).
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm
BTW, they are flashing at each other not only can openers then also jail cells and grassy knolls these days. But the can openers
would still be most scary.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 2:13 am
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options,
have been allowed to flourish here.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs,
criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:00 am
Abe – wow, what a story. I guess it's lucrative to "never forget"! Bandits.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
NCJRS Abstract
The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the
NCJRS Abstracts Database. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary
loans, or in a local library.
NCJ Number: NCJ 006180
Title: CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS – AN OVERVIEW
United States of America
Journal: ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY Volume:6 Issue:2 Dated:(SUMMER 1971) Pages:1-39
Date Published: 1971
Page Count: 15
.
Abstract: THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE,
LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS,
HOWEVER, THE JEWISH CRIME RATE TENDS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT OF NONJEWS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS FOR WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES,
THAT IS, COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIALLY RELATED CRIMES, SUCH AS FRAUD, FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY, AND EMBEZZLEMENT.
Index Term(s): Behavioral and Social Sciences ; Adult offenders ; Minorities ; Behavioral science research ; Offender classification
Country: United States of America
Language: English
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Cal – that does not surprise me at all. Of course they would be where the money is, and once you have money, you get nothing
but the best defense. "I've got time and money on my side. Go ahead and take me to court. I'll string this thing along and it'll
cost you a fortune. So let's deal. I'm good with a fine."
A rap on the knuckles, a fine, and no court case, no discovery of the truth that the people can see. Of course they'd be there.
That IS the only place to be if you want to be a true criminal.
Skip Scott , July 15, 2017 at 1:57 pm
Thanks again Abe, you are a wealth of information. I think you have to allow for anyone to make a mistake, and Bharara has
done a lot of good.
Longtime Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz and his team have directed their grievance at Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior
White House adviser.
Citing a person familiar with Trump's legal team, The Times said Kasowitz has bristled at Kushner's "whispering in the president's
ear" about stories on the Russia investigation without telling Kasowitz and his team.
The Times' source said the attorneys, who were hired as private counsel to Trump in light of the Russia investigation, view Kushner
"as an obstacle and a freelancer" motivated to protect himself over over Trump. The lawyers reportedly told colleagues the work
environment among Trump's inner circle was untenable, The Times said, suggesting Kasowitz could resign
Second
Who thinks Jared works for Trump? I don't.
Jared works for his father Charles Kushner, the former jail bird who hired prostitutes to blackmail his brother in law into not
testifying against him. Jared spent every weekend his father was in prison visiting him.,,they are inseparable.
Third
So what is Jared doing in his WH position to help his father and his failing RE empire?
Trying to get loans from China, Russia, Qatar,Qatar
And why Is Robert Mueller Probing Jared Kushner's Finances?
Because of this no doubt:..seeking a loan for the Kushners from a Russian bank.
The White House and the bank have offered differing accounts of the Kushner-Gorkov sit-down. While the White House said Kushner
met Gorkov and other foreign representatives as a transition official to "help advance the president's foreign policy goals."
Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB, said it was part of talks with business leaders about the bank's development strategy.
It said Kushner was representing Kushner companies, his family real estate empire.
Jared Kushner 'tried and failed to get a $500m loan from Qatar before http://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics
2 days ago –
Jared Kushner tried and failed to secure a $500m loan from one of Qatar's richest businessmen, before pushing his father-in-law
to toe a hard line with the country, it has been alleged. This intersection between Mr Kushner's real estate dealings and his
father-in-law's
The Kushners are about to lose their shirts..unless one of those foreign country's banks gives them the money.
At Kushners' Flagship Building, Mounting Debt and a Foundered Deal https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/nyregion/kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue.html
The Fifth Avenue skyscraper was supposed to be the Kushner Companies' flagship in the heart of Manhattan -- a record-setting $1.8
billion souvenir proclaiming that the New Jersey developers Charles Kushner and his son Jared were playing in the big leagues.
And while it has been a visible symbol of their status, it has also it has also been a financial headache almost from the start.
On Wednesday, the Kushners announced that talks had broken off with a Chinese financial conglomerate for a deal worth billions
to redevelop the 41-story tower, at 666 Fifth Avenue, into a flashy 80-story ultraluxury skyscraper comprising a chic retail mall,
a hotel and high-priced condominiums"
Get these cockroaches out of the WH please.,,,Jared and his sister are running around the world trying to get money in exchange
for giving them something from the Trump WH.
The NYC skyline displays 666 in really really really HUGE !!!! numbers. Perhaps the USA government as Cheney announced has
gone to the very very very DARK side.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Yea 666 probably isn't a coincidence .lol
Chris Kinder , July 14, 2017 at 12:15 am
What I think most comments overlook here is the following: the US is the primary imperialist aggressor in the world today,
and Russia, though it is an imperialist competitor, is much weaker and is generally losing ground. Early on, the US promised that
NATO would not be extended into Eastern Europe, but now look at what's happened: not only does the US have NATO allies and and
missiles in Eastern Europe, but it also engineered a coup against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, and is now trying to drive
Russia out of Eastern Ukraine, as in Crimea and the Donbass and other areas of Eastern Ukraine, which are basically Russian going
back more than a century. Putin is pretty mild compered to the US' aggressive stance. That's number one.
Number two is that the current anti-Russian hysteria in the US is all about maintaining the same war-mongering stance against
Russia that existed in the cold war, and also about washing clean the Democratic Party leadership's crimes in the last election.
Did the Russians hack the election? Maybe they tried, but the point is that what was exposed–the emails etc–were true information!
They show that the DNC worked to deprive Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and hide crimes of the Clintons'! These exposures,
not any Russian connection to the exposures, are what really lost Hillary the election.
So, what is going on here? The Democrats are trying to hide their many transgressions behind an anti-Russian scare, why? Because
it is working, and because it fits in with US imperialist anti-Russian aims which span the entire post-war period, and continue
today. And because it might help get Trump impeached. I would not mind that result one bit, but the Democrats are no alternative:
that has been shown to be true over and over again.
This is all part of the US attempt to be the dominant imperialist power in the world–something which it has pursued since the
end of the last world war, and something which both Democrats and Republicans–ie, the US ruling class behind them–are committed
to. Revolutionaries say: the main enemy is at home, and that is what I say now. That is no endorsement of Russian imperialism,
but a rejection of all imperialism and the capitalist exploitative system that gives rise to it.
Thanks for your attention -- Chris Kinder
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:58 am
Chris – good post. Thanks.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 11:35 am
Chris, I think most commenters here are aware of everything you summarized above, but we just don't put all that in each individual
post.
Paranam Kid , July 14, 2017 at 6:40 am
It is ironic that Browder on his website describes himself as running a battle against corporate corruption in Russia, and
there is a quote by Walter Isaacson: "Bill Browder is an amazing moral crusader".
http://www.billbrowder.com/bio
HIDE BEHIND , July 14, 2017 at 10:02 am
One cannot talk of Russian monry laundering in US without exposing the Jewish Israeli and many AIPAC connections.
I studied not so much the Jewish Orthodoxy but mainly the evolution of noth their outlook upon G.. but also how those who do not
believe in a G.. and still keep their cultural cohesiveness
The largest money laundering group in US is
both Jewish and Israeli, and while helping those of their cultural similarities, their ecpertise goes. Very deep in Eastern U.S.
politics and especially strong in all commercial real estate, funding, setting up bribes to permitting officials,contractors and
owners of construvtion firms.
Financials some quite large are within this Jew/Israel connections, as all they who offshore need those proper connections to
do so. take bribes need the funding cleaned and
flow out through very large tax free Jewish Charity Orgd, the largest ones are those of Orthodox.
GOV Christie years ago headed the largest sting operation to try and uproot what at that time he believed was just statewide tax
fraud and laundering operations, many odd cash flows into political party hacks running for evrry gov position electefd or appointed.
Catchng a member of one of the most influential Orthofox familys mrmbers, that member rolled on many many indivifuals of his own
culture.
It was only when Vhristies investigative team began turning up far larger cases of laundering and political donations thst msinly
centered in NY Stste and City, fid he then find out howuch power this grouping had.
Soon darn near every AIPAC aided elected politico from city state and rspecially Congress was warning him to end investigation.
Which he did.
His reward was for his fat ass to be funded for a run towards US Presidency, without any visibly open opposition by that cultural
grouping.
No it is not odd for Jewery to charge goyim usury or to aid in political schemes that advance their groups aims.
One thing to remenber by the Bible thumpers who delay any talks of Israel ; Christian Zionist, is that to be of their culture
one does not have to believe in G.
There are a few excellent books written about early days Jewish immigrant Pre Irish andblre Sicilian mafias.
The Jewish one remainst to this day but are as well orgNized as the untold history of what is known as "The Southern mafia.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Hide Behind – fascinating! I guess if we ever knew half of what goes on behind the scenes, we'd be shocked. We only ever know
things like this exist when people like you enlighten us, or when there's a blockbuster movie about it. Thanks.
Deborah Andrew , July 14, 2017 at 10:03 am
With great respect and appreciation for your writing about the current unsubstantiated conversations/writing about 'Russia-gate'
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts. Analysis and opinions,
that include the facts, may differ. However, it is the readers who will evaluate the varied analysis and opinions when they include
all the facts known. I raise this question, as it seems to me that we have a binary approach to our thinking and decision making.
Something is either good or bad, this or that. Sides are taken. Labels are added (such as conservative and progressive). Would
we not be wiser and would our decision making not be wiser if it were based on a set of principles? My own preference: the precautionary
principle and the principle of do no harm. I am suggesting that we abandon the phrase and notion of the 'other side of the story'
and replace it with: based on the facts now known, or, based on all the facts revealed to date or, until more facts are revealed
it appears
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts.
Replying to a question with another question isn't really good form, but given my knowledge level of this case I can see no
alternative.
How do you propose to determine the "facts" when virtually none of the characters involved in the affair appear trustworthy?
Also, there is a lot of evidence (displayed by Mr. Parry) that another set of "characters" we call the Mainstream Media are
extremely biased and one-sided with their coverage of the story.
Again – Where am I going to find those "facts" you speak of?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:52 am
Spot on.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Deborah Andrew – good comment, but the problem is that we never seem to get "the other side of the story" from the MSM. You
are right in pointing out that "the other side of the story" probably isn't ALL there is (as nothing is completely black and white),
but at least it's something. The only way we can ever get to the truth is to put the facts together and question them, but how
are you going to do that when the facts are kept away from us?
It can be very frustrating, can't it, Deborah? Cheers.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm
Nice comment.
None of us can know the exact truth of anything we ourselves haven't seen or been involved in. The best we can do is try to
find trusted sources, be objective, analytical and compare different stories and known the backgrounds and possible agendas of
the people involved in a issue or story.
We can use some clues to help us cull thru what we hear and read.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of
the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players,
or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public
figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the
topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors
and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially
well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can
associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which
can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy
them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real
issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though
other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal',
'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and
so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before
an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation
or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal
agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon'
and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely
why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have
any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for
maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility,
someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should
the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt
with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can
usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues
-- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess'
with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it
all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later,
and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner
sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players
and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose
interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which
forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which
works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions
in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion
with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well
with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more
key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them
into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat
less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses
the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for
the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed
or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically
deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made
by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations
-- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies
for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to
be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful
evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the
matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be
used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to
forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you
must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution
so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction
of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging
their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to
avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these.
In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references
or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their
authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators
supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. .
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior
record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the
topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally
in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.
Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute
opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe
JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a
single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone
on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior
motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and
persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment,
ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will
deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms
of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek
to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really
knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep
within.
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Wth respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen
to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players
can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE
READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum
of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get
permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay
– the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important
with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Michael Kenny , July 14, 2017 at 11:22 am
I don't really see Mr Parry's point. The banning of Nekrasov's film isn't proof of the accuracy of its contents and even less
does it prove that anything that runs counter to Nekrasov's argument is false. Nor does proving that a mainstream meida story
is false prove that an internet story saying the opposite is true. "A calls B a liar. B proves that A is a liar. That proves that
B is truthful." Not very logical! What seems to be established is that the lawyer in question represents a Russian-owned company,
a money-laundering prosecution against which was settled last May on the basis of what the company called a "surprise" offer from
prosecutors that was "too good to refuse". This "Russian government attorney" (dixit Goldstone) had information concerning illegal
campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr jumped at it and it makes no difference whether he was tricked
or even whether he actually got anything, his intent was clear. In addition DNC "dirt" did indeed appear on the internet via Wikileaks,
just as "dirt" appeared in the French election. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate and "Juniorgate" confirms MacronLeaks. The question
now is did Trump, as president, intervene to bring about this "too good to refuse" offer? That question cannot just be written
off with the "no evidence" argument.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm
God, you are persistent if nothing else. Keep repeating the same lie until it is taken as true, just like the MSM. You say
that Russia-gate, Macron leaks, etc can't be written off with the "no evidence" argument (how is that logical?), and then you
trash a film you haven't even seen because it doesn't fit your narrative. Maybe some evidence is provided in the film, did you
consider that possibility? That fact that Nekrasov started out to make a pro Broder film, and then switched sides, leads me to
believe he found some disturbing evidence. And if you look into Nekrasov you will find that he is no fan of Putin, so one has
to wonder what his motive is if he is lying.
I am wondering if you ever look back at previous posts, because you never reply to a rebuttal. If you did, you would see that
you are almost universally seen by the commenters here as a troll. If you are being paid, I suppose it might not matter much to
you. However, your employer should look for someone with more intelligent arguments. He is wasting his money on you.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 9:27 pm
Propaganda trolls attempt to trash the information space by dismissing, distracting, diverting, denying, deceiving and distorting
the facts.
The trolls aim at confusing rather than convincing the audience.
The tag team troll performance of "Michael Kenny" and "David" is accompanied by loud declarations that they have "logic" on
their side and "evidence" somewhere. Then they shriek that they're being "censored".
Propaganda trolls target the comments section of independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News, typically
showing up when articles discuss the West's "regime change" wars and deception operations.
Pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda trolls also strive to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism.
Hasbara smear tactics have intensified due to increasing Israeli threats of military aggression, Israeli collusion with the United
States in "regime change" projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and Israeli links to international organized crime
and terrorism in Syria.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:04 am
Gee Abe, you are a magician (and I thought that you only quote excellent articles). Short and sharp.
Abe , July 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm
When they have a hard time selling that they're being "censored" (after more than a dozen comments), trolls complain that they're
being "dismissed" and "invalidated" by "hostile voices".
exiled off mainstreet , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons
to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy
theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not
the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. Though
it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something
they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 pm
I think as you say Skip that most on this blog have seen through Michael Kenny's stuff. Nobody's buying it. He's harmless.
If he's here on his own dime, if we don't feed him, he will get bored and go away. If he's being payed, he may persist, but so
what. Sometimes I check the MSM just to see what the propaganda line is. Kenny is like that; his shallow arguments tell me what
we must counter to wake people up.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Yeah mike k, I know you're right. I don't know why I let the guy get under my skin. Perhaps it's because he never responds
to a rebuttal.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:14 am
Then you would have to waste more time rebutting the (equally empty) rebuttal.
The second thing is that many trolls suffer from DID, that is the Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka sock puppetry. There
is a bit of similarity in argument between David and Michael and HAWKINS, only one of them rebuts quite often.
Another excellent article! I wrote a very detailed
blog post
in which I methodically take apart the latest "revelation" about Donald Trump Jr.'s emails. I talk a lot about the Magnitsky
Act, which is very relevant to this whole story.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm
I always like reading your articles Philippe, you have a real talent. Maybe read what I wrote above, but I'm sensing this Trump
Jr affair will help Hillary more than anything, to give her a reprieve from any further FBI investigations. I mean somehow, I'm
sure by Hillary's standards and desires, that this whole crazy investigation thing has to end. So, would it not seem reasonable
to believe that by allowing Donald Jr to be taken off the hook, that Hillary likewise will enjoy the taste of forgiveness?
Tell me if you think this Donald Trump Jr scandal could lead to this Joe
PS if so this could be a good next article to write there I go telling the band what to play, but seriously if this Russian
conclusion episode goes on much longer, could you not see a grand bargain and a deal being made?
Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you like the blog. I wasn't under the impression that Clinton was under any particular
danger from the Justice Department, but even if she was, she doesn't have the power to stop this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense
because it's pushed by a lot of people that have nothing to do with her except for the fact that they would have preferred her
to win.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 6:48 pm
Excellent summary and analysis, Philippe. Key observation:
"as even the New York Times admits, there is no evidence that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr., Jared
Kushner and Paul Manafort for 20-30 minutes on 9 June 2016, provided any such information during that meeting. Donald Trump Jr.
said that, although he asked her about it, she didn't give them anything on Clinton, but talked to him about the Magnitsky Act
and Russia's decision to block adoption by American couples in retaliation. Of course, if we just had his word, we'd have no particularly
good reason to believe him. But the fact remains that no documents of the sort described in Goldstone's ridiculous email ever
surfaced during the campaign, which makes what he is saying about how the meeting went down pretty convincing, at least on this
specific point. It should be noted that Donald Trump Jr. has offered to testify under oath about anything related to this meeting.
Moreover, he also said during the interview he gave to Sean Hannity that there was no follow-up to this meeting, which is unlikely
to be a lie since he must know that, given the hysteria about this meeting, it would come out. He may not be the brightest guy
in the world, but surely he or at least the people who advised him before that interview are not that stupid."
Your own necpluribus article was one of the best I've seen summarising the whole controversy, and your exhaustive responses
to the pro-deep state critics was edifying. I am now convinced that your view of Veselnitskaya's role in the affair and the nature
her connections to the dossier drafting company GPS being based on their unrelated work on the magnitsky law is accurate.
"Bill Browder, born into a notable Jewish family in Chicago, is the grandson of Earl Browder, the former leader of the Communist
Party USA,[2] and the son of Eva (Tislowitz) and Felix Browder, a mathematician. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and attended
the University of Chicago where he studied economics. He received an MBA from Stanford Business School[3] in 1989 where his classmates
included Gary Kremen and Rich Kelley. In 1998, Browder gave up his US citizenship and became a British citizen.[4] Prior to setting
up Hermitage, Browder worked in the Eastern European practice of the Boston Consulting Group[5] in London and managed the Russian
proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.[6]"
Rake , July 15, 2017 at 9:13 am
Successfully keeping a salient argument from being heard is scary, given the social media and alternative media players who
are all ripe to uncover a bombshell. Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.
"Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks."
Agree.
P. Clark , July 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm
When Trump suggested that a Mexican-American judge might be biased because of this ethnicity the media said this was racist.
Yet these same outlets like the New York Times are now routinely questioning Russian-American loyalty because of their ethnicity.
As usual a ridiculous double standard. Basically the assumption is all Russians are bad. We didn't even have this during the cold
war.
Cal , July 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm
Yes indeed P. Clark .that kind or hypocrisy makes my head explode!
MichaelAngeloRaphaelo , July 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Enough's Enough
STOP DNC/DEMs
#CryBabyFakeNewsBS
Support Duly ELECTED
@POTUS @realDonaldTrump
#BoycottFakeNewsSponsors
#DrainTheSwamp
#MAGA
Wow, I just learned via this article that in US Nekrasov is labeled as "pro-Kremlin" by WaPo. That's just too funny. He's in
a relationship with a Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who is very well known for her anti-Russia mentality. Nekrasov is defenetly anti-Kremlin
if something. He was supposed to make an anti-Kremlin documentary, but the facts turned out to be different than he thought, but
still finished his documentary.
The lengths to which the Neo Conservative War Cabal will go to destroy freedom of speech and access to alternative news sources
underscores that the United States is becoming an Orwellian agitation-propaganda police state equally dedicated to igniting World
War III for Netanyahu, the Central Banks, our Wahhabic Petrodollar Partners, and a pipeline consortium or two. The Old American
Republic is dead.
Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm
Interesting to note that each and everyone of David's comments were bleached from this page. Looks like he was right about
the censorship. Sad.
Duly noted Abe. But you should adhere to the first part of the statement that you somehow forgot to include:
From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid
abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia),
and allegations that are unsupported by facts.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:06 pm
My favorite was David's claim that he contributed to this zine whilst it was publishing articles not to his liking (/sarc).
I kindly reminded him that people pay much more money to have publishing the way they like it – for example how much Bezos paid
for Washington Post, or Omidyar to establish The Intercept.
Except for such funny component, David's comments were totally substance free and useless. Nothing lost with bleaching.
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:44 am
You're practicing disinformation. He actually said he contributed early on and had problems with the recent course of the CN
trajectory. Censorship is cowardly.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm
Consortium News welcomes substantive comments.
"David" was presenting allegations unsupported by facts and disrupting on-topic discussion.
Violations of CN comment policy are taken down by the moderator. Period. It has nothing to do with "censorship".
Stop practicing disinformation and spin, "Roy G Biv".
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:57 pm
I stopped contributing after the unintellectual dismissal of scientific 911 truthers. And it's easy for you to paint over my
comments as they have been scrubbed. There was plenty of useful substance, it just ran against the tide. Sorry you didn't appreciate
it the contrary viewpoint or have the curiosity to read the backstory.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 5:02 pm
The cowardly claim of "censorship".
The typical troll whine is that their "contrary viewpoint" was "dismissed" merely because it "ran against the tide".
No. Your allegations were unsupported by facts. They still are.
Martyrdom is just another troll tactic.
dub , July 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm
torrent for the film?
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:56 am
Here is the pdf of the legal brief about the Magnitsky film submitted by Senator Grassly to Homeland Security Chief. Interesting
read and casts doubt on the claims made in the film, refutes several claims actually. Skip past Chuck Grassly's first two page
intro to get to the meat of it. If you are serious about a debate on the merits of the case, this is essential reading.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the brief.
But forget the spin from "Roy G Biv" because the brief actually refutes nothing about Andrei Nekrasov's film.
It simply notes that the Russian government was understandably concerned about "unscrupulous swindler" and "sleazy crook" William
Browder.
After your finished reading the brief, try to remember any time when Congress dared to examine a lobbying campaign undertaken
on behalf of Israeli (which is to say, predominantly Russian Jewish) interests, the circumstances surrounding a pro-Israel lobbying
effort and the potential FARA violations involved. or the background of a Jewish "Russian immigrant".
Note on page 3 of the cover letter the CC to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary. Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman,
a surgeon. Feinstein's paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family,
were from Saint Petersburg, Russia. While they were of German-Jewish ancestry, they practiced the Russian Orthodox faith as was
required for Jews residing in Saint Petersburg.
In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator,
with an estimated net worth of US$26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between US$43 million and US$99 million.
Like the rest of Congress, Feinstein knows the "right way" to vote.
David , July 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm
So you're saying because a Jew Senator was CC'd it invalidates the information? Read the first page again. The Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee is obligated to CC these submissions to the ranking member of the Committee, Jew heritage or not.
Misinformation and disinformation from you Abe, or generously, maybe lazy reading. The italicized unscrupulous swindler and sleazy
crook comments were quoting the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the Washington screening of Nekrasov's film and demonstrating
Russia's intentions to discredit Browder. You are practiced at the art of deception. Hopefully readers will simply look for themselves.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm
Ah, comrade "David". We see you're back muttering about "disinformation" using your "own name".
My statements about Senator Feinstein are entirely supported by facts. You really should look into that.
Also, please note that quotation marks are not italics.
And please note that the Russian Foreign Minister is legally authorized to present the view of the Russian government.
Browder is pretty effective at discrediting himself. He simply has to open his mouth.
I encourage readers to look for themselves, and not simply take the word of one Browder's sockpuppets.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm
It won't last papushka. Every post and pended moderated post was scrubbed yesterday, to the cheers of you and your mean spirited
friends. But truth is truth and should be defended. So to the point, I reread the Judiciary Committee linked document, and the
items you specified are in italics, because the report is quoting Lavrov's comments to a Moscow news paper and "another paper"
as evidence of Russia's efforts to undermine the credibility and standing of Browder. This is hardly obscure. It's plain as day
if you just read it.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm
Also Abe, before I get deleted again, I don't question any of you geneological description of Feinstein. I merely pointed out
that she is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and it is normal for the Chairman of the Committee (Republican)
to CC the ranking member. Unless of course it is Devin Nunes, then fairness and tradition goes out the window.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:01 pm
It's plain as day, "David" or whatever other name you're trolling under, that you're here to loudly "defend" the "credibility"
and "standing" of William Browder.
Sorry, but you're going to have to "defend" Browder with something other than your usual innuendo, blather about 9-11, and
slurs against RP.
Otherwise it will be recognized for what it is, repeated violation of CN comment policy, and taken down by the moderator again.
Good luck to any troll who wants to "defend" Browder's record.
But you're gonna have to earn your pay with something other than your signature unsupported allegations, 9-11 diversions, and
the "non-Jewish Russian haters gonna hate" propaganda shtick.
David , July 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm
I wish you would stop with the name calling. I am not a troll. I have been trying to make simple rational points. You respond
by calling me names and wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts. I suspect you are the
moderator of this page, and if so am surprised by your consistent negative references to Jews. I'm not Jewish but you're really
over the top. Of course you have many friends here so you get little push back, but I really hope you are not Bob or Sam.
Anonymous , July 16, 2017 at 10:26 am
We can see that it was what can be considered to be a Complex situation, where it was said that someone had Dirt on Hillary
Clinton, but there was No collusion and there was No attempted collusion, but there was Patriotism and Concern for Others during
a Perplexing situation.
This is because of what is Known as Arkancide, and which is associated with some People who say they have Dirt on the Clintons.
The Obvious and Humane thing to do was to arrange to meet the Russian Lawyer, who it was Alleged to have Dirt on Hillary Clinton,
regardless of any possible Alleged Electoral advantage against Hillary Clinton, and until further information, there may have
been some National Security Concerns, because it was Known that Hillary Clinton committed Espionage with Top Secret Information
on her Unauthorized, Clandestine, Secret Email Server, and the Obvious cover up by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and
so it was with this background that this Complex situation had to be dealt with.
This is because there is Greater Protection for a Person who has Dirt or Alleged Dirt on the Clintons, if that Information
is share with other People.
This is because it is a Complete Waste of time to go to the Authorities, because they will Not do anything against Clinton
Crimes, and a former Haitian Government Official was found dead only days before he was to give Testimony regarding the Clinton
Foundation.
We saw this with Seth Rich, where the Police Videos has been withheld, and we have seen the Obstruction in investigating that
Crime.
The message to Leakers is that Seth Rich was taken to hospital and Treated and was on his way to Fully Recovering, but he died
in hospital, and those who were thinking of Leaking Understood the message from that.
There was Also concern for Rob Goldstone, who Alleged that the Russian Lawyer had Dirt on the Clintons.
We Know that is is said Goldstone that he did Not want to hear what was said at the meeting.
This is because Goldstone wanted associates of Candidate Donald Trump to Know that he did Not know what was said at that meeting.
We now Know that the meeting was a set up to Improperly obtain a FISA Warrant, which was Requested in June of 2016, and that
is same the month and the year as the meeting that the Russian Lawyer attended.
There was what was an Unusual granting of a Special Visa so that the Russian Lawyer could attend that set up, which was Improperly
Used to Request a FISA Warrant in order to Improperly Spy on an Opposition Political Candidate in order to Improperly gain an
Electoral advantage in an Undemocratic manner, because if anything wrong was intended by Associates of Candidate Donald Trump,
then there were enough People in that meeting who were the Equivalent of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans,
because we Know that after that meeting, that the husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front row
seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for the Russian Lawyer.
There are Americans who consider that the 2 Major Political Party Tyranny has Betrayed the Constitution and the Principles
of Democracy, because they oppose President Donald Trump's Election Integrity Commission, because they think that the Establishment
Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupted Puppets of the Shadow Regime.
We Know from Senator Sanders, that if Americans want a Political Revolution, then they will need their own Political Party.
There are Americans who think that a Group of Democratic Party Voters and Republican Party Voters who have No association with
the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and that they may be named The Guardians of American Democracy.
These Guardians of American Democracy would be a numerous Group of People, and they would ask Republican Voters to Vote for
the Democratic Party Representative instead of the Republican who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, in exchange for
Democratic Party Voters to Vote for the Republican Party Candidate instead of the Democrat who is in Congress and who is seeking
Reelection, and the same can be done for the Senate, because the American People have to Decide if it is they the Shadow Regime,
or if it is We the People, and the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupt Puppets
of the Shadow Regime, and there would be equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats replaced in this manner, and so it will Not
affect their numbers in the Congress or the Senate.
There could be People who think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Unacceptability Biased and Unacceptability Corrupt during
the Democratic Party Primaries, and that if she wants a Democratic Party Candidate to be Elected in her Congressional District,
then she Should announce that she will Not be contesting the next Election, and there could be People who think that Speaker Paul
Ryan was Unacceptability Disloyal by insufficiently endorse the Republican Presidential nominee, and with other matters, and that
if he wants a Republican Party Candidate to be Elected in his Congressional District, then he Should announce that he will Not
be contesting the next Election, and then the Guardians of American Democracy can look at other Dinos and Rinos, including those
in the Senate, because the Constitution says the words: We the People.
There are Many Americans who have Noticed that Criminal Elites escape Justice, and Corruption is the norm in American Politics.
There are those who Supported Senator Sanders who Realize that Senator Sanders would have been Impeached had he become President,
and they Know that they Need President Donald Trump to prepare the Political Landscape so that someone like Senator Sanders could
be President, without a Coup attempt that is being attempted on President Donald Trump, and while these People may not Vote for
the Republicans, they can Refuse to Vote for the Democratic Party, until the conditions are there for a Constitutional Republic
and a Constitutional Democracy, and they want the Illegal Mueller Team to recuse themselves from this pile of Vile and Putrid
McCarthyist Lies Invented by their Shadow Regime Puppet Masters,
There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, and they have seen how several States
are Opposed to President Donald Trump's Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is
Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.
MillyBloom54 , July 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm
I just read this article in the Washington Monthly, and wish to read informed comments about this issue. There are suggestions
that organized crime from Russian was heavily involved. This is a complicated mess of money, greed, etc.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the article, which concludes:
"So, let's please stay focused on why this matters.
"And why was Preet Bharara fired again?"
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries have been allowed to
flourish in Israel.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Why was Bharara fired?
Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance,
Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.
Ain't gonna happen.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Remember Milly that essentially one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was fire Preet, and just days before
the long awaited trial. Then, Jeff Sessions settled the case for 6 million without any testimony on a 230 million dollar case,
days after. Spectacular and brazen, and structured to hide the identities of which properties were bought by which investors.
Hmmmm.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
By the way Milly, great summary article you have linked and one that everyone who is championing the Nekrasov film should read.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
The "great" article was not written by a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by Martin Longman, a blogger and Democratic
Party political consultant.
From 2012 to 2013, Longman worked for Democracy for America (DFA) a political action committee, headquartered in South Burlington,
Vermont, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
Since March 2014, political animal Longman has managed the The Washington Monthly website and online magazine.
Although it claims to be "an independent voice", the Washington Monthly is funded by the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation,
and well-heeled corporate entities http://washingtonmonthly.com/about/
Longman's credentials as a "progressive" alarmist are well established. Since 2005, he has been the publisher of Booman Tribune.
Longman admits that BooMan is related to the 'bogey man' (aka, bogy man, boogeyman), an evil imaginary character who harms children.
Vladimir Putin is the latest bogey man of the Democratic Party and its equally pro-Israel "opposition".
Neither party wants the conversation to involve Jewish Russian organized crime, because that leads to Israel and the pro-Israel
AIPAC lobby that funds both the Republican and Democratic parties.
"... FBI Director Christopher Wray has declined to tell the House Judiciary Committee if he was prohibited from sharing documents that would show whether the notorious Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. ..."
FBI Director Christopher Wray has declined to tell the House Judiciary Committee if he was prohibited from sharing documents that
would show whether the notorious Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
What exactly MI6 put in Steele dossier is true and what is lie is unclear. What is clear that
Steele himself cant; collect information of this type and at this level. He is just a low level
intelligence patsy. Even to invent all this staff he definitely relied on his MI6 source(s) which
may have a specific agenda and might be guided form Washington. Brennan was a well known Hillary
sympathizer has had huge influence on Obama and definitely capable of playing dirty tricks with
Trump. What is interesting that in FBI the dossier was handled by counterintelligence official who by
his job description should have very close contacts with CIA
The revelation came one day after the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard
Burr, told reporters that the committee had been working "backwards" to examine the memos as
part of its separate but parallel investigation into Russia's election meddling.
The memos were compiled into a dossier by veteran British spy Christopher Steele, who was
hired by a Washington, DC-based opposition research firm in June 2016 to investigate the Trump
campaign's ties to Russia. The firm, Fusion GPS, was first hired by unspecified anti-Trump
Republicans in late 2015. Democrats took over funding for the firm's work after Trump won the
GOP nomination.
all talk and smoking guns. never one question answered. If we were on that stand we would
have to answer not mumble and use legal jargon. sick of the whole mess.
When national security establishment is trying to undermine sitting President this is iether color revolution or coup d'état. In
the USa it looks more like color revolution.
"Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president
of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized."
Notable quotes:
"... The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview. ..."
"... Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy. ..."
"... In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize. ..."
"... In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring. ..."
"... From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult. ..."
"... Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority." ..."
"... Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater. ..."
"... What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves? ..."
"... Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag. ..."
"... How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in! ..."
"... Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter. ..."
"... Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief. ..."
"... One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US. ..."
"... In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary. ..."
The investigation to somehow blame Russia for Donald Trump's election has now merged with another establishment goal of isolating
and intimidating whistleblowers and other dissidents, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
The Russia-gate investigation has reached into the ranks of journalism with the House Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Randy
Credico, who produced a series about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for Pacifica Radio and apparently is suspected of having passed
on early word about leaked Democratic emails to Donald Trump's supporter Roger Stone.
The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving
into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release
of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview.
Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA
executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through
secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since
Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy.
In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a
plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize.
I interviewed Drake about the significance of Credico's subpoena, which Credico believes resulted from his journalism about the
persecution of Julian Assange for releasing information that powerful people would prefer kept hidden from the public. (I had a small
role in Credico's 14-part radio series, Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom . It was broadcast first as part of his Live
on the Fly Series, over WBAI and later on KPFA and across the country on community radio.)
Credico got his start as a satirist and became a political candidate for mayor of New York City and later governor of New York,
making mainstream politicians deal with issues they would rather not deal with.
I spoke to Thomas Drake by telephone on Nov. 30, 2017.
Dennis Bernstein: How do you look at Russiagate, based on what you know about what has already transpired in terms of the
movement of information? How do you see Credico's role in this?
Thomas Drake: Information is the coin of the realm. It is the currency of power. Anyone who questions authority or is perceived
as mocking authority -- as hanging out with "State enemies" -- had better be careful. But this latest development is quite troubling,
I must say. This is the normalization of everything that has been going on since 9/11. Randy is a sort of 21st century Diogenes who
is confronting authority and pointing out corruption. This subpoena sends a chilling message. It's a double whammy for Randy because,
in the eyes of the US government, he is a media figure hanging out with the wrong media figure [Julian Assange].
Dennis Bernstein: Could you say a little bit about what your work was and what you tried to do with your expose?
Thomas Drake: My experience was quite telling, in terms of how far the government will go to try to destroy someone's life.
The attempt by the government to silence me was extraordinary. They threw everything they had at me, all because I spoke the truth.
I spoke up about abuse of power, I spoke up about the mass surveillance regime. My crime was that I made the choice to go to the
media. And the government was not just coming after me, they were sending a really chilling message to the media: If you print this,
you are also under the gun.
Dennis Bernstein: We have heard the charges again and again, that this was a Russian hack. What was the source? Let's trace
it back as best we can.
Thomas Drake:In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive
amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including
Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring.
From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this
all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations
that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference.
But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult.
The advantage that intelligence has is that they can hide behind what they are doing. They don't actually have to tell the truth,
they can shade it, they can influence it and shape it. This is where information can be politicized and used as a weapon. Randy has
found himself caught up in these investigations by virtue of being a media figure and hanging out with "the wrong people."
Dennis Bernstein: It looks like the Russiagaters in Congress are trying to corner Randy. All his life he has spoken truth
to power. But what do you think the role of the press should be?
Thomas Drake: The press amplifies just about everything they focus on, especially with today's 24-hour, in-your-face social
media. Even the mainstream media is publishing directly to their webpages. You have to get behind the cacophony of all that noise
and ask, "Why?" What are the intentions here?
I believe there are still enough independent journalists who are looking further and deeper. But clearly there are those who are
hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for the current president and those who are going to defend him to the hilt. I
was not surprised at all that Trump won. A significant percentage of the American electorate were looking for something different.
Dennis Bernstein : Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie
Sanders.
Thomas Drake: That would have been an interesting race, to have Bernie vs. Trump. Sanders was appealing, especially to
young audiences. He was raising legitimate issues.
Dennis Bernstein: In Clinton, they had a known quantity who supported the national security state.
Thomas Drake:The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central
to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream
media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels
of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority."
Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected
president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized.
I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater.
What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price.
Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the
uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves?
"Raw Executive Authority" means Totalitarianism/Fascism.
exiled off mainstreet , December 7, 2017 at 4:23 pm
Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems
to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as
much in the fascist deep-state bag.
It is highly encouraging to know that a great many good and decent men and women Americans are 100% supportive of Mr, Randy
Credico as he prepares for his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Remember all those standing right there beside
you, speak what rightly needs to be spoken, and make history Mr. Credico!
jaycee , December 7, 2017 at 3:56 pm
The intensification of panic/hysteria was obviously triggered by the shock election of Trump. Where this is all heading is
on display in Australia, as the government is writing legislation to "criminalise covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors
that fall short of espionage but are intended to interfere with our democratic systems and processes or support the intelligence
activities of a foreign government." The legislation will apparently be accompanied by new requirements of public registration
of those deemed "foreign agents". (see http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/07/auch-d07.html
).
This will be an attack on free speech, free thought, and political freedoms, justified by an orchestrated hysteria which ridiculously
assumes a "pure" political realm (i.e. the "homeland") under assault by impure foreign agents and their dirty ideas. Yes, that
is a fascist construct and the liberal establishment will see it through, not the alt-right blowhards.
mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm
How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read,
but not to live in!
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:48 am
Actually Mike, the book was a prophesy but you aren't seen nothing yet. You me and the rest of the posters here may well find
ourselves going for a visit to room 101 yet.
fudmier , December 7, 2017 at 4:42 pm
Those who govern (527 of them) at the pleasure of the constitution are about to breach the contract that entitles them to govern.
Limiting the scope of information allowed to those who are the governed, silencing the voices of those with concerns and serious
doubts, policing every word uttered by those who are the governed, as well as abusing the constitutional privilege of force and
judicial authority, to deny peaceful protests of the innocents is approaching the final straw.
The governors and their corporate sponsors have imposed on those the governors govern much concern. Exactly the condition that
existed prior to July 4, 1776, which elicited the following:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political bands which connected them
with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's
God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to
the separation.
Those who govern (527 of them and the puppet master oligarch behind them) will make certain that there's no support for the
next declaration. There's no respect to the opinions of the mankind, what matters is keeping the current status quo in place and
further advance it by silencing the independent media.
Maybe when the next "Mother of all bubbles" come, there's an opportunity for the mankind to be heard, but it's doubtful. What
has taken place during the last bubble is that the rich has gotten richer and the poor, well, you know the routine.
Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter.
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:44 am
Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in
the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of
shock and disbelief.
Trump's election has also shown us in vivid technicolour, just what is really going on in the deep state. Absolutely none of
this stuff would have come out had Clinton won and anything there was would have been covered up as though under the concrete
foundation of a tower block. However, Trump still has four years left and as a British prime minister once said, "a week is a
long time in politics". Well four more years of Trump is a hell of a lot longer so who knows what might happen in that time.
One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely
sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation
of the democracy in the US.
Christene Bartels , December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am
In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake
Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of
the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck
from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary.
Apparently, Santa isn't the only one making a list and checking it twice this year. He's going to have to share the limelight
with Karma.
What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly
Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was
until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China.
He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly
negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed
for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in
the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the
first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and
influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA
connections as well. The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information
out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.
He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all,
or is this kind of stuff pretty common for people in his field and position.
Just one day after Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I.in the Russia
investigation, reports have surfaced accusing a veteran investigator in the special probe of
sending disparaging text messages regarding President Donald Trump. The investigator was
removed from the probe a few month ..... #5FastFacts#News#BreakingNews
That damn Comey is the biggest liar and most corrupt person in the Hillary email
investigation. Actually there was no investigation, because he had already determined how she
had done nothing wrong. Pathetic. Also Mueller has set up his group of lawyers, who have all
been connected to contributing to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The damn democrats will do
anything to try to find something corrupt about President Trump. All they need to do is look
in the mirror, if they are looking for corrupt.
Obviously Rosenstein didn't think the DoJ could do the job since he scrambled to appoint a
special counsel at the first opportunity after Comey leaked the memo. Trey Gowdy is one of
the most honest Congressmen in the HoR but he's seemingly a little naive at times. He wants
to believe the best about his colleagues and friends. The facts have to be in his face before
he sees the truth. He's only now beginning to see the light about Mueller, I think.
the f.b.i. just like the i.r.s. the e.p.a. , homeland security and many more govt.
organisations that at one time worked for the very citizens that pay them but now they are
all politicized , even weaponized to be used as a tool against one's political rivals ,
thanks Obummer !! who did not start or do this all on his own but did carry the ball down the
road further than any other before him
FBI your garbage thanks to the Clinton's. I hope to live for 30 more years and your shit
to me. Now I understand why we need rights to guns . To fight you criminals in my government.
I hate liberals but I know some conservatives are just as nasty . McCain is my top choice for
Hillary bent .
I don't think there is an impartial person in the entire world... And I mean that
literally... Everyone from England to Australia to Japan to South Africa is as passionate
about this Trump issue as anyone here in the US.
If Casey and Muller are an example of NO FINER INSTITUTION AND NO FINER PEOPLE THAN THE
FBI..." REALLY? so why are all the PROBER'S HILLARY DONATORS? -----> Wray is a deep state
criminal just like Comey and Mueller
The FBI agent fired by Mueller for sending Anti-Trump text messages was IN charge of the
Russia probe and even asked Micheal Flynn questions. So could it be that this was all a set up
against Trump? More secrets keep unravelling in the Mueller probe, and we'll keep updating you
on this story.
Seeker, Mr. Strzok needs to have a prolonged interrogation done on him , until the lasi
little tidbit of his machinations are wrung out of him until it is a sure bet that he has
nothing left to give up. Stzrok has good friends who invented sure fire techniques that have
guaranteed results. A Thousand Cuts comes to mind ! ! ! Of course that can not happen so let
Hillary in on the scuttlebut that Stzrok is going to rat out everbody in order to save His
behind. In no time flat Mr Stzrok will throw a JIMMY HOFFA ! ! ! ! ! That Hairy , Bull Dagger
, Pussy Hat Wearin , P U S S Y P O S S E of Hillary's is Ruthless ! ! ! ! ! Thank You Seeker
jeebs out
Enjoyed you explanation of neocons. I realized, some years back, we need to change the
Department of Defense to the Department of Offense. I suppose we could rename Homeland
Security to Dept. of Defense, but they are actuating an offensive war on us and our freedoms.
Maybe stop poking our noses in other peoples business and we could eliminate both
departments. So ... what do we call a conservative that is hawkish on Peace? A normal, well
balanced, human being? Haven't seen one of those hanging out around our capitol in a
while.
"... The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server. ..."
"... As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan. ..."
"... The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post stories. ..."
"... In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13. ..."
"... A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?" ..."
"... Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season. ..."
EXCLUSIVE – Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that
the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary
Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence
at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this
year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a
number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."
The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He
participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just
days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution
of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email
server.
As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various
agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John
Brennan.
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Stzrok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project
was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, D-Calif., has sought documents and
witnesses from the Department of Justice and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier
played in the move to place a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance.
Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of
that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant
suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the
House probe into the dossier.
In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who
has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions –
to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.
While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the
Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators. The denial
of access to Strzok was instead predicated, sources said, on broad "personnel" grounds.
When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for
various witnesses and documents – formally recommended to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held
in contempt of Congress. Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein
as recently as last Wednesday.
That turned out to be 12 days after DOJ and FBI had made Strzok available to the Senate
Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own parallel investigation into the allegations
of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
Contempt citations?
Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now
directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI
director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all os his outstanding requests for
documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a
resolution on the contempt citations before year's end.
"We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this
explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director
[Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview," Nunes said in a statement.
Early Saturday afternoon, after Strzok's texts were cited in published reports by the New
York Times and the Washington Post – and Fox News had followed up with inquiries about
the department's refusal to make Strzok available to House investigators – the Justice
Department contacted the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan to establish a date for Strzok's
appearance before House Intelligence Committee staff, along with two other witnesses long
sought by the Nunes team.
Those witnesses are FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI officer said to have
handled Christopher Steele, the British spy who used Russian sources to compile the dossier for
Fusion GPS. The official said to be Steele's FBI handler has also appeared already before the
Senate panel.
The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House
interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post
stories.
In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec.
13.
The Justice Department maintains that it has been very responsive to the House intel panel's
demands, including private briefings for panel staff by senior DOJ and FBI personnel and the
production of several hundred pages of classified materials available in a secure reading room
at DOJ headquarters on Oct. 31.
Sources said Speaker Ryan has worked quietly behind the scenes to try to resolve the clash
over dossier-related evidence and witnesses between the House intel panel on the one hand and
DOJ and FBI on the other. In October, however, the speaker took the unusual step of saying
publicly that the two agencies were "stonewalling" Congress.
All parties agree that some records being sought by the Nunes team belong to categories of
documents that have historically never been shared with the committees that conduct oversight
of the intelligence community.
Federal officials told Fox News the requested records include "highly sensitive raw
intelligence," so sensitive that officials from foreign governments have emphasized to the U.S.
the "potential danger and chilling effect" it could place on foreign intelligence sources.
Justice Department officials noted that Nunes did not appear for a document-review session
that his committee's ranking Democrat, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., attended, and once
rejected a briefing by an FBI official if the panel's Democratic members were permitted to
attend.
Sources close to the various investigations agreed the discovery of Strzok's texts raised
important questions about his work on the Clinton email case, the Trump-Russia probe, and the
dossier matter.
"That's why the IG is looking into all of those things," a Justice Department official told
Fox News on Saturday.
A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about
the dossier?"
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel, said: "Immediately upon learning of the
allegations, the Special Counsel's Office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation."
Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its
relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the
height of the campaign season.
The "Bull Dog" of the House has a grave warning for Robert Mueller.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), known for his tough "prosecutor" persona, sits on the House
Intelligence Committee. The Committee on Saturday
threatened to hold the FBI and Department of Justice in contempt of Congress for
withholding information related to the removal of FBI agent Peter Strzok from Robert Mueller's
Russia investigation.
Rep. Gowdy told Fox News that the Special Counsel faces "integrity" problems after the
revelation that Strzok's removal was due to exchanging anti-Trump text messages with FBI lawyer
Lisa Page–with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair.
"We met with the
department of justice and they have to go through the texts," Gowdy said.
He then explained the Intelligence Committee's interest in the Strzok text messages.
"We are not entitled to them, nor do we have an interest in purely personal texts. We are
very interested in both anti-Trump and/or pro-Clinton texts . Because, as he made reference
to, he was a very important agent in her investigation, also in the ongoing Russian related
investigation, perhaps the decision for Comey to change the wording in a statement."
Gowdy's remark about "wording in a statement" referred to reports that Strzok
encouraged former FBI director James Comey to describe Hillary Clinton's private email
server actions as "extremely careless" rather than "grossly negligent." The latter term carries
legal weight with potential criminal penalties while the former does not.
Gowdy continued: "He is super important and people have a right to know whether agents are
biased one way or another. The department is going to go through the texts been going to make
them available to us as soon as they can." Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum then asked Gowdy if
he still has confidence in the Mueller probe, to which the South Carolina lawmaker replied.
"I do, but I got to confess to you, and I understand people who think I'm wrong. I got an
email last night from a friend back home saying, 'Look, Gowdy, let go of the prosecutor
stuff.' I still think that Mueller can produce a product that we all have confidence in, but
things like this, make it really difficult -- the perception is, is every bit as important as
the reality, and if the perception is, you're employing people who are biased, it makes us
really difficult for those of us that would like to defend the integrity of former
prosecutors."
Gowdy's comments echo the sentiments of many Americans, who question the integrity of agents
that have investigated two presidential campaigns, but apparently favor one over the other.
"... The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump's campaign and Russia. ..."
"... Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague. ..."
"... House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate. ..."
"... The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. [ ] ..."
"... Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier. ..."
"... Fox News' James Rosen also reveals Strzok played a key role in agreeing to pay ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele $50,000 to find evidence to further support the dossier's explosive claims. FBI officials were uncomfortable with the validity of Steele's findings, yet they moved forward with FISA surveillance anyways. ..."
Joshua Caplan – In yet another blow to Mueller's investigation
into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the special counsel was
forced to fire a top FBI agent after possible anti-Trump text messages were discovered.
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his
investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general
began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political
views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered
one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped
lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her
private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between
President Trump's campaign and Russia.
In August, ABC News reported that Strzok quit Team Mueller for unknown reasons. "It's
unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators
and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of his law enforcement career working
counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised by government officials who spoke
with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources division," reported Mike
Levine.
Late Saturday night, we learn the Department of Justice has launched a review of Peter
Stzrok's role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's
Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email
investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who
was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after
Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
Reacting to Strzok's 'anti-Trump,' texts, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes
(R-CA)
said , "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us
this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy
Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview."
Strzok played a key role in analyzing the infamous 'Trump dossier,' supplied by shady
research firm Fusion GPS. The now disgraced FBI agent used disproven elements of the dossier to
spy on members of the Trump campaign.
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the
chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and
launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that
ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about
then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm
Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project
was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. [ ] Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months
of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant
suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the
House probe into the dossier.
Fox News' James Rosen also reveals Strzok played a key role in agreeing to pay ex-MI6
agent Christopher Steele $50,000 to find evidence to further support the dossier's explosive
claims. FBI officials were uncomfortable with the validity of Steele's findings, yet they moved
forward with FISA surveillance anyways.
Peter Strzok Carried On An Affair With Andrew McCabe's Lawyer, Lisa Page, While Plotting The
Downfall Of President Donald Trump (Lisa Page Seen Walking Behind McCabe.) Andrew McCabe Is The
Acting FBI Director Who Said "First We F*ck Flynn, Then We F*ck Trump."
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his
investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general
began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political
views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered
one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped
lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her
private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between
President Trump's campaign and Russia. But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr.
Mueller's investigation to the F.B.I.'s human resources department, where he has been stationed
since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages
in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways
that could appear critical of Mr. Trump.
In a statement to the New York Times, Strzok lawyer said"we are aware of the allegation and
are taking any and all appropriate steps."
In August, ABC News reported that Strzok quit
Team Mueller for unknown reasons. "It's unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of
nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of
his law enforcement career working counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised
by government officials who spoke with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources
division," reported Mike Levine.
Now this
After new details emerged about Strzok's firing, the Washington Post revealed the Justice Department
launched an investigation into "communications between certain individuals." Details of the
mystery probe will be revealed "promptly upon completion of the review of them,' said the
Justice Department. Late Saturday night, we learn the Department of Justice has launched a
review of Peter Stzrok's role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's
Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email
investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI
who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year,
after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a
number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year." [
] He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 –
just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend
prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private
email server.
Reacting to Strzok's 'anti-Trump,' texts, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes
(R-CA)
said , "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us
this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy
Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview."
This is huge. Read the thread below for the complete context. Peter Strzok was knee deep
in the entire mess!
Hillary investigation, Hillary interview. Cheryl Mills interview and immunity deal. Weiner's
laptop. Trump Dossier, and Russian collusion. All of these investigations are totally
compromised.
https://www.citizenfreepres...
All they did was their best to destroy evidence, bury evidence and deflect any kind of
real investigation of Hilabeast and team....and everybody knows it on the Hill.
So what are you waiting for asleep at the wheel Sessionns.... ? and any other decent
politician.....well....yeah, obviously those don't exist.....
This is crazy how much more corrupt can this get WTF is Session & Wray doing. Then
Mueller puts this guy on his team, as the Lead FBI , as if he didn't know he was a
compromised dirtbag.
Like how Mueller hide it from everyone for 3 months why he was demoted, and they want to
pretend they the honest brokers just looking for the truth and facts/s
Dirty cop Mueller and his team sycophants trying take down the President United States on
some trumped up bull, turn this country into joke and do irreparable damage.
While he did nothing scratch his old balls while Hil & Obama sold out to the
Russians.
"'Review of' FBI Official's Role in Clinton Email Investigation"
Huh? The the entire thing "investigation" is and has been, from Day 1, nothing more than a no
holds barred attack on not only the legally elected POTUS DJT, but equally against his
supporters.
This is a simply a brilliant article. Probably the best written on the subject so far. Kudos to Max Blumenthal
Thinks tanks are really ideological tanks -- formidable weapon in propaganda wars that crush everything on its way. And taken
together far right think tanks financed by defense sector or intelligence agencies are really a shadow far right political party with
its own neocon agenda. Actually subverting the will of American people (who elected Trump) for more peaceful relations (aka detente)
with Russia in favor of interest of weapon manufactures and the army of "national security parasites".
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers those think tanks decides to create a fake
narrative and blame Russians. Is not this a classic variant of projection ?
The slow strangulation of the US MSM means the crisis of confidence. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and
is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or
opposition, well, this is a sign of of degradation of the ruling elite. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of
solutions to social problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and
status, as well as intelligence agencies spying on everybody.
Now all those well paid ( and sometimes even talented) war propagandist intend to substitute the real crisis of neoliberalism in
the USA demonstrated during the recent Presidential Elections for the artificial problem of Russian meddling. And they are succeeding
in this unfair and evil substitution. The also manage to "poison the well" -- relation between two nations were now at the
level probably lower then during Cold War (when many Russians were sympathetic to the USA). I think 70% of Democratic voters now
are convinced the Russia was meddling in the USA election and about 30% of Republican voters also think so. For the creators of
'artificial reality" such numbers signify big success. A very big success to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos ..."
"... The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media ..."
"... A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe." ..."
"... Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force. ..."
"... Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs. ..."
"... Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease. ..."
"... In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending." ..."
"... Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran. ..."
"... Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. ..."
"... Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news. ..."
"... Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them. ..."
"... The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal. ..."
"... The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents. ..."
"... In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record. ..."
"... When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent. ..."
"... Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie. ..."
"... The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits. ..."
"... Dr. Strangelove ..."
"... It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations. ..."
Nearly a year after the presidential election, the scandal over accusations of Russian political interference in the 2016 election
has gone beyond Donald Trump and reached into the nebulous world of online media. On November 1, Congress held hearings on "Extremist
Content and Russian Disinformation Online." The proceedings saw executives from Facebook, Twitter and Youtube subjected to tongue-lashings
from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who howled about Russian online trolls "spread[ing] stories about abuse of black
Americans by law enforcement."
In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who
had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling,
appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber.
Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos.
"Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," he proclaimed. "America's war with itself has already begun. We
all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations
and easily transform us into the Divided States of America."
Next, Watts suggested a government-imposed campaign of media censorship: "Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing
on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced: silence the guns and the barrage will
end."
The censorious overtone of Watts' testimony was unmistakable. He demanded that government news inquisitors drive dissident media
off the internet and warned that Americans would spear one another with bayonets if they failed to act. And not one member of Congress
rose to object. In fact, many echoed his call for media suppression in the House and Senate hearings, with Democrats like Sen. Dianne
Feinstein and
Rep. Jackie Speier agreeing the most vehemently. The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal
lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of
media -- including content that amplified the message of progressive causes like Black Lives Matter.
Details of exactly what transpired vis a vis Russia and the U.S. in social media in 2016 are still emerging. This year, the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence published a declassified version of the intelligence community's report on "Assessing
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," written by CIA, FBI and NSA, with its central conclusion that Russian
efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine
the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."
To be sure, there is ample evidence that Russian-linked trolls have attempted to exploit wedge issues on social media platforms.
But the impact of these schemes on real-world events appears to have been exaggerated. According to
Facebook's data
, 56 percent of Russian-linked ads appeared after the 2016 presidential election, and another 25 percent "were never shown to
anyone." The ads were said to have "reached" over 100 million people, but that assumes that Facebook users did not scroll through
or otherwise ignore them, as they do with most ads. Content emanating from "Russia-linked" sources on YouTube, meanwhile, managed
to rack up hit totals in the hundreds , not
exactly a viral smash.
Facebook posts traced to the infamous Internet Research Agency troll factory in Russia amounted to only 0.0004 percent of total
content that appeared on the social network. (Some of these posts
targeted "animal
lovers with memes of adorable puppies," while another hawked an LGBT-themed "
Buff Bernie coloring book for Berniacs.") According
to its " deliberately
broad" review , Twitter found that only 0.74 percent of its election-related tweets were "Russian-linked." Google, for its part,
documented a grand total of $4,700 of "Russian-linked
ad spending" during the 2016 election cycle. While some have argued that the Russian-linked ads were micro-targeted, and could have
shifted key electoral voting blocs, these ads appeared in a media climate awash in a multi-billion dollar deluge of political ad
spending from both established parties and dark money super PACs.
However, a blitz of feverish corporate media coverage and tension-filled congressional hearings has convinced a whopping
82 percent of Democrats
that "Russian-backed" social media content played a central role in swinging the 2016 election. Russian meddling has even earned
comparisons by lawmakers to Pearl Harbor, to "acts of war," and by Hillary Clinton to the
attacks of 9/11
. And in an inadvertent way, these overblown comparisons were apt.
As during the aftermath of 9/11, the fallout from Russiagate has spawned a multimillion-dollar industry of pundits and self-styled
experts eager to exploit the frenetic atmosphere for publicity and profits. Many of these figures have emerged out of the swamp that
flowed from the war on terror and are gravitating toward the growing Russia fearmongering industrial complex in search of new opportunities.
Few of these characters have become as prominent as Clint Watts.
So who is Watts, and how did he emerge seemingly from nowhere to become the star congressional witness on Russian meddling?
Dubious Expertise, Impressive Salesmanship
A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy
Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian
bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his
employers at FPRI
hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential
election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe."
Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits,
including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint
Terror Task Force.
Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs
as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship
from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs.
Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to
popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease.
Before Congress, a String of Deceptions
Back on March 30, as the narrative of Russian meddling gathered momentum, Watts made his first appearance before the Senate Select
Intelligence Committee.
Seated at the front of a hearing room packed with reporters, Watts introduced Congress to concepts of Russian meddling that were
novel at the time, but which have become part of Beltway newspeak. His testimony turned out to be a signal moment in Russiagate,
helping transition the narrative of the scandal from Russia-Trump collusion to the wider issue of online influence.
In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence
of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, "
The Good and The Bad
of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its
human rights abuses , sectarianism and
off-and-on alliances
with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian
government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as
"an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending."
Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later,
urging the
U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms,
should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression,"
he wrote. In another paper, Watts
asked
, "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia
and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought
to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran.
The premise of these op-eds should have raised serious concerns about Watts and his colleagues, and even questions about their
sanity. They had marketed themselves as national security experts, yet they were lobbying the US to "befriend" the allies of Al Qaeda,
the group that brought down the Twin Towers. (Ahrar al-Sham was founded by Abu Khalid al-Suri, a Madrid bombing suspect who was
named by Spanish
investigators as Osama bin-Laden's courier.) Anyone cynical enough to put such ideas into public circulation should have expected
a backlash. But when the inevitable wave of criticism came, Watts dismissed it all as a Russian bot attack.
Addressing the Senate panel, Watts said that those who took to social media to mock and criticize his Foreign Affairs article
were, in fact, Russian bots. He provided no evidence to support the claim, and
a look at his single tweet promoting the
article shows that he was criticized only once (by @Navsteva, a Twitter user known for defending the Syrian government against regime
change proponents, not an automated bot). Nevertheless, Watts painted the incident as proof that Russia had revived a Cold War information
warfare strategy of "Active Measures," which was supposedly aimed at "crumbl[ing] democracies from the inside out [by] creating political
divisions."
Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in
American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active
measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. In fact, the only piece of proof he offered (in a Daily Beast
transcript of his testimony) was a
single link
to an RT article that factually documented
a squabble between Black Lives Matter protesters and white supremacists -- an incident that had been widely covered by other outlets,
from the
Houston
Chronicle to the
Washington Post . Watts did not explain how this one report by RT sowed any chaos, or whether it had any effect at all on actual
events.
Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his
opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S.
airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence
operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In
reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news.
In the articles
cited
by Watts during his testimony, neither
RT nor
Sputnik made
any reference to "terrorists" taking over Incirlik Airbase. Rather, these outlets compiled tweets by Turkish activists and sourced
their coverage to a report by Hurriyet, one of Turkey's largest mainstream papers. In fact, the incident was reported by virtually
every major Turkish news organization (
here ,
here ,
here and
here ). What's more,
the events appeared to have taken place approximately as RT and Sputnik reported it, with protesters readying to protect the airbase
from a coup while Turkish police sealed the base's entrances and exits. A look at RT's coverage shows the network even downplayed
the severity of the event,
citing a tweet by a U.S.-based national security analysis group stating, "We are not finding any evidence of a coup or takeover."
This stands entirely at odds with Watts' claim that RT exaggerated the incident to spark chaos.
Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including
Politico . Democratic
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
echoed Watts'
false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim
Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent,
reproduced
Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization
or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them.
Questions emailed to Watts via his employers at FPRI received no reply.
Another Watts Deception, This Time Discredited in Court
During his Senate testimony, Watts introduced a second, and even more distorted claim of Trump employing Russian "active measures"
to attack his political foes. The details of the story are complex and difficult for a passive audience to absorb, which is probably
why Watts has been able to get away with pushing it for so long.
Watts' testimony was the culmination of a mainstream media deception that forced an aspiring reporter out of his job, drove him
to contemplate suicide, and ultimately prompted him to take matters into his own hands by suing his antagonists.
The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly
from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi.
The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email
by Blumenthal.
The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service
funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran
scrubbed
his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar,
a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents.
In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation.
With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the
nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national
platform to
highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several
months fighting to correct the record.
When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he
offered
Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald
had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting
Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran
once again as a foreign agent.
When Watts revived Eichenwald's bogus version of events in his Senate testimony, Moran began to spiral into the depths of depression.
He even entertained thoughts of suicide. But he ultimately decided to fight, filing a lawsuit against Newsweek's parent company for
defamation and libel.
Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's
articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts
made before the Senate was also a whopping lie.
The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a
cable news star, with
invites
from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received
coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become
the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits.
FPRI, a Pro-War Think Tank Founded by White Supremacist Eugenicists
Before he emerged in the spotlight of Russiagate, Watts languished at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, earning little name
recognition outside the insular world of national security pundits. Based in Philadelphia, the FPRI has been
described by journalist Mark Ames as "one of the looniest (and spookiest) extreme-right think tanks since the early Cold War
days, promoting 'winnable' nuclear war, maximum confrontation with Russia, and attacking anti-colonialism as dangerously unworkable."
Daniel Pipes, the arch-Islamophobe pundit and former FPRI fellow, offered a
similar characterization
of the think tank, albeit from an alternately opposed angle. "Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign
policy," Pipes said in a 1991 address to FPRI. He added that the think tank's staff "is not shy about the use of force; were we members
of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led
the charge."
FPRI was co-founded by Robert Strausz-Hupé, a far-right Austrian emigre, with help from conservative corporations and covert funding
from the CIA From the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, Strausz-Hupé gathered a "Philadelphia School" of Cold War hardliners
to develop a strategy for protracted war against the Soviet Union. His brain trust included FPRI co-founder Stefan Possony, an Austrian
fascist who was a board member of the World Anti-Communist League, the international fascist organization
described by journalists
Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson as a network of "those responsible for death squads, apartheid, torture, and the extermination
of European Jewry." True to his fascist roots, Possony co-authored a racialist tract, "
The Geography of Intellect
," that argued that blacks were biologically inferior and that the people of the global South were "genetically unpromising."
Strausz-Hupé seized on Possony's racialist theories to inveigh against anti-colonial movements led by "populations incapable of rational
thought."
While clamoring for a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union -- and acknowledging that their preferred strategy would cause
mass casualties in American cities -- Strausz-Hupé and his band of hawks developed a monomaniacal obsession with Russian propaganda.
By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, they were stricken with paranoia, arguing on the pages of the New York Times that filmmaker
Stanley Kubrick was a Soviet useful idiot whose film, Dr. Strangelove , advanced "the principal Communist objectives to
drive a wedge between the American people and their military leaders."
Ultimately, Strausz-Hupé's fanaticism cost him an ambassadorship, as Sen. William Fulbright scuttled his appointment to serve
in Morocco on the grounds that his "hard line, no compromise" approach to communism could shatter the delicate balance of diplomacy.
Today, he is remembered fondly
on FPRI's website as "an intellectual and intellectual impresario, administrator, statesman, and visionary." His militaristic
legacy continues thanks to the prolific presence -- and bellicose politics -- of Watts.
The Paranoid Style
This year, FPRI dedicated its annual gala to honoring Watts' success in mainstreaming the narrative of Russian online meddling.
Since I first transcribed a Soundcloud recording of Watts' keynote address, the file has been
mysteriously scrubbed
from the internet. It is unclear what prompted the removal, however, it is easy to understand why Watts would not want his comments
examined by a critical listener. His speech offered a window into a paranoid mindset with a tendency for overblown, unverifiable
claims about Russian influence.
While much of the speech was a rehash of Watts' Senate testimony, he spent an unusual amount of time describing the threat he
believed Russian intelligence agents posed to his own security. "If you speak up too much, you'll get knocked down," Watts said,
claiming that think tank fellows who had been too vocal about Russian meddling had seen their laptops "burned up by malware."
"If someone rises up in prominence, they will suddenly be -- whoof! -- swiped down out of nowhere by some crazy disclosure from
their email," Watts added, referring to unspecified Russian retaliatory measures. As usual, he didn't produce concrete evidence or
offer any examples.
"Anybody remember the reporters that were outed after the election? Or maybe they tossed up a question to the Clinton campaign
and they were gone the next day?" he asked his audience. "That's how it goes."
It was unclear which reporters Watts was referring to, or what incident he could have possibly been alluding to. He offered no
details, only innuendo about the state of siege Kremlin actors had supposedly imposed on him and his freedom-fighting colleagues.
He even predicted he'd be "hacked and cyber attacked when this recording comes out."
According to Watts, Russian "active measures" had singlehandedly augmented Republican opinion in support of the Kremlin. "It is
the greatest success in influence operations in the history of the world," Watts confidently proclaimed. He contrasted Russia's success
with his own failures as an American agent of influence working for the U.S. military, a saga in his career that remains largely
unexamined.
Domestic Agent of Influence
"I worked in influence operations in counter-terrorism for 15 years," Watts boasted to his audience at FPRI. "We didn't break
one or two percent [increase in the approval rating of US foreign policy] in fifteen years and we spent billions a year in tax dollars
doing it. I was paid off of those programs. We had almost no success throughout the Middle East."
By Watts' own admission, he had been part of a secret propaganda campaign aimed at manipulating the opinions of Middle Easterners
in favor of the hostile American military operating in their midst. And he failed massively, wasting "billions a year in tax dollars."
Given his penchant for deception, this may have been yet another tall tale aimed at burnishing his image as an internet era James
Bond. But if the story was even partially true, Watts had inadvertently exposed a severe scandal that, in a fairer world, might have
triggered congressional hearings.
Whatever took place, it appears that Watts and his Cold Warrior colleagues are now waging another expensive influence operation,
this time directed against the American public. By deploying deceptions, half-truths and hyperbole with the full consent of Congress
and in collaboration with the mainstream press, they have managed to convince a majority of Americans that Russia is "trying to knock
us down and take us over," as Watts remarked at the FPRI's gala.
In just a matter of months, public consent for an unprecedented array of hostile measures against Russia, from sanctions and
consular raids to arbitrary
crackdowns on Russian-backed news organizations, has been assiduously manufactured.
It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had
approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called
the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media
outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and
ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations.
In the next installment of this investigation, we will see how a collection of cranks, counter-terror retreads and online vigilantes
overseen by the German Marshall Fund have waged a search-and-destroy mission against dissident media under the guise of combating
Russian "active measures," and how the mainstream press has enabled their censorious agenda.
His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump.
Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext
to discredit and remove Mueller, too.
Notable quotes:
"... The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in his statement condemning Clinton's email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller. ..."
"... His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump. Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext to discredit and remove Mueller, too. ..."
"... When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory. Republicans in Congress, everyone believed, would never sit still for such a blatant cover-up ..."
"... In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line, and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them. Earlier this month, it was reported that Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank , an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network. ..."
The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in
his statement condemning Clinton's email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller.
His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump.
Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext
to discredit and remove Mueller, too.
The notion that a law-enforcement official should be disqualified for privately expressing partisan views is a novel one, and
certainly did not trouble Republicans last year, when Rudy Giuliani was boasting on television about his network of friendly agents.
Yet in the conservative media, Mueller and Comey have assumed fiendish personae of almost Clintonian proportions.
When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority
who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory. Republicans in Congress, everyone believed, would never sit still
for such a blatant cover-up .
Josh Blackman, a conservative lawyer, argued that Trump could remove the special counsel, but "make no mistake: Mueller's firing
would likely accelerate the end of the Trump administration." Texas representative Mike McCaul declared in July, "If he fired Bob
Mueller, I think you'd see a tremendous backlash, response from both Democrats but also House Republicans." Such a rash move "could
be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency," Senator Lindsey Graham proclaimed.
In August, members of both parties began drawing up legislation to prevent Trump from sacking Mueller. "The Mueller situation
really gave rise to our thinking about how we can address the current situation," explained Republican senator Thom Tillis, a sponsor
of one of the bills. By early autumn, the momentum behind the effort had slowed; by Thanksgiving, Republican interest had melted
away. "I don't see any heightened kind of urgency, if you're talking about some of the reports around Flynn and others," Tillis said
recently. "I don't see any great risk."
In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line,
and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them. Earlier this month, it was reported that
Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank , an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network.
John Dowd, a lawyer for Trump, recently floated the wildly expansive defense that a "president cannot obstruct justice, because
he is the chief law-enforcement officer." Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett called the investigation "illegitimate and corrupt"
and declared that "the FBI has become America's secret police." Graham is now calling for a special counsel to investigate "Clinton
email scandal, Uranium One, role of Fusion GPS, and FBI and DOJ bias during 2016 campaign" -- i.e., every anti-Mueller conspiracy
theory. And perhaps as ominously, Trump's allies have been surfacing fallback defenses. Yes, "some conspiratorial quid pro quo between
somebody in the Trump campaign and somebody representing Vladimir Putin" is "possible," allowed
Wall Street Journal columnist
Holman Jenkins, but "we would be stupid not to understand that other countries have a stake in the outcome of our elections and,
by omission or commission, try to advance their interests. This is reality." The notion of a criminal conspiracy by a hostile nation
to intervene in the election in return for pliant foreign policy has gone from unthinkable to blasé, an offense only to naďve bourgeois
morality.
It is almost a maxim of the Trump era that the bounds of the unthinkable continuously shrink. The capitulation to Moore was a
dry run for the coming assault on the rule of law.
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over
relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information
in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.
This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger
Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier
in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.
What I fail to understand is why Democrats are sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly
elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with
Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.
"... Pentagon "weaponised information" years ago: " Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media ".) ..."
"... The collapse of the Fusion GPS operation will unravel the whole construction. And it's coming . ( And don't forget Awan .) All this because the Dems fixed their nomination and then lost anyway. ..."
"... "Israel Colluded with Incoming Trump Team to Subvert U.S. Foreign Policy," ..."
"... "FBI Entraps National Security Adviser." ..."
"... The first phone call to Kislyak, on December 22 nd , was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd . ..."
"... And just to demonstrate exactly how the story is shaped to protect Israel, here is a piece from the generally reliable The Hill written by Morgan Chalfant on 5 take-aways from Flynn's guilty plea . Israel is not even identified and, if one reads the two mentions of the U.N. vote connected to the first call, it appears to be deliberately omitted. The first citation reads "He also lied when he said he did not ask Kislyak to delay or defeat a vote on a pending U.N. Security Council resolution " and the second is "Prosecutors also say that a senior member of the transition team on Dec. 22 directed Flynn to contact officials from Russia and other governments about their stance on the U.N. resolution 'and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.'" Does omitting Israel and emphasizing the Russian aspect of the story throughout the rest of the piece change what it says and how it is perceived? You betcha. ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, is a former CIA Operations officer who is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax exempt educational foundation that seeks a more interests based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address us P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville, VA 20132, and email address is [email protected] . ..."
"... The real issue is not Zionist influence in America but globalist influence in America. Is Trump pursuing a globalist agenda that will destroy America as a coherent nation state, or does he reject the Obama/Clinton project for the submergence of the American nation by a flood of settlers with a contempt for Americans, especially white, Chrisitan Americans. ..."
Reading the mainstream media headlines relating to the flipping of former National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn to provide evidence relating to the allegations about Russian
interference in America's last presidential election requires the suspension of one's cognitive
processes. Ignoring completely what had actually occurred, the "Russian story" with its subset
of "getting Trump" was on display all through the weekend, both in the print and on the live
media.
Flynn's guilty plea is laconic, merely admitting that he had lied to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) about what was said during two telephone conversations with then Russian
Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak, but there is considerable back story that
emerged after the plea became public.
The two phone calls in question include absolutely nothing about possible collusion with
Russia to change the outcome of the U.S. election, which allegedly was the raison d'etre behind
the creation of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel office in the first place. Both took place
more than a month after the election and both were initiated by the Americans involved. I am
increasingly convinced that Mueller ain't got nuthin' but this process will grind out
interminably and the press will be hot on the trail until there is nowhere else to go.
Based on the information revealed regarding the two conversations, and, unlike the highly
nuance-sensitive editors working for the mainstream media, this is the headline that I would
have written for a featured article based on what I consider to be important: "Israel
Colluded with Incoming Trump Team to Subvert U.S. Foreign Policy," with a possible
subheading "FBI Entraps National Security Adviser."
The first phone call to Kislyak, on December 22 nd , was made by Flynn at the
direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United
Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in
years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner,
acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the
Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call
to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution
2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd .
The second phone call, made by Flynn on December 29 th from a beach in the
Dominican Republic, where he was on vacation, may have been ordered by Trump himself. It was a
response to an Obama move to expel Russian diplomats and close two Embassy buildings over
allegations of Moscow's interfering in the 2016 election. Flynn asked the Russians not to
reciprocate, making the point that there would be a new administration in place in three weeks
and the relationship between the two countries might change for the better. Kislyak apparently
convinced Russian President Vladimir Putin not to go tit-for-tat.
In taking the phone calls from a soon-to-be senior American official who would within weeks
be part of a new administration in Washington, the Russians did nothing wrong. It would not be
inappropriate to have some conversations with an incoming government team. Apart from holding
off on retaliatory sanctions, Kislyak also did nothing that might be regarded as particularly
responsive to Team Trump overtures. If it was an attempt to interfere in American politics, it
certainly was low-keyed, and one might well describe it positively as a willingness to give the
new Trump Administration a chance to improve relations.
The first phone call about Israel was not as benign as the second one about sanctions.
Son-in-law Jared Kushner is Trump's point man on the Middle East. He and his family have
extensive
ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu's staying at the
Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's
illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared
has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the
relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance.
All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with
the incoming Trumpsters, look no further.
And it should be observed that the Israelis
were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express
their views to the incoming Trump. Netanyahu said that he would do so and Trump even responded
with a tweet of his own expressing disagreement with the Obama decision to abstain on the vote,
but the White House knew that the comment would be coming and there was no indication from the
president-elect that he was actively trying to derail or undo it.
Kushner, however, goes far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of foreign policy as he
was trying to clandestinely reverse a decision made by his own legally constituted government.
His closeness to Netanyahu makes him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli government
agent of influence, even if he doesn't quite see himself that way. He is currently working on a
new peace plan for the Middle East which starts out with permanently demilitarizing the
Palestinians. It will no doubt continue in the tradition of former plans which aggrandized
Jewish power while stiffing the Arabs. And not to worry about the team that will be allegedly
representing American interests. It is already being reported that
they consist of "good, observant Jews" and will not be a problem, even though Israeli-American
mega-fundraiser Haim Saban apparently described
them on Sunday as "With all due respect, it's a bunch of Orthodox Jews who have no idea
about anything."
What exactly did Kushner seek from Flynn? He asked the soon-to-be National Security Adviser
to get the Russians to undermine and subvert what was being done by the still-in-power American
government in Washington headed by President Barack Obama. In legal terms this does not quite
equate to the Constitution's definition of treason since Israel is not technically an enemy,
but it most certainly would be covered by the Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens
from negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the United States and also could be
construed as a "conspiracy against the United States" that the Mueller investigation has
exploited against former Trump associate Paul Manafort. As Kushner is Jewish and certainly
could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis , this part of the story obviously makes
many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it is being ignored and expunged
from the record as quickly as possible. And don't expect Special Counsel Mueller to do anything
about the Israel connection. As an experienced operator in the Washington swamp he knows full
well that the Congressmen currently calling for blood in an investigation involving Russia will
turn 180 degrees against him if he tries to go after Netanyahu.
And just to demonstrate exactly how the story is shaped to protect Israel,
here is a piece from the generally reliable The Hill written by Morgan Chalfant on 5 take-aways from Flynn's guilty plea . Israel is not even identified and, if one
reads the two mentions of the U.N. vote connected to the first call, it appears to be
deliberately omitted. The first citation reads "He also lied when he said he did not ask
Kislyak to delay or defeat a vote on a pending U.N. Security Council resolution " and the
second is "Prosecutors also say that a senior member of the transition team on Dec. 22 directed
Flynn to contact officials from Russia and other governments about their stance on the U.N.
resolution 'and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.'"
Does omitting Israel and emphasizing the Russian aspect of the story throughout the rest of the
piece change what it says and how it is perceived? You betcha.
For me, there was also a second take-away from the Flynn story apart from the collusion with
Israel. It involves the use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to set-up Flynn shortly
after he had been installed as National Security Adviser. Insofar as I can determine, the FBI
entrapment of Flynn has only been
examined in a serious way in the media by Robert Parry at Consortium News.
Michael Flynn was actually interviewed by the FBI regarding his two phone conversations on
January 24 th shortly after assumed office as National Security Adviser. During his
interview, he was not made aware that the Bureau already had recordings and transcripts of his
phone conversations, so, in a manner of speaking, he was being set-up to fail. Mis-remembering,
forgetting or attempting to avoid implication of others in the administration would inevitably
all be plausibly construed as lying since the FBI knew exactly what was said.
To be sure, many would agree that the sleazy Flynn deserves everything he gets, but the
logic used to set-up the possible Flynn entrapment by the FBI, i.e. that there was unauthorized
contact with a foreign official, is in itself curious as Flynn was a private citizen at the
time and such contact is not in itself illegal. And it also opens the door to the Bureau's
investigating other individuals who have committed no crime but who find that they cannot
recall details of phone calls they were parties to that were being recorded by the government
six months or a year before. That can easily be construed as "lying" or "perjury" with
consequences that include possible prison time.
So there are two observations one might make about the Flynn saga as it currently stands.
First, Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to inauguration
day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal, which should surprise no one.
And second, record all your phone conversations with foreign government officials. The NSA and
FBI will have a copy in any event, but you might want to retain your own records to make sure
their transcript is accurate.
Philip M. Giraldi, is a former CIA Operations officer who is Executive Director of the
Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax exempt educational foundation that seeks a
more interests based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address us P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville, VA 20132, and
email address is [email protected] .
How is it that the FBI interrogates an agent of the President Elect on secret negotiations
conducted on behalf of the President Elect?
And isn't that agent of the President Elect obliged, as a matter of national security, to
conceal the details of those secret negotiations from anyone who attempts to extract them
from him, lying as necessary to do so?
And anyhow, what was the point? Why the interrogation? The negotiations were made over the
telephone, so the US Government, and presumably, therefore, the FBI, could obtain a
transcript if they needed to know what was said.
The whole story seems nonsensical. But if anyone comes out of this looking good, maybe it
will be Flynn. while it is the FBI and Robert Mueller who get their come uppance.
Nothing new, but a very clear summary of the situation, as one would expect from Mr Giraldi
– including the customary warping of reality by the TPTB (substitution of "Israel" with
"Russia").
Perhaps, the article is too tepid only on the legal entrapment combined with NSA recording
of communications. Who says that this will be applied only to conversations with foreign
nationals? I am sure that other statutes exist or will be quickly created to entrap anyone
who does not remember word-for-word what was said in his communications with anyone else:
thus lying to the Police etc. This is a magnificent self-awarded gift to the US regime which
will only keep giving. I am waiting for the vassals to follow closely behind – the
five-eyes and EU countries to develop similar entrapment resources.
What is the point of recording someone's communications if you cannot also put him in
jail at will?
I expect the Jewish media will get orders from Israel to back off if they try to target
Kushner. He's a useful, pro-Israel link to Trump for Netanyahu, and too valuable to get rid
of just because left-wing media Jews want to take down Trump. Trump is a lot more pro-Israel
than the leftists, and Netanyahu knows it.
Over the years, Israel has paid Jewish-American reporters for writing pro-Israel puff
pieces in US news, and Netanyahu could just threaten to cut off the lucre to bring them in
line. Or, if he is really angry, he could send a few Mossad agents to have a talk with the
Jewish reporters about how they're hurting Israel, and if that happens, then too bad because
the Mossad will have to do something about them.
Anyway, it looks like Mueller's investigation will halt at Flynn. If Mueller tries to go
farther, something 'interesting' may happen to him. If he does, I expect to see a full
smackdown of his investigation from every direction with accusations against his honesty and
probity, followed by his firing once enough public rage has been ginned up against him so
that all liberal protests in his favor are drowned out by the fury of the lynch mob.
Phil, this makes me feel even worse than I did before. I knew that RussiaGate was nonsense
from the Hillary camp, however, the fact that Trump would bring his son-in-law into the WH
and allow him to collude with Israel against the national interests of this country, fills me
with dismay.
While I supported Trump mostly as an anti-Hillary stance and not because I saw him as
someone who would bring about great positive change to our country (e.g. draining the swamp),
I had hoped that his pandering to Israel during the election campaign was mostly political
SOP. Since last November, however, he has gradually lost me. I am happy that he has not
started new wars, but with the accelerated donkey-felating of Israel, I am not confident that
we won't soon embark on more wars for Israel and more funds to that shitty country from our
taxes.
Michael Flynn was actually interviewed because he was stupid enough to talk to
the police. Never talk to the police. Don't believe me, this is a detective who says
don't talk to the police:
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2
An experienced police officer tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed
by the police. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
Of course, nowadays if you assert your 5th Amendment right to not talk, street cops will
construe that as mental illness, so it's acceptable to do as Kenny Suitter does. Remind them
verbally that you're not talking to them by saying: "I don't answer questions."
Or better yet, shut your cakehole and hold a sign that says "I remain silent. No searches.
I want my lawyer." Even works at Soviet no suspicion checkpoints in the USSA. Mostly.
Checkpoint: I REMAIN SILENT-NO SEARCHES-I WANT MY LAWYER
Bravo to Phil Giraldi for calling out and writing about these treasonous bastards. Thanks to
Unz for giving him the platform. Keep reporting and hopefully there will be enough people
that will stand up and prevent this tyranny from developing further.
The Russian collusion story will flower eventually. I feel certain of that. But really, who
among us did not feel that Kushner would be doing Israel's bidding, from back as far as the
spring of 2016? Who thought that 'One President at a time' would apply to Jarad and the
administration elect?
It has never been made clear why Flynn was the man as far as Jarad and Ivanka were
concerned? Was it merely because they viewed him as a dupe for their plans?
Was Obama setting up the new administration with someone he knew was already criminally
exposed–Flynn–and was the almost certain hire –because of Kushner– as
well as because of the current president's strong objections?
Yes it seems like the term "duel loyalty" was almost made for Kushner. With Jarad's title
of Ambassador without portfolio Israel didn't even have to effort a move of the US embassy to
Jerusalem –it was a given– and as far as permission to attack Iran? I'm afraid
that seems in the cards as well.
If Israel isn't mentioned–by US Media– it should be. While all calls are not
recorded by NSA it is likely that those countries with the greatest presence in spy assets
within the US (Rus/Isl) undoubtedly are. Yes Flynn lied to the FBI. I don't think there's
much question Kushner will too.
I suppose here we have an important cause of Russiagate, Israel sees that Syria is not
destabilised, just physically destroyed, thanks to Russian interference.
USA support is the only reason Israel still exists, good relations between USA and Russia may
mean the end of Israel, in any case the end of Israeli power in the ME.
And if USA support ends, what about German support ?
Will Israel get another two billion submarine, for which the German taxpayer pays some 400
million ?
At the same time, I fear we see that no anti missile system is capable of destroying many
missiles if they come at the same time.
When, I hope never, Russia fires most of its 1600 old fashioned ballistic missiles at the
USA, some will het through, I suppose.
Well I said if Mueller wants to make himself useful he could take down Kushner. Be
interesting to see if we get any follow up on him, or if it quietly dies in the dark as you
surmise, these things always seem to once they have the potential to impact negatively on
Zionist interests. Will that kill the whole investigation, it certainly seems to be coming to
a dead end anyway?
First, Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to
inauguration day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal, which should
surprise no one.
Well, it certainly doesn't surprise me and I'm (happily) a nobody. Anyway, at least the
Ziocreeps are consistent.
Looks like Oncle Joey was right again.
"Blame others for your own sins."
J. V. Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism ? December, 1906 -- January, 1907
Why does "Israel" seem to be at, or very near, the center of most major issues of the day
once the curtain is lifted a bit, and why are they nearly always suspected of doing something
unjust and shady if not downright criminal?
And what about the eternal victim image we dumb goyim are supposed to imbibe with our
mammy's milk?
While I agree with Giraldi on Israel's outrageous influence on U.S. politics, I am much more
concerned by how the FBI has become a thoroughly corrupt secret police for the Establishment
and Deep State. And the Department of Just-Us is all part of it. It's so fucking Orwellian.
The FBI went into that interview with the plan to get Flynn. He never had a chance. Even
if he had a transcript of his phone conversations, and provided answers from that, they
would've manipulated him into a BS process crime.
I'm a former investigator and worked with a former S/A (not FBI) who told me about when he
worked cases with the FBI. They will lie and fabricate stuff in order to set people up and
then make threats on what people didn't say. If you're a target of the FBI it makes no
difference how honest you are and how precise and accurate your answers are to their
questions.
Apart from all that, I trust people with last name Kushner over people with the last name
of Mueller or Strzok
Smoke screen! The spooks are more spooked than ever! What exactly did the US intelligence
services get up to that they're now so scared of Russiagate? Mr Giraldi is in such a panic
that he totally fails to make the point in the title. He essentially admits Russian
interference but does not establish, nor even, in fact, claim, that there is any connection
between Israel and Russian interference. Israel has no need to engage in undercover
interference to influence US politics. It does so quite openly and has the Israel Lobby to
support it. It certainly has no need of Russian help! One might also ask what disadvantage
there would have been for Israel if Hillary was elected. Why would they feel the need to
manipulate the election in Trump's favour? Thus, it's not an "either or" situation, as Mr
Giraldi tries to present it. Regardless of whether or not there was also Israeli
interference, Russian interference, with the help of American "associates", is well
established and confirmed by an almost identical pattern of interference in the French
presidential election. More interestingly, though, what has emerged from Flynn's testimony so
far is that the initiative came from the Trump campaign, not the Russians. The evidence
available up to that point suggested that the Russians had taken the initiative and more or
less set up the naïve "bunch of Orthodox Jews". It's little wonder therefore that both
Putin's American supporters and Trump's personal lawyer are running around in panic!
Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to inauguration
day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal,
And don't expect Special Counsel Mueller to do anything about the Israel connection. As
an experienced operator in the Washington swamp he knows full well that the Congressmen
currently calling for blood in an investigation involving Russia will turn 180 degrees
against him if he tries to go after Netanyahu.
Mueller was head of the FBI during the 9/11 "investigation"
you don't get anymore 'swamp creature' than that
more here:
Trump succeeded in convincing Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to order his UN
delegation to delay the vote. Egypt then withdrew its sponsorship of 2334. However, four
members of the Security Council -- Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela –
counteracted Sisi's abandonment and brought the resolution to a Council vote. It passed and
was enacted due to the American abstention. It is quite certain that the Obama
administration sought the assistance of its intelligence and military ally, New Zealand, in
bolstering Malaysia, Senegal, and Venezuela against furious backroom opposition from Israel
and the Trump transition team. Trump and Kushner decided that just prior to Flynn's
indictment, they would demonstrate their fealty to Israel by announcing that the United
States was going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy
from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Such actions, far from showing "collusion" with a foreign
power, point to conflicted loyalty, at the very least.
Netanyahu told New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully that New Zealand's support
for the resolution would be tantamount to a declaration of war against Israel,
when I read the above quote, it seemed too explosive not to have a link, so I 'Binged'
it
Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told New Zealand's foreign minister that support for a UN
resolution condemning Israeli settlement-building in the occupied territories would be
viewed as a "declaration of war".
There has never been a successful prosecution under the Logan Act and likely there will
never be one. However, those who possessed access to classified information – Trump,
Kushner, Flynn, Haley, and others – who were simultaneously taking orders from
Israel on matters of US national security, could be found guilty of violating the US
Espionage Act .
To be sure, many would agree that the sleazy Flynn deserves everything he gets,
if he was talking money from Turkey, to represent their interests- while masquerading as
our National Security Advisor, then I wouldn't mind seeing him hanged by the neck until it
snapped or until he stopped dancing.
but then that's how I feel about all acts of treason against my nation, and the
scum who serve the interests of our deadliest enemy at the direct expense of this nation they
swore a sacred oath to.
I wonder how clean the Democrats' hands are, vis-a-vis the Logan Act? Has every incoming
Democrat administration really been so squeaky clean in its dealings with foreign
agents?
The two phone calls in question include absolutely nothing about possible collusion with
Russia to change the outcome of the U.S. election, which allegedly was the raison d'etre
behind the creation of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel office in the first place. Both
took place more than a month after the election and both were initiated by the Americans
involved. I am increasingly convinced that Mueller ain't got nuthin' but this process will
grind out interminably and the press will be hot on the trail until there is nowhere else
to go.
IANAL; does the old "fruit of the poison tree" apply to investigations/prosecutions as a
whole, or just to evidence found/used therein? Because the fact that one of the interviewers,
(((Strzok))) (caveat: (((echoes))) based on personal Jewdar only (facial phrenology, name,
occupation, politics, corruption); was unable to confirm via Gewgle) has been ejected from
Mueller's team seems germane. Maybe he'll only impact the trial, the way Fuhrman impacted
OJ's trial?
It's interesting how central the Logan Act has been in all this, considering how it's
never been used to prosecute anyone in its over 217 years of existence. The Jews and their
lackeys are now reduced to using blue Laws; to return to the "mobs Jews stirred up that
turned on them" motif, what if we started prosecuting Jews with blue laws against, say,
sodomy?
The NYT has a new piece up, titled "Why the Trump Team should fear the Logan Act."
Why the Trump team should fear the Swamp's use of blue laws? Because the Swamp is totally
corrupt and they hate Trump, that's why.
The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's illegal settlements and also a
number of conservative political groups in that country.
It would be interesting to know more about that; how much more worthy do the Kushners
regard Israel as being of Conservative advocacy, compared to their ostensible homeland, the
United States? Because they seem to be fairly leftist in their desires for the latter.
His closeness to Netanyahu makes him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli
government agent of influence, even if he doesn't quite see himself that way.
How Jews see themselves is very often a study in rationalization and self-deception;
eminently worthy of study, but never to be taken at face value.
I expect the Jewish media will get orders from Israel to back off if they try to target
Kushner. He's a useful, pro-Israel link to Trump for Netanyahu, and too valuable to get rid
of just because left-wing media Jews want to take down Trump. Trump is a lot more
pro-Israel than the leftists, and Netanyahu knows it.
Trump may be marginally more pro-Zionist than the communist (AKA leftist) establishment,
but it's not really possible for Trump to be "a lot more pro-Israel"; there isn't enough
daylight available – the communists are too pro-Zionist for that.
And I doubt that margin is really worth the trouble; the Diaspora Wing of the Tribe hates
Hates HATES Trump and wants him gone Gone GONE. It's harder to do business with the Swamp
when it's mobilized to destroy the current administration; being seen as too cozy with the
object of their hatred is counter-productive.
Over the years, Israel has paid Jewish-American reporters for writing pro-Israel puff
pieces in US news, and Netanyahu could just threaten to cut off the lucre to bring them in
line.
The money flow is very much in the opposite direction; from the Jewish diaspora to Israel,
not the other way around.
Or better yet, shut your cakehole and hold a sign that says "I remain silent. No
searches. I want my lawyer." Even works at Soviet no suspicion checkpoints in the USSA.
Mostly.
It's also a good idea to keep asking cops if you can leave. They often have to wait on K-9
units, for which demand outstrips supply. And they have regulations as to how long they're
allowed to keep you waiting before they conduct their search, and crucially don't have to
volunteer the fact that they have limits on how long they're allowed to make you wait .
But they do have to tell you if you're free to leave, if you're free to leave. So ask them
every 5 minutes or so, "may I leave now?"
While I agree with Giraldi on Israel's outrageous influence on U.S. politics, I am much
more concerned by how the FBI has become a thoroughly corrupt secret police for the
Establishment and Deep State. And the Department of Just-Us is all part of it. It's so
fucking Orwellian.
The upper ranks seem to be thick with Jews, too. Which should surprise no one who knows
even a bit about Soviet history.
"I'm a former investigator and worked with a former S/A (not FBI) who told me about when
he worked cases with the FBI. They will lie and fabricate stuff in order to set people up and
then make threats on what people didn't say."
Double Fake News Story.
You, as well as Girabaldi, really need to become educated as far as the Mueller
investigation is concerned.
Who within the Administration allowed Flynn to be interviewed by the FBI on January 24,
2017?
It seems Flynn was intentionally set up by disloyal legal and other advisers on
Trump's team, obviously to drive a wedge into the incoming administration.
No lawyer worth his salt would allow such an interview to proceed without serious
preparation and safeguards. Having just assumed office, the White House had legitimate
reasons to slow-walk any FBI requests. In particular, Team Trump should and could have waited
until the FBI was cleansed of the worst hold-overs and swamp creatures (such as Deputy AG
Rosenstein who later appointed Mueller).
Flynn was NOT obligated to allow an FBI interview at all, and could legitimately have
argued that he was entitled to executive privilege. Of course, the MSM were out to get Trump
from the outset, and no doubt coordinated their story with Comey and Mueller.
Buchanan's latest article, Is Flynn's Defection a Death Blow? , asks Why Why Why
did Flynn lie to the FBI.
He committed the Martha Stewart offense. An ankle monitor is not that big a deal; Martha's
still baking cupcakes in recycled soda cans and selling overpriced stuff.
So maybe Flynn is actually a patriot, and fell on a rubber sword on purpose, in order to
expose the Israel connection that he perceived as getting out of hand??
Nothing new. Israel was meddling in the US political system even before it was created. But
the deep state will summarily reject the truth and keep pushing its fairy tale about "evil
Russia": after all, Israel is not a suitable bogeyman to justify totally insane "defense"
budget, which now exceeds the sum total of defense budgets of the rest of the world. Russia,
like the USSR before it, is used to justify shameless feeding frenzy of Pentagon contractors.
They are destroying the US more effectively than any enemy could, but their greed blinds them
to the fact.
Flynn was NOT obligated to allow an FBI interview at all, and could legitimately have
argued that he was entitled to executive privilege.
So by agreeing to an FBI interview, was Flynn setting up the swamp dwellers? For example,
to demonstrate, in due course, that he was compelled to lie to protect national security from
a lawless and out of control FBI.
The former US Secretary of Defense William J. Perry:
"When the Cold War ended, I believed that we no longer had to take that risk [nuclear
annihilation] During my period as the Secretary of Defense in the 90s, I oversaw the
dismantlement of 8,000 nuclear weapons evenly divided between the United States and the
former Soviet Union. And I thought then that we were well on our way to putting behind us
this deadly existential threat, But that was not to be. Today, inexplicably to me, we're
recreating the geopolitical hostility of the Cold War, and we're rebuilding the nuclear
dangers. We are doing this without any serious public discussion or any real understanding of
the consequences of these actions. We are sleepwalking into a new Cold War, and there's very
real danger that we will blunder into a nuclear war."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-03/former-us-defense-secretary-explains-why-nuclear-holocaust-now-likely
Paul Craig Roberts (the former US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic
Policy): https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/12/05/walking-into-armageddon/
"The power of the military/security complex and the Israel Lobby, the two prime war-mongers
of the 21st century, have immobilized the President of the United States. The real reason
that the military/security complex is after Gen. Flynn is that he is the former director of
the Defense Intelligence Agency and he said on a TV news show that the decision by the
Obama regime to send ISIS to overthrow Syria was a "willful decision" that went against his
recommendation . In other words, Flynn let the cat out of the bag that ISIS was not an
independently formed organization but a tool of US policy. Private interests and agendas have
control over the US government. Washington works by selling legislation to the interest
groups in exchange for campaign contributions. The private interests that provide the money
that elects politiicans get the laws that they want."
"Panic." Yes – the panic is palpable in the Israelis'/Lobby' words and deeds in
relation to Syria's sovereignty. The ziocon's mad irritation with the end of slaughter in
Syria deprives them of reason. Thence the visceral, irrational, overwhelming hatred of
Russians by the moral midgets that profess "Israel first." The supremacist fools would
initiate a nuclear conflict to prevail in a fight with their Arab cousins. Could not you just
leave the western civilization alone?
"The power of the military/security complex and the Israel Lobby, the two prime
war-mongers of the 21st century" – so true! We are witnessing the end of your
profitable "eternal victimhood."
And look where Kushner's "competence" has taken the investigation into Russiagate .
Amazing, indeed.
Also, what could be more valuable for Israel (the only theocratic apartheid "democracy" in
the Middle East) than the sweet and devoted friendship with the so upright and moral Saudis!
And none other than the aspiring Jared has procured this special friendship. Jared is really
good at clearing the fog of Israeli "democratic" morals.
So by agreeing to an FBI interview, was Flynn setting up the swamp dwellers?
Not impossible but this sounds like too much 4D chess. Also, the public exposure of Flynn
is immediate and harmful, whereas any gain against the Deep State is deferred and
speculative.
Let's imagine this story if it happened in a different country:
An opposition leader wins a close election after a government uses all its power and media
control to elect a selected successor. During the transition, the state police investigates
the members of the incoming administration and puts them under surveillance. Street mobs that
support the previous government are unleashed on the streets to intimidate the elected
president and his supporters. After the opposition is sworn in, the old-regime loyalists
immediately start investigating them and threaten them with removal from office.
Media who supported the previous administration goes on a hysterical witch-hunt. A special
committee is formed to investigate the incoming president and any people connected to him.
Eventually people are charged with talking to ' foreigners ' and ' lying '
about it when interrogated by the state police. The losing candidate openly disparages the
legitimacy of the elected president. Media cheers it on and constantly predicts how very soon
the interloper who somehow managed to win the elections will be removed.
If this happened in a different country, Washington would now be talking sanctions or
worse.
Kennedy was the only president to go after Israel and the Jews US Fifth Column.
In addition to demanding Israel open their nuke facilities for inspection his adm and AG
supported the 1963 Fulbright Senate hearings on the ZOA and its Jews in the US. The ZOA then
became AIPAC under Johnson.
That's why they killed him.
DOJ orders the AZC to Register as a Foreign Agent
"Attached hereto is the entire file relating to the American Zionist Council and our
efforts to obtain its registration under the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act
"
Documents
In the early 1960′s Israel funneled $5 million (more than $35 million in today's
dollars) into US propaganda and lobbying operations. The funds were channeled via the quasi
governmental Jewish Agency's New York office into an Israel lobby umbrella group, the
American Zionist Council. Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigations and hearings
documented funding flows, propaganda, and public relations efforts and put them into the
record. But the true fate of the American Zionist Council was never known, except that its
major functions were visibly shut down and shifted over to a former AZC unit known as the
"Kenen Committee," called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC) in the late
1960′s. The following chronology provides links to images of original Department of
Justice case files released on June 10, 2008 under a Freedom of Information Act filing.
John F. Kennedy President, Robert F. Kennedy Attorney General
Document/File Date Contents
08/27/1962 AZC internal memo – Lenore Karp to Rabbi Jerome Unger about AZC Department
of Public Information literature distribution.
Undated 1962-1963 AZC Public Relations Plan summary
10/31/1962 Assistant Attorney General and Director of the Internal Security Division J.
Walter Yeagley notifies Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy " we are soliciting next week the
registration of the American Zionist Council under the Foreign Agents Registration Act You
may be aware that the American Zionist Council is composed of representatives of the various
Zionist organizations in the United States including the Zionist Organization of
America."
11/06/1962 Nathan B. Lenvin, head of the FARA section, memo to central files, about a meeting
with Jewish Agency representative Maurice M. Boukstein who asks about FARA applicability to
AZC. " in his view it was doubtful that any great protest would be made since in the
discussions he has had with various officials connected both with the Zionist Council and the
Jewish Agency he had made it clear in his view an agency relationship would result which may
require registration.'"
11/14/1962 Edwin Guthman letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and Deputy Attorney
General Nicholas Katzenbach about future AZC FARA registration order. "I doubt very much
there will be any fuss. I don't think the American Zionist Council is in any position to do
so the Council has compromised its position." OK'd by Robert F. Kennedy.
11/21/1962 DOJ orders AZC to register under FARA " receipt of such funds from the American
Section of the Jewish Agency for Israel constitutes the Council an agent of a foreign
principal the Council's registration is requested."
12/06/1962 AZC President Rabbi Irving Miller response to DOJ "The request for registration
contained in your letter raises many questions of fact and of relationships which first must
be resolved by us before compliance can be made. Therefore, it is requested that you be good
enough to grant us a delay of 120 days "
01/02/1963
Archive Isaiah L. Kenen incorporates the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in
Washington, DC
01/24/1963
DOJ draft file memo about 01/23/1963 DOJ meeting with AZC head legal counsel Simon H. Rifkind
" he had advised his client to discontinue completely the agency relationship and cut off the
receipt of any additional funds Mr. Lenvin pointed out specifically that the termination of
the 'activities' on the part of AZC did not absolve it of its obligation to register "
01/25/1963 Article in the National Jewish Post, filed in FARA Section – "AZC Gives
Up $ to Avoid Foreign Agent Registration"
02/01/1963 DOJ Executive Assistant Thomas Hall memo to Nathan Lenvin updating meeting notes
"Mr. Hall emphasized that a contrary conclusion would not of course be reached during the
course of this meeting and suggested that the subject submit a detailed argument as to why it
was of the opinion it should not be required to register ."
02/08/1963 DOJ AZC January 23, 1963 meeting notes by Nathan Lenvin filed "discontinuance of
receipt of such funds thus terminating the agency relationship did not absolve the Council of
its obligation to register."
02/19/1963 American Council for Judaism (AJC) newsletter. "The American Zionist Council
(coordinating political action arm of all U.S. Zionist organizations) was asked last month by
the Justice Department to register as a 'foreign agent' of the State of Israel."
03/07/1963 New York Times reporter Tony Lewis calls FARA section to verify AZC foreign agent
order state AJC press release.
3/23/1963 AZC Counsel "Memorandum of Law in support of our position that the American Zionist
Council is not required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938."
04/01/1963 Nathan Lenvin file memo of DOJ AZC meeting on April 1, 1963- AZC Memorandum of Law
rejected. " if necessary I would be willing to recommend, if the representatives of the
Council insisted upon these points, that the matter be litigated."
As far as tech goes Google (Brin at least) and Facebook were significantly Jewish at
starting; Amazon is heavily reliant on investment capital and probably a significant portion
of the early developers were Jewish; they were well represented in the 90s tech scene. Also
the relationship between computing and finance, plus the emigration of Soviet Jews, was
probably a factor.
Honestly, impeachment would be a good thing, because it would throw the US into such chaos
that it might be less able to wreak death and destruction around the world.
It also would finally lift the scales off the Trumpees eyes and make it clear that the whole
thing is rotten to the core.
This site is full of Jewish conspiracy theorists. I am not one of them. The only Jewish
"conspiracy" that I have ever been able to detect is that they "conspire" to be successful.
As opposed to the rest of us, I guess – who conspire to be failures in life. Jews are
opportunists, they take advantage of the rules that the stupid gentiles make. And good on
them, they have shown remarkable skills doing that.
In the middle ages when the only way to be rich was to own a land, European countries
forbade the Jews from owning land. Then when the center of economic activity switched to the
cities – guess who was the best positioned to take full advantage of the situation
– the Jews. They became merchants, lawyers, bankers and so on.
I guess the stupid Europeans should have foreseen this development and as soon as the
cities became centers of wealth and economic activity – they should have gone Pol Pot
on the Jews – banish them to the countryside to do some farming there. So stop bitching
about the current situation in the US, it's not fault of the Jews, they are just taking
advantage of the stupidity of the US gentile elites.
Too many commenters cloud the issue by equating every Jew with a Zionist. This is just as
wrong as counting every German as a Nazi. Many Jews are appalled by the aggressiveness of
Israel and apartheid it practices.
Agreed. The Lib-Dems and their corpo/media/Follywood allies are attempting to destroy the
legitimacy of an elected president by means of fake news, fake indignation and fake charges
of treason.
But Trump surely has deep state allies as well as opponents, and thus will have been aware
before the inauguration of what he could expect, and would therefore likely have set traps
for the opposition.
The fact that the Mueller probe is losing all credibility suggests that the opposition may
yet come off worse than the President.
I suggest everyone who is fed up with Trump's Israel First betrayal of the US let him
know .
Is Trump an Israel Firster, or simply a friend of Israel. Trump ran a nationalistic
election campaign and appears to be following through on his commitment to restoring the
border, restricting Muslim immigration, etc. Such policies are exactly in line with those of
Israel. So why would Trump not be pro-Israel? And in fact, the stronger Israel becomes, the
less the US need aid Israel or tolerate American Israeli firsters.
The real issue is not Zionist influence in America but globalist influence in America.
Is Trump pursuing a globalist agenda that will destroy America as a coherent nation state, or
does he reject the Obama/Clinton project for the submergence of the American nation by a
flood of settlers with a contempt for Americans, especially white, Chrisitan
Americans.
"... an angry Senator Senator Grassley - who was previously stonewalled by the FBI and DOJ from getting requested information about Strzok's unexpected removal - has issued a letter demanding FBI documents in advance of an upcoming Senatorial interview with the anti-Trump FBI agent. ..."
"... The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss his knowledge of improper political influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James Comey from his position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. To date, the Committee has received no letter in reply to that request. ..."
"... All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the decision to close the Clinton investigation without recommending any charges; ..."
"... I doubt that Strzok worked alone. ..."
"... This is one of the best re-caps of this whole sordid FBI obstruction/coverup situation: Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it's a "crime to lie to us". Not for the Clintons and their associates. ..."
"... Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn't received training on handling classified information, but she signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn't carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper, who made the server possible, testified that indeed she did . ..."
Following this weekend's shocking disclosure that Peter Strzok was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
of Russia-Trump election (having previously handled the Clinton email server probe and interviewing Michael Flynn) after allegedly
having exchanged anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with his mistress (who was an FBI lawyer working for Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe), an angry Senator Senator Grassley - who was previously stonewalled by the FBI and DOJ from getting requested
information about Strzok's unexpected removal - has issued a letter demanding FBI documents in advance of an upcoming Senatorial
interview with the anti-Trump FBI agent.
In his letter to FBI director Christopher Wray, Grassley writes:
The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss his knowledge of improper political
influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James
Comey from his position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the DOJ's and FBI's activities
related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
To date, the Committee has received no letter in reply to that request.
In advance of Mr. Strzok's interview, please provide the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise,
to the Committee no later than December 11, 2017:
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to then Director Comey's draft or final statement closing
the Clinton investigation, including all records related to the change in the portion of the draft language describing Secretary
Clinton's and her associates' conduct regarding classified information from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless";
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the decision to close the Clinton investigation
without recommending any charges;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to opening the investigation into potential collusion
by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any FBI electronic communication (EC) authored or authorized by Mr.
Strzok and all records forming the basis for that EC;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to the FBI's interactions with Christopher Steele relating
to the investigation into potential collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any communications
regarding potential or realized financial arrangements with Mr. Steele;
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to any instance of the FBI relying on, or referring
to, information in Mr. Steele's memoranda in the course of seeking any FISA warrants, other search warrants, or any other judicial
process;
All FD-302s of FBI interviews of Lt. Gen. Flynn at which Mr. Strzok was present, as well as all related 1A documents (including
any contemporaneous handwritten notes); and
All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok containing unfavorable statements about Donald J. Trump or
favorable statements about Hillary Clinton.
Since this will be the first - and so far only - glimpse inside the ideological motivations inside Mueller's prosecutorial team
the public will be greatly interested in finding what they reveal, especially those which show any direct communication between Strzok
and Comey.
"Whoa, and there's more on Peter Strzok. He exchanged anti-Trump texts with Lisa Page, another Mueller team member with whom
he was having an affair. She's deputy to Andrew McCabe."
"Surprise – it was Hillary Clinton supporter Peter Strzok told Comey that there was no proof of "intent" – BEFORE he had interviewed
HRC."
And of course, he was involved with the sketchy interview of Cheryl Mills
And Heather Samuelson
And voila, they were given immunity
He allowed Mills and Samuelson to attend the interview with Hillary
So Strzok exonerated Hillary, led the probe into Weiner's laptop that cleared Hillary, allowed major conflicts in the Clinton
investigation, and then took control of the Steele dossier probe into Trump, all while being a rabid anti-Trump, pro-Clinton partisan
in his personal life.
And when Mueller learned of this behavior he reassigned him instead of firing him, in order to prevent word getting out to
the public.
Sessions is culpable in the obstruction of justice UNLESS there is something big going on behind the scenes. The FBI will not
provide requested documentation. The choice is going to come down to reorganizing the FBI from outside that institution. I wouldn't
have a clue about legality or process of doing that, but that is what it will come down to. You can't expect these criminals to
do it on their own or to voluntarily place their heads in a noose with documentation.
They hire agents directly out of law school (at least it used to be that way). The idea was they NOT have any life experience
(or independent judgment). It's no accident.
They're "going all in." Doesn't matter what Hand the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the Deep State
& their cohorts have been dealt.
Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections
/ Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.
The misconception is that individuals believe we are dealing with normal, sane human beings. We're not. Far from it. What we
are dealing with are sick, twisted, Pure Evil Criminal, Psychopathic, Satanic / Lucerferian elements from the CIA / Pentagram
Temple of Set Scum literally making Hell on Earth.
What's at Stake is the Deep State Global network of MultiNational Central Banking, Espionage, Murder, War, Torture, Destabilization
Campaigns, BlackMail, Extortion, Child / Human Trafficking, Drug / Gun Running, Money Laundering, Corruption, NSA spying, Media
control & control of the 17 Intelligence Agencies.
Most importantly, The Deep State controls all the distribution lines of the aforementioned. Especially the Coaxial Cable Communication
lines of Espionage spying & Surveillance State Apparatus / Infrastructure. Agencies all built on the British Model of Intelligence.
Purely Evil & Highly Compartmentalized Levels which function as a Step Pyramid Model of Authority / Monarch Reign Pyramid Model
of Authority.
That's what's at Stake. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The Pure Evil Criminal Psychopath Rogue elements of the Deep
State will not go quietly. If not dealt with now, they'll disappear only to resurface at a later date with one objective:
Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination they seek through Power & Control.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep State Top that have had control since
the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
This impure evil has been running the world since the time of the Pharoahs, it's ancient Babylonian mysticism/paganism and
it is nothing more than the worship of Lucifer; it has never died out, it just re-emerges as something far more wicked, vile and
sinister. They are all the sons and daughters of satan and do what he does - kill, steal and destroy.
It would be Nieve to think that hundreds of thousands of years of control over mankind be simply turned over by the Criminal
Pure Evil Psychopathic Elite. The Deep State will always exist. However, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopathic Highly Compartmentalized
Rogue Levels of it are being delt with. Which is what the World is witnessing.
I'd bet there is more to the Pete Strzok story. I don't think Mueller canned him, and tried to keep that on the down-low, based
solely on Strzok's overt, naked partisanship. I'd bet that the content of Strzok's text messages, rather than the (partisan) tone
, will be revealing. Things are heating up...
How about a paragraph or 3 of detail, juxtaposing all of Trump's high crimes & misdemeanors against the Klinton machine? Keep
in mind however, you must go back 30+ years, because there are documented incidents (not rumors, innuendo or hype) of criminality
from the Klinton crime syndicate. Hopefully you have likewise documentation for Trump...
" Trumps Guilty" Guilty of what exactly? Mueller and the boys have been at it for almost a year now and coming up with a big
nothing burger. The charges Flynn peaded guilty to have nothing to do with colusion with the Russians simply ommiting details
of conversations with the Russian ambassador. Alan Dershowicz a prominate progressive and constitutional scholar and no friend
of Trump has stated in an interview he sees no basis for an obstruction of justice charge.
I doubt that Strzok worked alone. He apparently headed up the Hillary Protection Team (HPT) at the FBI. How did he
keep Hillary updated? Via Loretta Lynch?
This info request is limited...what about the Huma/Weiner computer?
The Senate smells blood in the water, but doesn't sense who will win, hence the cautious demand letter.
Pretty clear that FBI and much of DOJ have gone rogue, and no longer respond to the rest of the government.
This scandal will be so significant that it makes Watergate look like jaywalking.
You will know when the tide has turned when Democrat Senators go for DOJ blood (in order to distance themselves).
All of this will eventually be shown as something far more sinister than mere partisan agents. And those details will reveal
a whole new pattern of illegal, immoral, and traitorous conduct.
This is one of the best re-caps of this whole sordid FBI obstruction/coverup situation: Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed
Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it's a "crime to lie to us". Not for the Clintons and
their associates.
Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn't received training on handling classified information, but she
signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn't carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper,
who made the server possible, testified
that indeed she did .
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills told the same lie. These are the kinds of misstep that Team Mueller would have used to hang a
Trump associate. But Comey testified that Hillary Clinton did not lie. And that meant he was lying. Not only did Clinton's people
lie to the FBI. But the head of the FBI had lied for them.
The fix had been in all along.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WAS COMING FROM INSIDE THE FBI
please provide the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise, to the Committee no later than December
11, 2017....
First few questions for Mr. Strzok:
How many cell phones have you owned/used over the past 4 years?
Have you ever owned/used a throw away phone?
How many computers have you had/used over the past 4 years?
Have you ever owned/used/controlled a private server?
Have you ever thrown away a blackberry?
If you wanted to have private, secure communication regarding your obstruction of justice activities, would you avoid using
your office computer or cell phone?
I remain skeptical. After 46% of Americans are informed of some wrongdoing, Trump discovers it too.
Silly me, thinking that Trump, as president and having every law enforcement/spy agency at his command, should be finding out
long before me and I should be reading about what he DID, not what he is TWEETING.
Why isn't he personally confronting the principals? Remember "Your Fired"? I didn't and still don't watch TV, but I thought
he was famous for calling the person directly accountable before him, not tweeting or writing a letter to the editor or a prayer
request.
Trump didn't have this guy removed. His own people did, long ago. This is like the Mafia seeing a made man is so out of hand
that the Mafia itself turns him in.
We should be keen on watching results, not the evidence of what abject morons we are as Americans to have a government so nakedly
corrupt. I think the main problem is Americans, despite great genetics and being born into such wealthy conditions, are operating
with effective IQ's below sub-saharan Africa. If you take in television news as information, that's all a critically thinking
person needs to know about you. You're a three year old in terms of logic and reason.
I'm just too worn out with victory being right around the corner since at least as far back as Whitewater.
"... the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation. ..."
Over the weekend we noted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's top FBI investigator into
'Russian meddling', agent
Peter Strzok, was removed from the probe due to the discovery of anti-Trump text messages
exchanged with a colleague (a colleague whom he also happened to be having an extra-marital
affair with).
Not surprisingly, the discovery prompted a visceral response from Trump via Twitter:
Tainted (no, very dishonest?) FBI "agent's role in Clinton probe under review." Led Clinton
Email probe. @foxandfriends Clinton money going
to wife of another FBI agent in charge.
Alas, as it turns out, Strzok, who was blatantly exposed as a political hack by his own
wreckless text messages, also had a leading role in the Hillary email investigation. And
wouldn't you know it, as CNN has
apparently just discovered, Strzok not only held a leading role in that investigation but
potentially single-handedly saved Hillary from prosecution by making the now-infamous change in
Comey's final statement to describe her email abuses as "extremely careless" rather than the
original language of "grossly negligent."
A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar
for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key
phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state
Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the
matter.
Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private
email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier
draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the
source said. The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people
reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the
matter.
But the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former
Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he
was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with
an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those
seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation.
The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment.
Of course, as we noted a month ago (see:
First Comey Memo Concluded Hillary Was "Grossly Negligent," Punishable By Jail ), the
change in language was significant since federal law states that "gross negligence" in handling
the nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines whereas "extreme
carelessness" has no such legal definition and/or ramifications.
In fact, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the
handling of national defense documents is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison
...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan,
map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1)
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or
delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,
or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of
custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to
his superior officer -- shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years,
or both."
And just like that, the farce that has heretofore been referred to as the "Russian meddling
probe" has been exposed for what it really is...an extremely compromised political "witch
hunt".
As the phony Russian Witch Hunt continues, two groups are laughing at this excuse for a lost
election taking hold, Democrats and Russians!
This is the Mueller-Comey FBI crime family at its finest. James Comey was an highly paid
executive at Lockheed Martin just prior to being named FBI director, replacing his close
buddy Mueller who was FBI director. LM was also a high contributor to the Clinton Foundation
in its glory days, with suspicious ties to Comey's lawyer brother. Dickie Mueller seems to be
the brains of the whole cabal.
Where are the emails between this stork and the fbi page named kelly that he was having an
interoffice affair with? Its been proved she hated OUR PRESIDENT TRUMP of US(A). This stork
guy won't be getting the attention from this fbi page that he is in an interoffice
relationship with unless he acts the way she wants. Seems like these emails should be easy to
get by the lamestream wapo, failing nytimes, fakest of fake news cnn, etc.
When Strzok made the change, he provided incontrovertible proof of the FBI's obstruction
of justice in the Clinton case, as this article clearly explains:
Zero of this happens if the President hadn't been hammering in a public way for
intelligence leaks to be plugged and calling out the FBI and Comey relentlessly.....I think
it's a pretty good bet that one of the twenty seven leak investigations going on caught this
idiot..No way an Inspector General just happened upon Storks texts...that takes some
"wiretapping" or other counter measures..Now the dam has burst...Anyone defending the FBI and
it's integrity at this point needs to be hung...
Brennan is probably one of the key figures in color revolution against Trump that was launched after the elections...
Looks like both Brennan and Clapper suffer from the acute case of Anti-Russian paranoia along with Full Spectrum Dominance
hallucinations.
Notable quotes:
"... In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the leaders of this campaign. ..."
"... The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations ..."
"... So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions? ..."
"... There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact." ..."
"... Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria. ..."
"... In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans. After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." . ..."
"... Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference" in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News) ..."
"... So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it? ..."
"... Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program ..."
"... So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA ..."
"... As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say. ..."
"... From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper. ..."
"... Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington establishment will never allow to happen. ..."
"... What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons. ..."
"... Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. ..."
"... Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it. ..."
"... Professional liars. But, there was some question/doubt about this? ..."
"... As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. ..."
On Sunday, Former CIA Director John Brennan and Former National Intelligence Director (NID) James Clapper appeared on CNN's morning
talk show, State of the Union, to discuss Donald Trump's brief meeting with Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. The two ex-Intel chiefs were
sharply critical of Trump and wondered why the president did not "not acknowledge and embrace" the idea that Russia meddled in the
2016 elections. According to Brennan, Russia not only "poses a national security problem" for the US, but also "Putin is committed
to undermining our system, our democracy, and our whole process."
Naturally, CNN anchor, Jake Tapper, never challenged Brennan or Clapper on any of the many claims they made regarding Russia nor
did he interrupt either man while they made, what appeared to be, carefully scripted remarks about Trump, Putin and the ongoing investigation.
There were no surprise announcements during the interview and neither Brennan or Clapper added anything new to the list of allegations
that have been repeated ad nauseam in the media for the last year. The only time Tapper veered off course at all was when he asked
Brennan whether he thought "any laws were broken by the Trump campaign? Here's what Brennan said:
I'm just a former intelligence officer. I never had the responsibility for determining whether or not criminal actions were
taken. But, since leaving office on the 20th of January, I think more and more of this iceberg is emerging above the surface of
the water, some of the things that I knew about, but some of the things I didn't know about, in terms of some of the social media
efforts that Russia employed. So, I think what Bob Mueller, who, again, is another quintessential public servant, is doing is
trying to get to the bottom of this. And I think we're going to find out how large this iceberg really is.
In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small
army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted
on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a
case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the
leaders of this campaign.
The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over
again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called
Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence
of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that
cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations. Here's the money-quote from the report:
Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected
information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.
So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such
judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the
entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately
trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions?
Here's Brennan again on Sunday:
I think Mr. Trump knows that the intelligence agencies, specifically CIA, NSA and FBI, the ones that really have responsibility
for counterintelligence and looking at what Russia does, it's very clear that the Russians interfered in the election. And it's
still puzzling as to why Mr. Trump does not acknowledge that and embrace it, and also push back hard against Mr. Putin. The Russian
threat to our democracy and our democratic foundations is real.
There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings
of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows
something to be a fact."
Why is it so hard for Brennan to wrap his mind around that simple, unambiguous statement? The reason Brennan's intelligence analysts
admit that they have no proof, is because they have no proof. That might sound obvious, but we have to assume that it isn't given
that both Houses of Congress and a Special Counsel are still bogged down in an investigation that has yet to provide even a solid
lead let alone any compelling evidence.
We also have to assume that most people do not understand that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the massive investigations
that are currently underway. (What probable cause?) Adds placed in Facebook do not constitute hard evidence of foreign espionage
or election rigging. They indicate the desperation of the people who are leading the investigation. The fact that serious people
are even talking about social media just underscores the fact that the search for proof has produced nothing.
These investigations are taking place because powerful elites want to vilify an emerging geopolitical rival (Russia) and prevent
Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, not because there is any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As the Intel analysts themselves
acknowledge, there is no proof of criminal wrongdoing or any other wrongdoing for that matter. What there is, is a political agenda
to discredit Trump and demonize Russia. That's the fuel that is driving the present campaign.
Russia-gate is not about 'meddling', it's about politics. And Brennan and Clapper are critical players in the current drama. They're
supposed to be the elder statesmen who selflessly defend the country from foreign threats. But are they or is this just role-playing
that doesn't square with what we already know about the two men? Here's thumbnail sketch of Clapper written by former-CIA officer
Ray McGovern that will help to clarify the point:
Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid
the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no
WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria.
In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans.
After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was
clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." .
Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference"
in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices
of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever,
which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News)
So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing
on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it?
He also lied about spying on the American people. Why? Why would he do that? And why should we trust someone who not only spied
on us but also paved the way to war in Iraq?
And the rap-sheet on Brennan is even worse than Clapper's. Check out this blurb from Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian:
"Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and
rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping
program
Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser . In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying
when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year .
Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in
Yemen – targeting people without even knowing who they are – and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for
execution without any due process, oversight or transparency .." ("John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director
nomination", Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian)
So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone
attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing
apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA
These radical militias have been defeated largely due to Russian military intervention. Do you think that this defeat at the hands
of Putin may have shaped Brennan's attitude towards Russia?
Of course, it has. Brennan never makes any attempt to conceal his hatred for Putin or Russia.
As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust
what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a
compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are
shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say.
Which is why the Russia-gate narrative is beginning to unravel.
From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than
that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper.
Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington
establishment will never allow to happen.
What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or
less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could
have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing
away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing
his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons.
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. He is an extreme leftist
and there should be an investigation into how this wacko was allowed to join the CIA – he openly admits voting for CPUSA chief
Gus Hall in 1976. Brennan is, besides, a resentful CIA failure.
He was denied entry to the elite Directorate of Operations (or couldn't cut the mustard and was banished from it) and spent
his career stewing away in anger as a despised analyst at CIA headquarters.
Brennan spent his time at CIA attempting to undermine the organization.
Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee
brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still
at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the
FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it.
We all know that the Russiagate narrative isn't starting to unravel and this and other (wholly untrustworthy) internet authors'
claims are not proved by simply repeating them over and over again (to borrow a phrase!). In fact, Russiagate is expanding. It
has gone from mere Russian interference in the election to dubious financial transactions between wealthy Americans, including
Trump, and, to put it very politely, "dubious" Russians. It has also expanded to Europe.
What is emerging, therefore, is a collusion between wealthy Americans, no doubt with major investments in Russia, US internet
sites, probably financed by the aforementioned wealthy Americans, dubious Russian financiers, Putin, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage
and no doubt others to manipulate, perhaps rig, elections and referenda in the US and Europe. It's not about politics. It's about
money and conflicts of interest.
We also get the now standard argument that Trump is just dying to "normalize" relations with Russia but is being held back
by some dastardly group or other. As we all know, of course, "normalizing relations with Moscow" in Orwellian translates into
English as "capitulating to Putin in Ukraine". Putin's frantic attempts to get Trump to let him win in Syria is why this old line
is suddenly back on the table.
Finally, the idea of the Russian Federation as an emerging geopolitical rival is amusing. That country has existed as a sovereign
state only for about 25 years and is merely the largest piece of wreckage from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a world that
is slowly being dominated by China, Russia is a very minor player.
Brennan and Clapper are agent provocateurs for the Zionists who control the U.S. government and the 17 gestapo agencies which
in fact are controlled by dual citizen Zionists ie ISRAEL.
Brennan and Clapper are under Zionist control and thus are traitors to the constitution of America and should be tried and
sent to prison for life.
It's not about politics. It's about money and conflicts of interest.
And since when are the three not related?
It's too bad that good people, like MW, need to waste their time and energy investigating and publishing what's obviously state
sponsored utter rubbish designed to support some of the money bag crowd in one way or another.
Why does it even need to be stated that most of what's supposed to be a big deal to us prols, peasants and piss ants is nothing
but propaganda, and of a particularly transparent and low grade variety,even?
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister.
Clapper told some whoppers while he was head of all our intelligence agencies under Obama. But you are correct that Brennan
is far more toxic. He was this way under Obama and post-Obama. He has been one of the biggest Trump saboteurs. And most effective.
One ugly customer!
Why should we care if the russians spent billions on trying to exert their influence on us, we do it we have an alphabet soup
of projects to do exactly that and god knows what else to every nation on earth.In fact we do it to our own people these social
websites and "news" sites universities media etc are nothing but one huge propaganda machine intended to render democracy nothing
more than a distraction so elites can go about doing what they want.
Long ago, when car radio's still had antennae long enough to receive long wave transmissions, I often listened to BBCW radio,
848 Mhz.
I still remember the statement 'you can always tell when a politician lies, he then moves his lips'.
Capitulating to Putin in Ukraine. The assertion is that the CIA spent five billion dollar in Ukraine in order to overthrow
the legitimate democratic government. Of course nobody can prove the assertion. What is crystal clear is that the members of EU
parliament Verhofstadt, Van Baalen and Timmermans held speeches in Kiev urging the people to overthrow the government.
Their speeches could be seen live on tv, or were rebroadcast.
Timmermans held the crocodile tears speech at the UN about the MH17 victims. How, why, and through whom over 300 people were
killed in Ukraine airspace we do not know until now. All there is is vague insinuations towards Russia, the country for which
the disaster was a disaster, EU sanctions all of a sudden were possible.
That the political annexation by the west failed is best seen in E Ukraine, where the wealth is, in gas and oil. A son, and
a son in law, of Biden, and Kerry were promised well paid jobs as CEO's of companies who were to exploit the E Ukrainian wealth,
they are still waiting for the jobs.
I remember when they actually prosecuted for someone for lying to Congress. Unfortunately, it was a former baseball player
named Roger Clemons over the vitally important question of whether or not he had taken steroids. Obviously a vital question that
every sports tabloid wants to know.
I just hope that the Russians realize that with enormous power comes enormous responsibility. I hope that they'll choose the next
US president wisely.
There is real danger there is -- now that we know that the Russians can elect pretty much anyone in the US – that come the
next elections, some charismatic, possibly independent candidate, might seduce the Russians with promises of improved ties, and
after they elect him, he might turn to be a real wacko job who might end up not only worsening the ties between the superpowers,
but he might end up destroying the world. Be cautious, Russians.
If we want to talk about meddling in the election ..
Lets compare CNN giving hours and hours of free and very favorable air time to the Hillary campaign?
versus
A news website paying for a handful of thousand dollar adds on Twitter?
I remember studies that showed that during the crooked, corrupt and rigged Democratic Primaries, that there was a large disparity
in favorable stories about Hillary versus the number that were favorable for Bernie. And CNN happily seemed to give lots of airtime
to any Hillary surrogate who wanted to red bait and smear Bernie as a socialist.
We saw the same sort of disparity in the amount of favorable coverage of Trump vs Hillary. Likewise, any Hillary surrogate
who wanted to spread the official campaign message that Trump was a racist, was a fascist, and said some rude things about women
was always welcome on the CNN airwaves.
And, just recently, we had the web page editor for the NYT state publicly that they deliberately tilted their web page stories
to convince voters to vote against Trump.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg if we want to talk about how the American corporate (aka mainstream) media tried very
hard to tilt the whole election towards putting the Crooked Clintons back into the White House.
But, OMG, the story in the same corrupt media is that awful and evil RT spend a whole thousand dollars on an ad trying to promote
their website.
As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can
take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press
Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine.
Hillary is the one who spend BILLIONS trying to become President. The only thing that so far has been traced to Russia is a
few hundred thousand in Twitter Ads that otherwise served the legitimate purpose of trying to promote the web news sites. And
most of those ads didn't concern political stories, but instead stories about cute puppies to draw clicks.
The interesting development is that, after no proof for the "Russian hacking" allegations could be found, they turned to simple
ads (for amounts that are extremely small compared to what the campaigns spent) and social media postings. This was accompanied
by loosening the criteria, they did not even pretend any more that they had indications that these social media activities were
connected to the Russian state, they just had to be "Russia-linked". In the case of Twitter, this includes anyone who has ever
logged in from Russia, uses Cyrillic signs in the account metadata (that could also be connected with a number of other countries),
logged in from a Russian IP address, paid something with a Russian credit card etc., and only one condition had to be fulfilled
for an account to be counted as "Russia-linked".
Of course, with such a large country, there are certainly some social media activities that are "linked" with it. There can
be many reasons – people who travel, migrants in both directions, or simply Russians with an interest in US politics. From what
is known, the ads and postings were so diverse – some right-wing and pro-Trump, some leftwing or critical of Trump, and many not
directly linked to the elections – and distributed over a large time with many after the elections that it does not seem too unlikely
as a result of social media activities of random people who have some connection with Russia.
Of course, we may speculate in each case, why someone posted something or bought an ad. But before speculating, it would be
necessary to have data about ads and social media postings linked to other countries. For example, it could be determined with
the same criteria which ads and postings were Brazile-linked, Germany-linked, and Philippines-linked. Probably, there, a similar
random collection would emerge. Only if there is something special about the Russia-linked ads and postings, it would even make
sense to speculate about the reasons.
We don't know whether these "Russia-linked" ads and social media positings were just random activities by people related to
Russia (e.g. about 2% of the US population have Russian as their native language, some may not have many contacts with Russia
any more and don't travel there regularly, but others do) or whether a part of them was the result of an organized campaign, but
in any case, from what was written in the media, the volume of these social media activities does not seem to be very large (but
in order to judge that, social media activities linked to other countries with the same criteria would be needed).
What I find hilarious is how people sometimes try to insert a collusion angle even if it is not about hacking, but about social
media ads and postings. This becomes completely absurd. Then, the idea is that Russians contacted the Trump campaign in order
to find out which ads they should buy and what they should post on social media. Why should they do so? If the Trump campaign
had ideas about what to post and what kind of ads to buy, why didn't they just do it themselves or via an American company? What
would be the point of the Trump campaign spending $564 million on the campaign, but then do a small part of the campaign via Russians
who then spent a few thousand dollars for buying ads and posting messages the Trump campaign had advised them to via "collusion"?
After all, if they had done it themselves or via an American intermediary, there would be nothing nefarious or suspicious about
this, this idea that for a very small part of their campaign, they colluded with Russians and told them what to post and which
ads to buy almost sounds as if they deliberately wanted to behave in a strange way that could then fit a preconceived collusion
narrative. And even if they had outsourced some small part of their campaign to a Russian company for some odd reasons, would
that make it nefarious?
I think the Russiagate theorists should at least make sure that their theories don't violate basic principles of common sense.
If they want to use the hacking story, the involvement of Russian secret services might theoretically make sense – it might not
be so easy for the Trump campaign to hack servers themselves (though phishing is hardly something so sophisticated that only secret
services can do it, we're not talking about something like Stuxnet), and something illegal would be involved. That is a theory
that could in principle make sense, the only problem is, that no evidence for this is available (and the Russians are certainly
not the only ones who might have had an interest in these mails, another plausible theory is that it was an insider who disliked
how the Clinton campaign took over the DNC early on and created better conditions for Clinton than for Sanders, and it could have
been any hacker who, for some reason disliked Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Podesta). If the Russiagate theorists switch over
to simple social media activity because there is no evidence for Russian secret services being responsible for giving e-mails
to Wikileaks, they also have to sacrifice the whole "collusion" part of the story. It might be that some Russians used social
media in an organized way, but to invent a story that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russians for a small part of their social
media election campaign hardly makes sense.
The only condition under which it might somehow make sense would be if someone thought Russians are intellectually vastly superior
to Americans and know much better what potential voters care about, and their capabilities are even vastly above Cambridge Analytics.
Then, it might somehow make sense for the Trump campaign to hand over a part of the social media activities to Russians, and this
might somehow be seen as an unfair advantage – but again, if, with that assumption, the Russians are intellectually so vastly
superior that can have a significant influence with very small amounts of money and works while the Trump and Clinton campaigns
spend billions, why would they have to "collude" with the Trump campaign, people who would be intellectually so much below them
according to that assumption? Maybe real genius for targeting potential voters only emerges when Americans and Russians with complementary
abilities collaborate? In any case, it is already very difficult just to construct a version of that theory that does not violate
basic principles of common sense.
Sarcasm is probably the only way to deal with it. I find myself all the time asking people if they are serious or joking. Sadly,
many claim they are serious.
Currently it seems that peaceful and productive relations with a foreign power are Bad Things.
Mr Putin did amusingly say one time to a ditzy US 'journalist':
"Have you all lost your minds over there?"
I really truly believe that the only way to force the stupids who came up with that ridiculous story about "Russia influencing
the elections" – to drop it – is to make incessantly fun of them until they finally realize how really truly stupid they are.
The facts support this viewpoint, including the dual citizen element of it. By the way, I oppose the death penalty except if
it is applied to major serial war criminals. I recognize that all legal systems are too corrupt to be given the power of life
and death, and that this is particularly true of the US system, which sets the benchmark for corruption. The corruption of the
US political system, meanwhile, is revealed by the fact that this absurd Russiagate story is still being peddled and is accepted
as received wisdom despite the manifold evidence proving its absurd falsity. What the article shows is that Clapper and Brennan
are serial war criminals and that their latest gambit threatens our very existence. We would be better off if the utopia of a
legal system incorruptible enough to allow for the death penalty did exist in the US rather than the corrupt system allowing somebody
like Mueller to act extra-legally on this absurd basis was continuing in operation. By the way, the Canadian satellite media is
still publishing stories trying to resuscitate the Steele dossier paid by the DNC and the yankee government as factual. The whole
thing would be comical if it were not deadly serious. Those still backing the story publicly are either dangerously deluded or
criminal themselves.
The U.S. gov is a criminal organization ran by criminal for criminals and sexual perverts and pedophiles , if interested, read
these two books , THE FRANKLIN COVERUP by the late John DeCamp and THE TRANCE FORMATIO of AMERICA by Cathy Obrien and see their
interviews on YouTube, the books can be had on amazon.com.
The books reveal a shocking look at the top ones in the demonrat and republicon parties, and I do mean shocking.
"The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as
a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international
mainstream media.
The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers They claim
that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to
be paid 5000 USD after the "job is done", they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and
Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command
of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger. The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous
Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car The weapons came on
stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. "There were three or four weapons in
each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges." – witnesses Nergadze.
The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos.
"I listened to the screams," recalls Revazishvili. "There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was
to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart."
Four years later, Revazishvili and his two companions report they have not yet received the promised 5000 USD bills as a payment
and have decided to tell the truth about those who "used and abandoned" them."
Well that was a clear picture of a sausage-making during the US-sponsored regime change in Ukraine. The neo-Nazi in the US-supported
"government" in Kiev came about naturally.
An addition to the previous post.
The Maidan revolution and its neo-Nazi consequence makes an amazing monument to the Kagans' clan:
"Thousands of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists marched in Kiev, Thursday, celebrating the 106th birthday of the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) leader Stepan Bandera [famous Nazis collaborator]. Among the main organisers were representatives
of Right Sector and Svoboda." https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a7_1420142767#gDHooVSL6b0yQ1SG.99
"Members of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Azov volunteer battalion and their ultranationalist civilian sympathizers have conducted
a torchlit procession in the center of the eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol, held under the slogan "coming after you!"
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_72571.shtml
The wide-spread desecration of Jewish cemetries by Ukrainian thugs (a post-Maidan phenomenon) has spilled to Poland: "Yet another
case of vandalism by Ukrainian nationalists is on the record in Poland. This time, an old Jewish cemetery in Kraków became the
target of thugs from the neighboring state. The graves of Polish Jews who died over a century ago were destroyed by those hot-blood
Ukrainians."
https://www.reddit.com/r/antisemitism/comments/5npnj5/ukrainian_nationalists_stand_behind_desecration/
"Vandals desecrated the Korinovskaya Jewish Cemetery in Kiev. They destroyed two entire sections: 27 and 28. These acts of
vandalism are very systematic: every night they destroy one or two headstones. According to the elderly women who look after the
place, these vandals are usually drunken youths who come there to wreak destruction. The Zaddik of Chernobyl is buried in this
cemetery. These vandals destroyed his gravestone, smearing Satanic Cult symbols on it."
When a particular MSN outlet call Intelligence assessment the work of "intelligence
community" and not a handful of analysis picked by Brannan and Clapper from just three agencies
(NSA, CIA and FBI) it ia fair to say it spreads propaganda in best Josef Gebbels tradition:
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle
is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and
over."
"Think of the press as a great keyboard on
which the government can play." ―
Joseph Goebbels
"That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails
to achieve the desired result. It is not propaganda's task to be intelligent, its task is to lead
to success."
―
Joseph Goebbels
Notable quotes:
"... CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently met -- at the urging of President Donald Trump -- with one of the principal deniers of Russian interference in the US election, according to multiple intelligence sources. ..."
"... The CIA responded to CNN's inquiry about the meeting by saying that Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 intelligence community assessment" that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election ..."
This is utterly untrue. In British court documents Mr. Steele has acknowledged he briefed
U.S. reporters about the dossier in September 2016. Those briefed included journalists from
the New York Times , the Washington Post, Yahoo News and others. Mr. Steele, by his own
admission (in an interview with Mother Jones), also gave his dossier in July 2016 to the FBI.
... ... ...
To that point, it is fair to ask if the entire Trump-Russia narrative -- which has played
a central role in our political discourse for a year, and is now resulting in a special
counsel issuing unrelated indictments -- is based on nothing more than a political smear
document. Is there any reason to believe the FBI was probing a Trump-Russia angle before the
dossier? Is there any collusion allegation that doesn't come in some form from the
dossier?
The idea that the federal government and a special counsel were mobilized -- that American
citizens were monitored and continue to be investigated -- based on a campaign-funded hit
document is extraordinary. Especially given that to this day no one has publicly produced a
single piece of evidence to support any of the dossier's substantive allegations about Trump
team members.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently met -- at the urging of President Donald Trump -- with
one of the principal deniers of Russian interference in the US election, according to
multiple intelligence sources. Trump apparently made the highly unusual request that Pompeo
meet with the former National Security Agency employee and look into a theory that the leak
of Democratic Party emails last year was an inside job rather than a cyberattack by Russian
hackers.
William Binney, the former NSA employee-turned-whistleblower who circulated the
conspiracy theory, confirmed to CNN that he met with Pompeo for about an hour on October 24
-- despite the fact the intelligence community concluded early this year that Russia
interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The meeting was first
reported by The Intercept.
The CIA responded to CNN's inquiry about the meeting by
saying that Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 intelligence community
assessment" that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
US President Donald Trump said he had "good discussions" with Russian leader Vladimir Putin
when they met briefly at an Asia-Pacific summit in Vietnam.
On Twitter, he blasted "haters and fools", who, he said, do not encourage good relations between
the countries.
Earlier he said Mr Putin told him he was insulted by allegations of Russian interference in the
2016 US election.
The US intelligence community has previously concluded that Russia tried to sway the poll in Mr
Trump's favour.
"He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election," the US president said.
However, after intense criticism, Mr Trump clarified hat he supported US intelligence agencies in
their conclusion. "As to whether or not I believe it or not, I'm with our agencies. I believe in
our... intelligence agencies," he said.
"What he believes, he believes," he added, of Mr Putin's belief that Russia did not meddle.
The two leaders had no formal bilateral talks during the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec)
event, but meet in passing on three occasions. They spoke about the Syria crisis and the election
allegations, according to Mr Trump.
"... Mark Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research. ..."
"... Before that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary ..."
"... The "Russian dossier," whose contents Trump has denied and which has been widely discredited, is believed to have led the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign and several Trump associates. ..."
"... Until now, Fusion GPS has continued to refuse to cooperate with congressional panels investigating Russian attempts to intervene in the election, and how the Obama administration probed those efforts. Democrats have also protected the company. ..."
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS to compile the "Russian dossier"
that triggered an FBI investigation into possible collusion between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government,
according to a
report Tuesday by the Washington Post .
A Republican had contracted first with Fusion GPS, and Clinton and the DNC continued to fund Fusion GPS's work, the report says.
According to the Post :
Mark Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the
research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI
and the U.S. intelligence community
Before that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October
2016, days before Election Day.
The "Russian dossier," whose contents Trump has denied and which has been widely discredited, is believed to have led the FBI
to investigate the Trump campaign and several Trump associates.
Until now, Fusion GPS has continued to refuse to cooperate with congressional panels investigating Russian attempts to intervene
in the election, and how the Obama administration probed those efforts. Democrats have also protected the company.
The revelation that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee were involved in procuring the salacious accusations
against Trump that fed their own later accusations of Russian interference in the election lends credence to those who, like Trump
himself, have regarded the Russia accusations as conspiracy theories.
Last week, Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journalobserved :
The Washington narrative is focused on special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. But the ferocious pushback and unseemly tactics
from Democrats suggest they are growing worried. Maybe the real story is that Democrats worked with an opposition-research firm
that has some alarming ties to Russia and potentially facilitated a disinformation campaign during a presidential election.
On the heels of revelations that the FBI was investigating Russian attempts to influence Hillary Clinton to approve a controversial
uranium deal, Democrats will have more questions to answer about possible collusion with Russia. The FBI, too, will face additional
scrutiny from Congress -- especially as it agreed to pay Steele after the election for additional research into Trump's potential
Russia ties.
One useful criteria to distinguish propaganda from honest analyst is to check if the
Intelligence assessment is called the product of "intelligence community" or group of handpicked
by Brennan and Clipper analysts from just three agencies (NSA, CIA, and FBI). This is very
similar to the test if some Western news out let call Magnitsky "a lawyer" or "an
accountant".
T he question why intelligence agencies used Steele dossier remain unanswered. and the answer
to this question if the key.
The forces against rapprochement with Russia are way too strong and include "foright policy
establishment", large part of Pentagon, defense contractors, intelligence agencies and their
contractors. Like any bureaucracies they want to expand much like cancel cells -- uncontrollably.
In this sense the intelligence agencies were dangerous for the US democracy from the moment of
their creation and remain so. The question that arise is " Is democracy compatible with the
existence of hypertrophied, almost out of control by "civic" government intelligence agency,
protected by secrecy of their operations? .
The main reason for their creation and existence in hypertrophied state was the existence of
the USSR. But in less twenty years from its creation CIA became dangerous for the US democracy
(in 1963 to be exact). And it probably remains dangerous now -- agency protected by secrecy and
having huge among of money in their disposal.
It is clear that the bet of intelligence agencies (at least NSA, CIA and FBI) in the last
lection was Hillary. Although it looks like FBI waved a bit. What they did to "help" her now
needs to be investigated using something like Church commission.
Notable quotes:
"... On Saturday, in his Air Force One remarks, Trump suggested that what he called the "artificial Democratic hit job" of investigations of possible collusion between his campaign and Russia were somehow preventing U.S.-Russia cooperation on a range of issues, including North Korea. "It's a shame," he said, "because people will die because of it." ..."
"... Putin, in his own news conference after speaking with Trump, said he knew "absolutely nothing" about Russian contacts with Trump campaign officials, and called reports that a campaign official met with his niece "bollocks," according to an interpreter. "They can do what they want, looking for some sensation," Putin said of the investigations. "But there are no sensations." ..."
"... On Saturday, Trump described the former top U.S. intelligence officials who concluded in January that the tampering took place -- including former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. and former CIA director John Brennan -- as "political hacks." He called former FBI director James B. Comey, who testified to Congress that Trump asked him to drop an investigation of his campaign's connections to Russian officials, a "liar" and a "leaker." ..."
"... Pompeo said last month that intelligence agencies had determined that Russian interference had not altered the electoral outcome ..."
President Trump said that President Vladimir Putin had assured him again Saturday that
Russia did not interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign, and indicated that he believed
Putin's sincerity, drawing immediate criticism from lawmakers and former intelligence officials
who assessed that the meddling took place.
"I asked him again," Trump said after what he described as several brief, informal chats
with Putin in Danang, Vietnam, where they were attending a regional conference. "You can only
ask so many times . . . He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. He
did not do what they are saying he did.
"I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it . . . I think he's
very insulted, if you want to know the truth," Trump told reporters traveling with him aboard
Air Force One from Danang to Hanoi, on the ninth day of a long Asia tour. Trump voiced similar
conclusions after his only previous meeting with Putin, last July in Germany.
Trump's response to questions about his conversations with Putin was a jarring return
to the more insular preoccupations of Washington after more than a week of what has been a trip
filled with pageantry and pledges of mutual admiration, but few substantive outcomes, between
Trump and Asian leaders.
Later, in a news conference Sunday in Hanoi with Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang, Trump
appeared to be trying to parse his earlier remarks, saying, "What I said is that I believe
[Putin] believes that.
"As to whether I believe it or not," he said, "I'm with our [intelligence] agencies,
especially as currently constituted.
"I want to be able . . . to get along with Russia," Trump said. "I'm not
looking to stand and argue with somebody when there are reporters standing all around."
Reporters were not permitted inside the hall where the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
conference was held in Danang.
... ... ...
On Saturday, in his Air Force One remarks, Trump suggested that what he called the
"artificial Democratic hit job" of investigations of possible collusion between his campaign
and Russia were somehow preventing U.S.-Russia cooperation on a range of issues, including
North Korea. "It's a shame," he said, "because people will die because of it."
Putin, in his own news conference after speaking with Trump, said he knew "absolutely
nothing" about Russian contacts with Trump campaign officials, and called reports that a
campaign official met with his niece "bollocks," according to an interpreter. "They can do what
they want, looking for some sensation," Putin said of the investigations. "But there are no
sensations."
On Saturday, Trump described the former top U.S. intelligence officials who concluded in
January that the tampering took place -- including former director of national intelligence
James R. Clapper Jr. and former CIA director John Brennan -- as "political hacks." He called
former FBI director James B. Comey, who testified to Congress that Trump asked him to drop an
investigation of his campaign's connections to Russian officials, a "liar" and a
"leaker."
Clapper said in a statement that "the president was given clear and indisputable evidence
that Russia interfered in the election. His own DNI and CIA director have confirmed the finding
in the intelligence community assessment. The fact that he would take Putin at his word over
the intelligence community is unconscionable."
Brennan declined to comment.
In a statement, the CIA said that Director Mike Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by
the January 2017 Intelligence Community assessment . . . with regard to Russian
election meddling." That position, it said, "has not changed." The assessment also concluded
that Russia had acted to promote Trump's victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Although
Pompeo said last month that intelligence agencies had determined that Russian interference
had not altered the electoral outcome , the assessment did not address that question.
Does this means that Trump now believes that this was Brenna's false flag operation? And why intelligence
agencies exploited Steele dossier against him?
Notable quotes:
"... "I mean, give me a break," Trump said. "So you look at it, I mean, you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he is proven now to be a leaker." ..."
The president disparaged officials who worked for Barack Obama, saying former CIA chief John Brennan,
ex-director of national intelligence James Clapper and James Comey,
the FBI director he fired in May , were "political hacks".
"I mean, give me a break," Trump said. "So you look at it, I mean, you have Brennan, you have
Clapper and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he is proven now to be a leaker."
He suggested he put more faith in Putin's word.
"Every time he sees me he says 'I didn't do that' and I really believe that when he tells me that,"
Trump said. "He really seems to be insulted by it and he says he didn't do it. He is very, very strong
in the fact that he didn't do it. You have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he has
nothing to do with that."
"... as Russiagate widens, it's becoming clear that some part of the US intelligence community and part of the US financial elite were involved in the manipulation of the 2016 election. ..."
"... The spooks have been trying (and failing!) for years to break up the EU ..."
"... As for the gangsters, nobody could compete with the thug (felon) Avigdor Lieberman in the Knesset and the neo-Nazi activists in Kevan government. Don't forget that Mr. Kolomojsky, an Israeli citizen and big-time criminal and financier of the neo-Nazi battalion Azov, is also a pillar of Jewish Community in Ukraine (and a darling of the Wall Street Journal) and that Mr. D. Alperovitch, the Russophobe who conducted the fraudulent analysis of the data with his fraudulent CrowdStrike, is from a ziocon company of Atlantic Council. The Tokyo Rose has been, of course, documented in a company of neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Oh? And what evidence would that be? The CrowdStrike report? The Steele dossier? James Comey's say-so? Or perhaps that of some other DNC contractor or Obama administration flunkee? Do come back and enlighten us when they find some real evidence–i.e., something that might actually stand an outside chance of winning a conviction in court. ..."
"... Precisely. Thanks for highlighting this succinct explanation. Those who point to intel agencies or career bureaucrats as Deep State are identifying the puppets, not the masters. Kudos to Whitney for getting it right. ..."
Michael Kenny, November 11, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT • 300 Words
Russiagate still scaring the daylights out of some people! The distinction between
"Hillary paid for it" and "Hillary fabricated it" has already been made umpteen times. The
reason, I think, why this author is trying to tie Hillary to the intelligence agencies and
the millionaires is because, as Russiagate widens, it's becoming clear that some part of
the US intelligence community and part of the US financial elite were involved in the
manipulation of the 2016 election.
A part of the US financial elite have invested heavily (and for the most part, legally) in
Russia but have thereby done business with some very dubious characters, some probably linked
to the Russian Mafia. Having installed their stooge in the Kremlin, the gangsters took the
logical next step and tried to install a stooge in the White House. The US elite was happy to
let the Russians have a slice of the cake but by manipulating the election, the gangsters
were in practice making a grab for the whole cake. The US elite wasn't willing to accept
that. Hence the current fight.
The spooks have been trying (and failing!) for years to break up the EU and what
both the US elite and the Russian gangsters had in mind was to carve up Europe between them
("spheres of influence"). The two projects came together in Ukraine. In other words, all of
this has very little to do with politics or international relations and a great deal to do
with dirty money.
Trying to pin that on Hillary is a rather flat-footed attempt to divert
attention away from the links between the Russian gangsters, the spooks and the Trump's
entourage.
"Trying to pin that on Hillary is a rather flat-footed attempt to divert attention away
from the links between the Russian gangsters, the spooks and the Trump's entourage."
We understand your frustration with the events in Syria. The ziocons' vicious hatred
towards Russians for the "loss" of Syria to the Syrian citizens (instead the
US/Israel/SA-sponsored ISIS) is evident.
As for the gangsters, nobody could compete with the thug (felon) Avigdor Lieberman in the
Knesset and the neo-Nazi activists in Kevan government. Don't forget that Mr. Kolomojsky, an
Israeli citizen and big-time criminal and financier of the neo-Nazi battalion Azov, is also a
pillar of Jewish Community in Ukraine (and a darling of the Wall Street Journal) and that Mr.
D. Alperovitch, the Russophobe who conducted the fraudulent analysis of the data with his
fraudulent CrowdStrike, is from a ziocon company of Atlantic Council. The Tokyo Rose has
been, of course, documented in a company of neo-Nazis.
Mike Whitney' paper has a hall mark of a courageous and principled person, whereas your
Russophobic insinuations have been Russophobic insinuations and nothing more.
Yeah, yeah. Poor, prosecuted Hillary is just a victim. Like all the rest of the poor,
prosecuted leftist sore losers. Or rather, losers, sore or otherwise.
Hillary has a long, long career playing in the sandbox with Murder Inc, Political
Division.
Of course, she will take the fall for failure. Mobsters whack other mobsters quite
frequently if they "fail"or are disloyal. And of course, glory-seekers like Hillary set themselves up for complete humiliation, at
minimum, when things don't go so well.
And yet and yet there is evidence that the Trump campaign was in contact with various
Russians all during the campaign.
Oh? And what evidence would that be? The CrowdStrike report? The Steele dossier? James
Comey's say-so? Or perhaps that of some other DNC contractor or Obama administration flunkee?
Do come back and enlighten us when they find some real evidence–i.e., something
that might actually stand an outside chance of winning a conviction in court.
And they too were looking for "dirt" -on Clinton.
Well that isn't too hard to find, is it! No need to go to the black market for that.
The question now is: to what extent was the Trump campaign conspiring with Russia to
subvert our election process? If they were involved in such a conspiracy, then the Trump
organization has violated Federal laws and should be held to account, each and every one
who so conspired.
Opposition research is not a crime. Nor is talking about US politics with foreign
nationals; if it were, I'd be guilty of treason on a weekly basis, since I now live in
Europe.
Although you may not like the source of the information nor its underlying purposes, if
it exposes criminal actions by anyone than it served a good cause.
This is hilarious! I can remember using almost exactly those same words with
Hillbots every time one of her corrupt schemes came to light. For example, isn't interceding
with the Attorney General on your wife's behalf to head off an investigation in to her before
an election a crime known as 'obstruction of justice'? Riddle me that, Batman.
Precisely. Thanks for highlighting this succinct explanation. Those who point to intel
agencies or career bureaucrats as Deep State are identifying the puppets, not the masters.
Kudos to Whitney for getting it right.
This is from July, 2017, before the most recent revelations...
Notable quotes:
"... Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo ..."
"... the weapons and ammunition are usual from east Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine ...) ..."
"... the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well as with Saudi and Israeli companies ..."
"... offloading during unusual "fueling stops" allowed to disguise the real addressee of the loads ..."
"... With lots of details from obtained emails. Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also came first from Libya by ship, then on at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years by various ships under U.S. contracts from mostly east-European countries. ..."
"... A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel... ..."
"... there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier. ..."
"... there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media. ..."
"... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6 and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort to dump Trump. ..."
"... Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin years of the 90s. ..."
"... Is RussiaGate Really IC-Gate Did MI6/CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump? ..."
Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic
cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo
the weapons and ammunition are usual from east Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine
...)
the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well
as with Saudi and Israeli companies
offloading during unusual "fueling stops" allowed to disguise the real addressee of the
loads
With lots of details from obtained emails. Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also
came first from Libya by ship, then on
at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years
by
various
ships under U.S. contracts from
mostly east-European
countries.
---
With all the Trump-Russia nonsense flowing around one person's involvement in the creation of
the issue deserves more scrutiny:
McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier. The third time is the Charm. I am reminded. McCain can do no wrong:
His service to his country (it's alleged, by aiding the enemy);
The Keating Five; (I dindu nuttin wrong)
The Trump-Russia Dossier (by political treason stabbing the nominee of his own Party; ignoring
the words of Reagan). McCain, once again, will be excused and forgiven. His actions were due to illness – the most
aggressive cancer of the brain. How is that so?
Thanks b, the mountain of evidence you provide daily, as proof of the corporate empire's malignancy,
is therapeutic and empowering, but, until this information reaches the bulk of the U$A's masses
we're all just treading water here.
@2: The last thing McCain has to worry about is prosecution or even criticism for fomenting war
crimes. The cancer is real and he will be lauded for his courage and lionized if he dies. But
should he survive he will carry on as usual with no apologies and no criticism.
Sorry b .... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two
weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6
and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot
by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort
to dump Trump.
A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The
connection between them is starting to unravel...
there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the
infamous Steele dossier.
there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media.
the issue is now in front of a British court.
Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin
years of the 90s.
Is RussiaGate Really IC-Gate Did MI6/CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump?
'Sir' Andrew Wood as spy chief in Moscow
Fusion GPS linked to UAE Sheikh and Rubio Donor
Peter W. Smith Tapped Alt-Right to Access Dark Net for Clinton emails – linked to Charles
C. Johnson – Stephen Bannon - Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the alias 'Weev', "exiled"
to the Ukraine
Thanks, b. Love the lede... 350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for ter'rists - Trud
What a slimy little cur John McCain (Satan's Mini-Me) turns out to be. Guess how surprised
I'm not that the little skunk is up to his eyeballs in weapons proliferation & profiteering, not
to mention that old Yankee favourite Gun-barrel "Diplomacy".
I suspected during the Prez Campaign that Trump had McCain well and truly scoped when he said
(of Satan's Mini-Me) "I like my war "heroes" not to get captured."
This story says a lot for China & Russia's approach to long-term Strategic Diplomacy. I imagine
that they both know all this stuff and a helluva lot more, but they go to all the summits, prattle
about Our AmeriKKKan Friends, and then presumably laugh their asses off when the summit is over.
Xi & Putin seem to truly believe that the blowback from all this Yankee Duplicity will eventually
do as much harm to the American Dream as an Ru/Cn Military Solution.
@james 8
[Reported by Independent.co.uk, New York Post and the Guardian.co.uk] McCain admitted he handed
the dossier to Comey."
NYPost: McCain "I gave Russia blackmail dossier on Trump to the FBI"
Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging
secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally
compromising material on the president-elect himself
Yes, there will be no accountability in the U.S. for the exceptional ones. However, the British
courts setting aside "special relationships" may take a different view that McCain has a case
to answer.
Craven McCain has been teflon for his entire political career and he was teflon when he wrecked
airplanes in the navy. McCain is just a teflon guy. Untouchable. Probably has "dossiers" on anybody
that can damage him.
@2 I have no doubt that McCain's medical condition is real. I well remember the news stories in
early June when McCain put up a bizarre performance during testimony by James Comey - asking questions
that simply didn't make any sense whatsoever and leaving everyone utterly gob-smacked regarding
McCain's mental state.
Possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans
and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats. If
for a moment one could remove the often justified hatred many people feel toward Trump, it would be
impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been devised by the DNC and the Clinton
camp in league with Obama's intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims. In other
words this is a sophisticated false flag operation.
Even more alarmingly (what really smells like a part on intelligence agencies coup d'état against
Trump ) is the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts
from three U.S. intelligence agencies - the CIA, the FBI and the NSA - not all 17 agencies that Hillary
Clinton continues to insist were involved. (Obama's intelligence chiefs, DNI Clapper and CIA Director
John Brennan, publicly admitted that only three agencies took part and The New York Times printed a
correction saving so.)
Notable quotes:
"... Well its three . And one is Brennan . And one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They're political hacks . So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey . Comey's proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So you look at that. ..."
"... Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of "Russian hacking": Podesta and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack, the NYT's long false insistence on the '17 agencies' assessment, the "political hacks" who fitted their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative. ..."
"... But neither the Washington Post nor the NY Times or others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is no word on the DNC servers in them. Instead they create a claim of "Putin says and Trump just believes him". The do not name the facts and questions Trump listed to support his position. Taking up the valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them. We can't have that. ..."
"... Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies. But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else. ..."
"... I guess it could be that the DNC really was hacked, but maybe they faked the hack story, fed the story to Crowdstrike, then paid Crowdstrike a lot of money to fabricate a fairytale about Russian hacking... ..."
"... This Russian fairytale would be the bedrock of Hillary's campaign, and it gave her a reason to badmouth trump who intended to get along with Putin, which deeply offended the neocon Bolsheviks who've been running things since 9/11 ..."
"... If the hacking really happened, it's maybe more likely to have been the US NSA that did the hacking... that might explain why the DNC and Hillary were not alarmed by the hacking --if it happened-- and did nothing about it, and continued to write incriminating emails... ..."
"... Russia gate is Really Hillary Gate... And that's just the beginning as we consider the DNC lid coming off via Donna Brazile and the Uranium scandal. Mueller has been gatekeeper for the Deep State for OKC bombing, 911,...other False Flag...and now today's Intrigues. ..."
"... Back when Trump looked like he was in the running in the US presidential election, I wondered how one man, even if he was genuine, could without the backing of US intelligence, take down the deepstate/borg/whatever. Putin pulled Russia out of the nineties with key backing from patriotic intelligence and military leadership, but Trump even if genuine would be on his own. Just ordered 'Art of the deal' to try and understand Trump a bit more. Looks like he has just destroyed a big chunk of deep state financing so will be interesting to see how long he can stay alive. ..."
"... well, Mueller declined to find 9/11 evidence against bin laden... or maybe we should say, "he declined to manufacture evidence"... for some unkown reason... ..."
"... Can we just face the facts here that there is a coordinated effort by these elite to get Trump dethroned? What reason for this? Simple...he's a threat. ..."
"... Mike Whitney posted a great piece this week suggesting Brennan, Obama's political 'hack', is behind this mess - "Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the public?" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48172.htm ..."
"... These are but a few sources digging and reporting on these bogus charges against Putin. I'd like to believe the majority of the U.S. electorate isn't being fooled by the nonsense. I can't speak for those who choose to remain inside the brainwashing corporate media bubble, but for those of us who divorced ourselves from their propaganda long ago ain't buying nor ever did buy into the muh Russia crap. ..."
"... Meanwhile, USG declares RT and Sputnik to be foreign agents and must register as such -- and Trump had nothing to do with that?!? ..."
"... The media is now now in permanent psy op mode, colonizing the public's mind and jamming people's ability to reason, think critically and even tell fact from fiction. It is only a matter of time before overt repression becomes widespread (to protect our freedoms of course) and the last remnants of democracy give way to an Orwellian/Huxleyite dystopia. ..."
"... CNN covers the Binney/Pompeo meeting, and describes Binney in the headline as a "conspiracy theorist": http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/mike-pompeo-william-binney-meeting/index.html ..."
Trump Points To Falsehoods In "Russian Hacking" Claims - Media Still Ignore Them
During the flight of his recent Asia tour U.S. President Donal Trump held a press gaggle on board
of the plane. Part of it were questions and answers about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S.
election.
There is no public transcript available yet but the Washington Post's Mark Berman
provided a screenshot
of some relevant parts:
Mark Berman @markberman - 6:20 AM - 11 Nov 2017
Full comment from @realDonaldTrump again questioning the US intel community conclusion that
Russia meddled last year
In the attached transcript Trump talks about his very short encounter with the Russian President
Putin in Hanoi:
Q: When did you bring up the issue of election meddling? Did you ask him a question?
A: Every time he sees me he says he didn't do that and I really believe that when he tells
me that, he means it. But he says, I didn't do that. I think he is very insulted by it, ...
...
He says that very strongly and he really seems to be insulted by it he says he didn't do it.
Q: Even if he didn't bring it up one-on-one, do you believe him?
A: I think that he is very, very strong on the fact that didn't do it. And then you look and
you look what's going on with Podesta , and you look at what's going on with the server from the
DNC and why didn't the FBI take it ? Why did they leave it? Why did a third party look at the
server and not the FBI ? You look at all of this stuff, and you say, what's going on here? And
you hear it's 17 agencies. Well its three . And one is Brennan . And one is whatever. I mean,
give me a break. They're political hacks . So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have
Clapper and you have Comey . Comey's proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So
you look at that. And you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently say he has nothing
to do with that. Now, you are not going to get into an argument, you are going to start talking
about Syria and the Ukraine.
Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of "Russian hacking": Podesta
and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack,
the NYT's long false insistence on the '17 agencies' assessment, the "political hacks" who fitted
their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative.
But
neither the Washington Post
nor the NY Times or
others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is
no word on the DNC servers in them. Instead they create a claim of "Putin says and Trump just believes
him". The do not name the facts and questions Trump listed to support his position. Taking up the
valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them.
We can't have that.
Instead we get more "Russian influence" claptrap. Like this from the once honorable Wired
which headlines:
Russian interference in Brexit through targeted social media propaganda can be revealed for the
first time. A cache of posts from 2016, seen by WIRED, shows how a coordinated network of Russian-based
Twitter accounts spread racial hatred in an attempt to disrupt politics in the UK and Europe.
Interesting, enthralling, complicate and sensational ...
... until you get down to paragraph 14(!):
Surprisingly, all the posts around Brexit in this small snapshot were posted after the June vote
"Russian agents" influenced the U.S. election by buying mostly
irrelevant Facebook ads - 25% of which were never seen by anyone and 56% of which were posted
AFTER the election
"Russian-based Twitter accounts" influenced the Brexit vote in the UK by tweeting affirmative
AFTER the vote happened
Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies.
But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by
lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with
Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else.
"Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies.
But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political
hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran
and probably everyone else."
I couldn't agree more B. The distraction to cover up the DNC crimes and the 'pay to play' antics
during HRC's tenure at SECState are part of this nonsense as well.
the term "hacked" implies that someone came in on the internet, right?
I guess it could be that the DNC really was hacked, but maybe they faked the hack story,
fed the story to Crowdstrike, then paid Crowdstrike a lot of money to fabricate a fairytale about
Russian hacking...
This Russian fairytale would be the bedrock of Hillary's campaign, and it gave her a reason
to badmouth trump who intended to get along with Putin, which deeply offended the neocon Bolsheviks
who've been running things since 9/11
If the hacking really happened, it's maybe more likely to have been the US NSA that did
the hacking... that might explain why the DNC and Hillary were not alarmed by the hacking --if
it happened-- and did nothing about it, and continued to write incriminating emails...
...they assumed the hackers were on their side
OK, then, if the hacking was a fairytale, made up by Debbie and Hillary, and reinforced by
Crowdstrike, then what? Maybe it doesn't make any difference in the long run, if the DNC was hacked
or not
Whatever happened, the emails got out, Assange strongly hints that Seth Rich was the leak,
Seth Rich was murdered, and his murder was intended to be a warning to people like Donna Brazile,
who, after Seth was murdered, started drawing her office blinds because she didn't want to be
sniped... presumably by the people who murdered Seth Rich
Russia gate is Really Hillary Gate... And that's just the beginning as we consider the DNC
lid coming off via Donna Brazile and the Uranium scandal. Mueller has been gatekeeper for
the Deep State for OKC bombing, 911,...other False Flag...and now today's Intrigues.
Will
Podesta and Hillary escape?...or get Prison? John McCain with ISIS and photo opp,.. Evil in your
face 24. If certain people are not in Prison....Mueller could wear the label Satan's guardian.
..and it wouldn't be exaggeration
Back when Trump looked like he was in the running in the US presidential election, I wondered
how one man, even if he was genuine, could without the backing of US intelligence, take down the
deepstate/borg/whatever. Putin pulled Russia out of the nineties with key backing from patriotic
intelligence and military leadership, but Trump even if genuine would be on his own. Just ordered
'Art of the deal' to try and understand Trump a bit more. Looks like he has just destroyed a big
chunk of deep state financing so will be interesting to see how long he can stay alive.
well, Mueller declined to find 9/11 evidence against bin laden... or maybe we should say,
"he declined to manufacture evidence"... for some unkown reason...
whatever, if seth rich's murder was an attempt to terrorize politicians and the media into
parroting the party line --like the anthrax letters did after 9/11-- it worked
b, it is so funny that everytime you allude to Trump being in the right against the teeming hordes
or globalist, anti-Russia elites, you always offer the caveat: "but...he's a bastard and I hate
him."
Can we just face the facts here that there is a coordinated effort by these elite to get
Trump dethroned? What reason for this? Simple...he's a threat.
Enemy of my enemy anyone?
P.s. I view him as an opportunist. a chameleon. At the very least, perhaps he realizes the
absolute absurdity of trying to keep the house of cards aloft in the ME. So far, no wars, and
a de-escalation in Syria. Pundits are talking about 3+% growth in US for first time in decade.
I dont't know...perhaps Donald can cut and run in time to salvage some of the US prosperity.
I'm almost inclined to think Trump is letting this Russian hack thing play out on purpose despite
his Tweets to the contrary. Preventing the feds from 'investigating' it wouldn't make it go away,
it would just cement the notion of guilt and a cover-up into the anti-Trump, anti-Russian segment
of the public. More importantly, the similarly-inclined political/government leaders (pro-Hillary,
DNC, politicized FBI and intel, neocons, deep state, whatever...) and MSM slowly expose themselves
for what they are. They get too confident in the big lie actually working and go into a feeding
frenzy. Trump trolls them on Twitter and they go insane.
When you want to catch sharks, you don't chase them around the ocean to hunt them. You
chum the waters and wait
for them to come to you. Trump isn't the one chumming the waters here - he's letting the sharks
do that themselves.
I scratched my head like everyone else trying to figure out Trump's earlier incomprehensible
hiring/firing volley his first few months. Maybe that was just a bit of theatre. Trump might not
understand the 'little people' too much, but he does understand his opponent psychopaths (corporate,
banking or government/intel) and how to use their basic flaws against them. 'Draining the swamp'
sells well, but letting his opponents stick their necks out far enough before Trump's own Night
of the Long Knives would (to me) be a far more effective strategy towards his ends. And probably
much safer for him than Kennedy's approach.
Kind of worrying that one has to rely on outsider psychopaths to cull other psychopath's well-entrenched
herds within the US government. Does that ever turn out well?
Only the most strident partisans hold tightly to the Russian interference nonsense.
Those who simply want to deal in facts bother ourselves to self inform using multiple sources
who have been trying to make sense of the dastardly twists and turns in this muh Russia whodunit
scandal. The DNC emails, dossier, collusion the whole escapade, from the beginning, could be seen
as being built on nothing more than quicksand.
Mike Whitney posted a great piece this week suggesting Brennan, Obama's political 'hack',
is behind this mess - "Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early
as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing
his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered
no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded
Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants
at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the
public?" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48172.htm
And then you have the Intercept's piece on Binney's meeting with CIA's Pompeo with Ray McGovern
providing a lot more detail and an interview with his favorite news outlet RT -
http://raymcgovern.com/
Oh, and about Binney's meeting with Pompeo? Trump requested Pompeo meet with him. He did. But
Pompeo, as of today, remains steadfast in supporting the ICA crap report Obama's political intel
hacks put out.
These are but a few sources digging and reporting on these bogus charges against Putin.
I'd like to believe the majority of the U.S. electorate isn't being fooled by the nonsense. I
can't speak for those who choose to remain inside the brainwashing corporate media bubble, but
for those of us who divorced ourselves from their propaganda long ago ain't buying nor ever did
buy into the muh Russia crap.
we got to wonder why donna brazile made such a fuss about Seth Rich. She's being way too cagey
for comfort but even if we leave seth rich out of it, none of it make any sense
Also from a Youtube video I saw earlier there are claims this is what is happening.
1. Obama regime was chronically corrupt including sell of Uranium to Russia for bribes. Elements
of the US military and intelligence were disgusted by this and approached Trump BEFORE the elections
as a figure who could help them.
2. Trump decided to work with them and during his election campaign he deliberately made constant
exaggerated claims of his supposed friendship with Putin, this was bait for the Democrats to smear
him as a Putin-lover, Putin puppet.
3. Once elected, the whole "Trump is a Putin puppet" was allowed to run so that a huge demand
for some sort of investigation in to Trump and his Russia links could be built. Only this investigation
would in fact be used to target the Democrats and Clinton including for their corruption over
the Uranium sales with the Russians.
4. This was apparently (according to these claims) the game plan from the beginning and Mueller
is apparently going to work to convict Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats.
I don't know how true this is, but it does answer a lot of questions and anomalies and also
ties in with B's thesis that we are essentially seeing a quasi-military government in D.C. under
Trump.
@ PavewayIV who ended his comment with: "Kind of worrying that one has to rely on outsider psychopaths
to cull other psychopath's well-entrenched herds within the US government. Does that ever turn
out well? "
Yep! And we add our textual white noise to the rearranging of the deck chairs on
the top deck of the good ship Humanity as it careens over the falls/into the shoals/pick-your-metaphor
psychohistorian@14 - Captain to crew: "I will not have this ship go down looking
like a garbage scow. Deck chairs will be arranged in a neat and orderly manner at all times!"
The same media you're decrying here is also ignoring this week's paradise papers revelations
about Wilbur Ross, Trump's commerce secretary and business links with Russian Israeli mobsters
and oligarchs like Mogilevich.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMhzkvWuXEM
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true. The other is to refuse
to believe what is true. Can't fix stupid sociopathy. I pity deplorable goyims, They deserve their
plight...
Please someone end this idiot circus! Russia hacked THE ELECTION ...hacked THE ELECTION ??? For
the love of gawd..the ELECTION, meaning the voting was hacked.....it was NOT. Nothing has focused
on Russian 'hacking' of VOTES. Russia 'if' they hacked, at best hacked some emails and info used
to expose Hillary. And posted negative info on the net. So, so what? How many leakers weren't
doing that?
I have had it with the Dems, they have IQs somewhere below that of cabbages. But
I guess there are a certain number of citizens that will believe anything if it is repeated enough
by their herd leaders.
All this pathetic, lousy street theater resembling staging can only serve one important reason:
Distraction. What is it that people need to be distracted from? That the US has turned openly
into a military dictatorship? That the extermination proceedings are speeding up?
Hitler used
gas chambers, as did the US after the war. While the first was a psychopathic dictator, the latter
is a psychopathic society. It has spend trillions in research and design of lethal weapons and
systems to exterminate any 'enemy'.
With all the technological progress, people do no longer need to be dragged to a gas chamber.
The gas chamber will come to them. Sprayed into the atmosphere and making its way into earth's
life systems.
Trump, Dump, Busch, Koch, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon - plutocratic hand puppets. It is not the
people who decide where and when the ship sinks. It will be sunken for them - with all the useless
eaters on board.
Trump is too stupid to realize that the very reason the election was rigged in his favour was
- the derailment of ANY ZIO/US/Russia relations !! Their top priority ( as always) has been to
keep Russia and Germany apart ! Russia's 'resources' and German 'innovation' is a match made in
heaven - would spell the end of the US economy !
Not only did the Propaganda System refuse to correctly report as b details, but nowhere has it
mentioned the defeat of Daesh, as Pepe Escobar discloses: "This is History in the making.
"And right on cue, VIRTUALLY NOTHING about this REAL ON THE GROUND VICTORY OF
A REAL WAR ON TERROR is being covered by Western corporate media.
"No wonder. Because this was the work of Damascus, Russia, Hezbollah, Iran advisers, Baghdad
and the PMUs – actually the "4+1" - and not the US-led "coalition" that includes Wahhabi mongrels
House of Saud and UAE - that totally smashes to bits the monochord Washington narrative.
The war on Syria and the Russian "hacking" debacle has corrupted the entire western media. Not
that it was ever squeaky clean - far from it - but it was at least somewhat independent from the
dominant establishment. There were pauses between the outrageous lies and blatant fact twisting
and it did not overtly shill for neoliberal political parties and work overtime pushing massive
amounts of propaganda on the public 24/7/365 and relentlessly demonize, in the most crude fashion
imaginable, the leaders of some of the the world's most powerful countries and any sovereign nation
that values its independence and freedom from Western exploitation.
The media is now now in permanent psy op mode, colonizing the public's mind and jamming
people's ability to reason, think critically and even tell fact from fiction. It is only a matter
of time before overt repression becomes widespread (to protect our freedoms of course) and the
last remnants of democracy give way to an Orwellian/Huxleyite dystopia.
If by chance Trump or anyone is genuine about taking down the deep state, they cannot do it
by running around in a pathetic attempt trying to fix small issues. They would have to leave the
machine to carry on as normal and go for its foundations. I thought about this months ago, and
now looking at the latest events, this could be what is happening.
Meanwhile a revolution threatening the federation of Australia is taking place in Canberra utilizing
a formless and compliant press corps and a fake issue of dual citizenship. Chaos is a disease
agent which has jumped out of the Middle Eastern laboratory into all western nations.
"... As Russia-gate continues to buffet the Trump administration, we now know that the "scandal" started with Democrats funding
the original dubious allegations of Russian interference, notes Joe Lauria. ..."
As Russia-gate continues to buffet the Trump administration, we now know that the "scandal" started with Democrats funding
the original dubious allegations of Russian interference, notes Joe Lauria.
By Joe Lauria
The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled in the 2016 election -- without providing convincing
evidence -- were both paid for by the Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by the Clinton campaign: the
Steele dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers. Think about that for a minute.
We have long known that the DNC did not allow the FBI to examine its computer server for clues about who may have hacked it –
or even if it was hacked – and instead turned to CrowdStrike, a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian. Within
a day, CrowdStrike blamed Russia on dubious evidence.
And, it has now been disclosed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC
paid for opposition research memos written by former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele using hearsay accusations
from anonymous Russian sources to claim that the Russian government was blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump in a scheme that presupposed
that Russian President Vladimir Putin foresaw Trump's presidency years ago when no one else did.
Since then, the U.S. intelligence community has struggled to corroborate Steele's allegations, but those suspicions still colored
the thinking of President Obama's intelligence chiefs who, according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, "hand-picked"
the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 "assessment" claiming that Russia interfered in the U.S. election.
In other words, possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans and members
of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats.
If for a moment one could remove the sometimes justified hatred that many people feel toward Trump, it would be impossible to
avoid the impression that the scandal may have been cooked up by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama's intelligence
chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims.
Absent new evidence based on forensic or documentary proof, we could be looking at a partisan concoction devised in the midst
of a bitter general election campaign, a manufactured "scandal" that also has fueled a dangerous New Cold War against Russia; a case
of a dirty political "oppo" serving American ruling interests in reestablishing the dominance over Russia that they enjoyed in the
1990s, as well as feeding the voracious budgetary appetite of the Military-Industrial Complex.
Based on what is now known, Wall Street buccaneer Paul Singer paid for GPS Fusion, a Washington-based research firm, to do opposition
research on Trump during the Republican primaries, but dropped the effort in May 2016 when it became clear Trump would be the GOP
nominee. GPS Fusion has strongly
denied that it hired
Steele for this work or that the research had anything to do with Russia.
Then, in April 2016 the DNC and the Clinton campaign
paid its Washington lawyer Marc Elias to hire Fusion GPS to unearth dirt connecting Trump to Russia. This was three months before
the DNC blamed Russia for hacking its computers and supposedly giving its stolen emails to WikiLeaks to help Trump win the election.
"The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee
retained Fusion GPS
to research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, his campaign team and Russia, court filings revealed this
week," The New York Times
reported on Friday
night.
So, linking Trump to Moscow as a way to bring Russia into the election story was the Democrats' aim from the start.
Fusion GPS then hired ex-MI6 intelligence agent Steele, it says for the first time, to dig up that dirt in Russia for the Democrats.
Steele produced classic opposition research, not an intelligence assessment or conclusion, although it was written in a style and
formatted to
look like one.
It's important to realize that Steele was no longer working for an official intelligence agency, which would have imposed strict
standards on his work and possibly disciplined him for injecting false information into the government's decision-making. Instead,
he was working for a political party and a presidential candidate looking for dirt that would hurt their opponent, what the Clintons
used to call "cash for trash" when they were the targets.
Had Steele been doing legitimate intelligence work for his government, he would have taken a far different approach. Intelligence
professionals are not supposed to just give their bosses what their bosses want to hear. So, Steele would have verified his information.
And it would have gone through a process of further verification by other intelligence analysts in his and perhaps other intelligence
agencies. For instance, in the U.S., a National Intelligence Estimate requires vetting by all 17 intelligence agencies and incorporates
dissenting opinions.
Instead Steele was producing a piece of purely political research and had different motivations. The first might well have been
money, as he was being paid specifically for this project, not as part of his work on a government salary presumably serving all
of society. Secondly, to continue being paid for each subsequent memo that he produced he would have been incentivized to please
his clients or at least give them enough so they would come back for more.
Dubious Stuff
Opposition research is about getting dirt to be used in a mud-slinging political campaign, in which wild charges against candidates
are the norm. This "oppo" is full of unvetted rumor and innuendo with enough facts mixed in to make it seem credible. There was
so much dubious stuff in Steele's
memos that the FBI was unable to confirm its most salacious allegations and apparently refuted several key points.
Perhaps more significantly, the corporate news media, which was largely partial to Clinton, did not report the fantastic allegations
after people close to the Clinton campaign began circulating the lurid stories before the election with the hope that the material
would pop up in the news. To their credit, established media outlets recognized this as ammunition against a political opponent,
not a serious document.
Despite this circumspection, the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently
became the basis for
the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against members of Trump's campaign. More alarmingly, it may have
formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence
"assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from
three U.S. intelligence agencies – the CIA, the FBI and the NSA – not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were
involved. (Obama's intelligence chiefs, DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan, publicly admitted that only three agencies took
part and The New York Times
printed a correction
saying so.)
If in fact the Steele memos were a primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against Trump, then there may be no credible
evidence at all. It could be that because the three agencies knew the dossier was dodgy that there was no substantive proof in the
Jan. 6 "assessment." Even so, a summary of the Steele allegations were included in a secret appendix that then-FBI Director James
Comey described to then-President-elect Trump just two weeks before his inauguration.
Five days later, after the fact of Comey's briefing was leaked to the press, the Steele dossier was published
in full by the sensationalist website BuzzFeed behind the excuse that the allegations' inclusion in the classified annex of a
U.S. intelligence report justified the dossier's publication regardless of doubts about its accuracy.
Russian Fingerprints
The other source of blame about Russian meddling came from the private company CrowdStrike because the DNC blocked the FBI from
examining its server after a suspected hack. Within a day, CrowdStrike claimed to find Russian "fingerprints" in the metadata of
a DNC opposition research document, which had been revealed by an Internet site called DCLeaks, showing Cyrillic letters and the
name of the first Soviet intelligence chief. That supposedly implicated Russia.
CrowdStrike also claimed that the alleged Russian intelligence operation was extremely sophisticated and skilled in concealing
its external penetration of the server. But CrowdStrike's conclusion about Russian "fingerprints" resulted from clues that would
have been left behind by extremely sloppy hackers or inserted intentionally to implicate the Russians.
CrowdStrike's credibility was further undermined when Voice of America
reported
on March 23, 2017, that the same software the company says it used to blame Russia for the hack wrongly concluded that Moscow also
had hacked Ukrainian government howitzers on the battlefield in eastern Ukraine.
"An influential British think tank and Ukraine's military are disputing a report that the U.S. cyber-security firm CrowdStrike
has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election," VOA reported. Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike
co-founder, is also a senior fellow at the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank in Washington.
More speculation about the alleged election hack was raised with WikiLeaks' Vault 7 release, which revealed that the CIA is not
beyond covering up its own hacks by leaving clues implicating others. Plus, there's the fact that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
has declared again and again that WikiLeaks did not get the Democratic emails from the Russians. Buttressing Assange's denials of
a Russian role, WikiLeaks associate Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, said he met a person connected to the
leak during a trip to Washington last year.
And, William Binney, maybe the best mathematician to ever work at the National Security Agency, and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern
have published a technical analysis
of one set of Democratic email metadata showing that a transatlantic "hack" would have been impossible and that the evidence points
to a likely leak by a disgruntled Democratic insider. Binney has further stated that if it were a "hack," the NSA would have been
able to detect it and make the evidence known.
Fueling Neo-McCarthyism
Despite these doubts, which the U.S. mainstream media has largely ignored, Russia-gate has grown into something much more than
an election story. It has unleashed a neo-McCarthyite attack on Americans who are accused of being dupes of Russia if they dare question
the evidence of the Kremlin's guilt.
Just weeks after last November's election, The Washington Post
published a front-page story
touting a blacklist from an anonymous group, called PropOrNot, that alleged that 200 news sites, including Consortiumnews.com and
other leading independent news sources, were either willful Russian propagandists or "useful idiots."
Last week, a new list emerged with the names of over 2,000 people,
mostly Westerners, who have appeared on RT, the Russian government-financed English-language news channel. The list was part of a
report entitled, "The Kremlin's Platform for 'Useful Idiots' in the West," put out by an outfit called European Values, with a
long list of European funders.
Included on the list of "useful idiots" absurdly are CIA-friendly Washington Post columnist David Ignatius; David Brock, Hillary
Clinton's opposition research chief; and U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres.
The report stated: "Many people in Europe and the US, including politicians and other persons of influence, continue to exhibit
troubling naďveté about RT's political agenda, buying into the network's marketing ploy that it is simply an outlet for independent
voices marginalised by the mainstream Western press. These 'useful idiots' remain oblivious to RT's intentions and boost its legitimacy
by granting interviews on its shows and newscasts."
The intent of these lists is clear: to shut down dissenting voices who question Western foreign policy and who are usually excluded
from Western corporate media. RT is often willing to provide a platform for a wider range of viewpoints, both from the left and right.
American ruling interests fend off critical viewpoints by first suppressing them in corporate media and now condemning them as propaganda
when they emerge on RT.
Geopolitical Risks
More ominously, the anti-Russia mania has increased chances of direct conflict between the two nuclear superpowers. The Russia-bashing
rhetoric not only served the Clinton campaign, though ultimately to ill effect, but it has pushed a longstanding U.S.-led geopolitical
agenda to regain control
over Russia, an advantage that the U.S. enjoyed during the Yeltsin years in the 1990s.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Wall Street rushed in behind Boris Yeltsin and Russian oligarchs to asset strip
virtually the entire country, impoverishing the population. Amid widespread accounts of this grotesque corruption, Washington
intervened in Russian politics to help get Yeltsin re-elected in 1996. The political rise of Vladimir Putin after Yeltsin resigned
on New Year's Eve 1999 reversed this course, restoring Russian sovereignty over its economy and politics.
That inflamed Hillary Clinton and other American hawks whose desire was to install another Yeltsin-like figure and resume U.S.
exploitation of Russia's vast natural and financial resources. To advance that cause, U.S. presidents have supported the eastward
expansion of NATO and have deployed 30,000 troops on Russia's border.
In 2014, the Obama administration helped
orchestrate a coup that toppled the
elected government of Ukraine and installed a fiercely anti-Russian regime. The U.S. also undertook the risky policy of aiding jihadists
to overthrow a secular Russian ally in Syria. The consequences have brought the world closer to nuclear annihilation than at
any time since the Cuban
missile crisis in 1962.
In this context, the Democratic Party-led Russia-gate offensive was intended not only to explain away Clinton's defeat but to
stop Trump -- possibly via impeachment or by inflicting severe political damage -- because he had talked, insincerely it is turning
out, about detente with Russia. That did not fit in well with the plan at all.
Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist. He has written for the Boston Globe, the Sunday Times of London and the Wall
Street Journal among other newspapers. He is the author of How I Lost By Hillary Clinton published by OR Books in June 2017. He can be reached at
[email protected] and followed on Twitter at
@unjoe .
Russiagate witch hunt is destroying CIA franchise in Facebook and Twitter, which were used
by many Russians and Eastern Europeans in general.
One telling sign of the national security state is "demonizing enemies of the state" including
using neo-McCarthyism methods, typically for Russiagate.
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence
for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely
gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since
the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it
probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people,
as the new Undermensch. If these people and US MSM recognized the reality that they are now
a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
Notable quotes:
"... Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage. On Monday, The Washington Post published a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians." ..."
"... The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health. ..."
"... In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT. ..."
"... The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of those efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia that undertakes "strategic communications." ..."
"... Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program. ..."
"... And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies, there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s when Sen. Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts with the Palestinians. ..."
"... The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex, which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives, who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran. ..."
"... After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed. ..."
"... Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a "regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet. ..."
"... The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin. ..."
"... The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities. ..."
"... Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution. ..."
"... Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards' to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. ..."
"... Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago. ..."
"... The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over, including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda. ..."
"... I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house -- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans -- were driven by Russia-Gate. ..."
"... Now, since the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing these all. ..."
"... Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state. There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against. ..."
"... Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?) Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary. ..."
"... It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's slander machine. ..."
"... At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the new order. ..."
"... The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association, and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon of McCarthyism."" ..."
"... Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners" in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake. ..."
"... In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more) ..."
"... Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States ..."
"... The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA This Roger Waters interview is worth watching. ..."
"... It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it. ..."
"... In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges, and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53) ..."
"... Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55) ..."
"... Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman? Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame. ..."
Special Report: Many American liberals who once denounced McCarthyism as evil are now learning
to love the ugly tactic when it can be used to advance the Russia-gate "scandal" and silence dissent,
reports Robert Parry.
The New York Times has finally detected some modern-day McCarthyism, but not in the anti-Russia
hysteria that the newspaper has fueled for several years amid the smearing of American skeptics as
"useful idiots" and the like. No, the Times editors
are accusing a Long Island Republican of McCarthyism for linking his Democratic rival to "New
York City special interest groups." As the Times laments, "It's the old guilt by association."
Yet, the Times sees no McCarthyism in the frenzy of Russia-bashing and guilt by association for
any American who can be linked even indirectly to any Russian who might have some ill-defined links
to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
On Monday, in the same edition that expressed editorial outrage over that Long Island political
ad's McCarthyism, the Times ran two front-page articles under the headline: "A Complex Paper Trail:
Blurring Kremlin's Ties to Key U.S. Businesses."
Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings
several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington
and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage.
On Monday, The Washington Post published
a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians."
The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously
true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading
"Russian propaganda."
We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her
new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket
after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health.
Though there was a video of Clinton's collapse on Sept. 11, 2016, followed by her departure from
the campaign trail to fight pneumonia – not to mention her earlier scare with blood clots – the
response from a group of 100 Clinton supporters was to question Brazile's patriotism: "It is
particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda,
spread by both the Russians and our opponents about our candidate's health."
In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear
anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT.
Pressing the Tech Companies
Just as Sen. Joe McCarthy liked to haul suspected "communists" and "fellow-travelers" before his
committee in the 1950s, the New McCarthyism has its own witch-hunt hearings, such as last week's
Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google for supposedly allowing Russians
to have input into the Internet's social networks. Executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google hauled
before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism on Oct. 31, 2017.Trying to appease Congress and fend off threats of government regulation, the rich tech companies
displayed their eagerness to eradicate any Russian taint.
Twitter's general counsel Sean J. Edgett
told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism that Twitter adopted an "expansive
approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account."
Edgett said the criteria included "whether the account was created in Russia, whether the user
registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email address, whether the user's
display name contains Cyrillic characters, whether the user frequently Tweets in Russian, and whether
the user has logged in from any Russian IP address, even a single time. We considered an account
to be Russian-linked if it had even one of the relevant criteria."
The trouble with Twitter's methodology was that none of those criteria would connect an account
to the Russian government, let alone Russian intelligence or some Kremlin-controlled "troll farm."
But the criteria could capture individual Russians with no link to the Kremlin as well as people
who weren't Russian at all, including, say, American or European visitors to Russia who logged onto
Twitter through a Moscow hotel.
Also left unsaid is that Russians are not the only national group that uses the Cyrillic alphabet.
It is considered a standard script for writing in Belarus, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbo-Croatia and
Ukraine. So, for instance, a Ukrainian using the Cyrillic alphabet could end up falling into the
category of "Russian-linked" even if he or she hated Putin.
Twitter's attorney also said the company conducted a separate analysis from information provided
by unidentified "third party sources" who pointed toward accounts supposedly controlled by the St.
Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), totaling 2,752 accounts. The IRA is typically described
in the U.S. press as a "troll farm" which employs tech-savvy employees who combat news and opinions
that are hostile to Russia and the Russian government. But exactly how those specific accounts were
traced back to this organization was not made clear.
And, to put that number in some perspective, Twitter claims 330 million active monthly users,
which makes the 2,752 accounts less than 0.001 percent of the total.
The Trouble with 'Trolling'
While the Russia-gate investigation has sought to portray the IRA effort as exotic and somehow
unique to Russia, the strategy is followed by any number of governments, political movements and
corporations – sometimes using enthusiastic volunteers but often employing professionals skilled
at challenging critical information or at least muddying the waters.
Those of us who operate on the Internet are familiar with harassment from "trolls" who may use
access to "comment" sections to inject propaganda and disinformation to sow confusion, to cause disruption,
or to discredit the site by promoting ugly opinions and nutty conspiracy theories.
As annoying as this "trolling" is, it's just a modern version of more traditional strategies used
by powerful entities for generations – hiring public-relations specialists, lobbyists, lawyers and
supposedly impartial "activists" to burnish images, fend off negative news and intimidate nosy investigators.
In this competition, modern Russia is both a late-comer and a piker.
The U.S. government fields legions of publicists, propagandists, paid journalists,
psy-ops specialists , contractors and non-governmental organizations to promote Washington's
positions and undermine rivals through information warfare.
The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of
those
efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid
for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia
that undertakes
"strategic communications."
Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world
to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered
many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National
Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant
malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
It's also ironic that the U.S. government touted social media as a great benefit in advancing
so-called "color revolutions" aimed at "regime change" in troublesome countries. For instance, when
the "green revolution" was underway in Iran in 2009 after the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
the Obama administration asked Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance so the street protesters
could continue using the platform to organize against Ahmadinejad and to distribute their side of
the story to the outside world.
During the so-called Arab Spring in 2011, Facebook, Twitter and Skype won praise as a means of
organizing mass demonstrations to destabilize governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Back then,
the U.S. government denounced any attempts to throttle these social media platforms and the free
flow of information that they permitted as proof of dictatorship.
Social media also was a favorite of the U.S. government in Ukraine in 2013-14 when the Maidan
protests exploited these platforms to help destabilize and ultimately overthrow the elected government
of Ukraine, the key event that launched the New Cold War with Russia.
Swinging the Social Media Club
The truth is that, in those instances, the U.S. governments and its agencies were eagerly exploiting
the platforms to advance Washington's geopolitical agenda by disseminating American propaganda and
deploying U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, which
taught
activists how to use social media to advance "regime change" scenarios.
A White Helmets volunteer pointing to the aftermath of a military attack.
While these uprisings were sold to Western audiences as genuine outpourings of public anger –
and there surely was some of that – the protests also benefited from U.S. funding and expertise.
In particular, NED and USAID provided money, equipment and training for anti-government operatives
challenging regimes in U.S. disfavor.
One of the most successful of these propaganda operations occurred in Syria where anti-government
rebels operating in areas controlled by Al Qaeda and its fellow Islamic militants used social media
to get their messaging to Western mainstream journalists who couldn't enter those sectors without
fear of beheading.
Since the rebels' goal of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad meshed with the objectives of
the U.S. government and its allies in Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Western journalists
uncritically accepted the words and images provided by Al Qaeda's collaborators.
The success of this propaganda was so extraordinary that the White Helmets, a "civil defense"
group that worked in Al Qaeda territory, became the go-to source for dramatic video and even was
awarded the short-documentary
Oscar for an info-mercial produced for Netflix – despite evidence that the White Helmets were
staging some of the scenes for propaganda purposes.
Indeed, one argument for believing that Putin and the Kremlin might have "meddled" in last year's
U.S. election is that they could have felt it was time to give the United States a taste of its own
medicine.
After all, the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure the continued rule
of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin. And there were the U.S.-backed street protests in Moscow
against the 2011 and 2012 elections in which Putin strengthened his political mandate. Those
protests earned the "color" designation the "snow revolution."
However, whatever Russia may or may not have done before last year's U.S. election, the Russia-gate
investigations have always sought to exaggerate the impact of that alleged "meddling" and molded
the narrative to whatever weak evidence was available.
The original storyline was that Putin authorized the "hacking" of Democratic emails as part of
a "disinformation" operation to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy and to help elect Donald Trump
– although
no hard evidence has been presented to establish that Putin gave such an order or that Russia
"hacked" the emails. WikiLeaks has repeatedly denied getting the emails from Russia, which also denies
any meddling.
Further, the emails were not "disinformation"; they were both real and, in many cases, newsworthy.
The DNC emails provided evidence that the DNC unethically tilted the playing field in favor of Clinton
and against Sen. Bernie Sanders, a point that Brazile also discovered in reviewing staffing and financing
relationships that Clinton had with the DNC under the prior chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The purloined emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta revealed the contents of Clinton's
paid speeches to Wall Street (information that she was trying to hide from voters) and pay-to-play
features of the Clinton Foundation.
A Manchurian Candidate?
Still, the original narrative was that Putin wanted his Manchurian Candidate (Trump) in the White
House and took the extraordinary risk of infuriating the odds-on favorite (Clinton) by releasing
the emails even though they appeared unlikely to prevent Clinton's victory. So, there was always
that logical gap in the Russia-gate theory.
Since then, however, the U.S. mainstream narrative has shifted, in part, because the evidence
of Russian election "meddling" was so shaky. Under intense congressional pressure to find something,
Facebook reported
$100,000 in allegedly "Russian-linked" ads purchased in 2015-17, but noted that only 44 percent
were bought before the election. So, not only was the "Russian-linked" pebble tiny – compared to
Facebook's annual revenue of $27 billion – but more than half of the pebble was tossed into this
very large lake after Clinton had already lost.
So, the storyline was transformed into some vague Russian scheme to exacerbate social tensions
in the United States by taking different sides of hot-button issues, such as police brutality against
blacks. The New York Times reported that one of these "Russian-linked" pages
featured photos of cute puppies , which the Times speculated must have had some evil purpose
although it was hard to fathom. (Oh, those devious Russians!).
The estimate of how many Americans may have seen one of these "Russian-linked" ads also keeps
growing, now up to as many as 126 million or about one-third of the U.S. population. Of course, the
way the Internet works – with any item possibly going viral – you might as well say the ads could
have reached billions of people.
Whenever I write an article or send out a Tweet, I too could be reaching 126 million or even billions
of people, but the reality is that I'd be lucky if the number were in the thousands. But amid the
Russia-gate frenzy, no exaggeration is too outlandish or too extreme.
Another odd element of Russia-gate is that the intensity of this investigation is disproportionate
to the lack of interest shown toward far better documented cases of actual foreign-government interference
in American elections and policymaking.
For instance, the major U.S. media long ignored the extremely well-documented case of Richard
Nixon colluding with South Vietnamese officials to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam
War peace talks to gain an advantage for Nixon in the 1968 election. That important chapter of history
only gained
The
New York Times' seal of approval earlier this year after the Times had dismissed the earlier
volumes of evidence as "rumors."
In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan's team – especially his campaign director William Casey in
collaboration with Israel and Iran – appeared to have gone behind President Jimmy Carter's back
to undercut Carter's negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran and essentially
doom Carter's reelection hopes.
There were a couple of dozen witnesses to that scheme who spoke with me and other investigative
journalists – as well as documentary evidence showing that President Reagan did authorize secret
arms shipments to Iran via Israel shortly after the hostages were freed during Reagan's inauguration
on Jan. 20, 1981.
However, since Vice President (later President) George H.W. Bush, who was implicated in the scheme,
was well-liked on both sides of the aisle and because Reagan had become a Republican icon, the October
Surprise case of 1980 was pooh-poohed by the major media and dismissed by a congressional investigation
in the early 1990s. Despite the extraordinary number of witnesses and supporting documents, Wikipedia
listed the scandal as a "conspiracy theory."
Israeli Influence
And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies,
there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost
any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s
when
Sen.
Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts
with the Palestinians.
If anyone doubts how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to pull the strings
of U.S. politicians, just watch one of his record-tying three addresses to joint sessions of Congress
and count how often
Republicans and Democrats jump to their feet in enthusiastic applause. (The only other foreign
leader to get the joint-session honor three times was Great Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)
So, what makes Russia-gate different from the other cases? Did Putin conspire with Trump to extend
a bloody war as Nixon did with the South Vietnamese leaders? Did Putin lengthen the captivity of
U.S. hostages to give Trump a political edge? Did Putin manipulate U.S. policy in the Middle East
to entice President George W. Bush to invade Iraq and set the region ablaze, as Israel's Netanyahu
did? Is Putin even now pushing for wider Mideast wars, as Netanyahu is?
Indeed, one point that's never addressed in any serious way is why is the U.S. so angry with Russia
while these other cases, in which U.S. interests were clearly damaged and American democracy compromised,
were treated largely as non-stories.
Why is Russia-gate a big deal while the other cases weren't? Why are opposite rules in play now
– with Democrats, many Republicans and the major news media flogging fragile "links," needling what
little evidence there is, and assuming the worst rather than insisting that only perfect evidence
and perfect witnesses be accepted as in the earlier cases?
The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests
in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex,
which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives,
who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran.
After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten
down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed.
Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a
"regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country
might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western
client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear
strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia.
The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons
by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for Trump
and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses have
blinded them to
the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they are playing into the
hands of the war-hungry neocons.
A Smokescreen for Repression
There also seems to be little or no concern that the Establishment is using Russia-gate as a smokescreen
for
clamping down on independent media sites on the Internet. Traditional supporters of civil liberties
have looked the other way as the rights of people associated with the Trump campaign have been trampled
and journalists who simply question the State Department's narratives on, say, Syria and Ukraine
are denounced as "Moscow stooges" and "useful idiots."
The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants
will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing
and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian
propaganda."
The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California,
warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility. You created these platforms,
and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it. Or we will."
As this authoritarian if not totalitarian future looms and as the dangers of nuclear annihilation
from an intentional or unintentional nuclear war with Russia grow, many people who should know better
are caught up in the Russia-gate frenzy.
I used to think that liberals and progressives opposed McCarthyism because they regarded it as
a grave threat to freedom of thought and to genuine democracy, but now it appears that they have
learned to love McCarthyism except, of course, when it rears its ugly head in some Long Island political
ad criticizing New York City.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Joe Tedesky , November 6, 2017 at 3:12 pm
I watched the C-Span 'Russian/2016 Election Investigation Hearings' in horror, as each congressperson
grilled the Hi-Tech executives in a way to suggest that our First Amendment Rights are now on
life support, and our Congress is ready to pull the plug at any moment. I thought, of how this
wasn't the America I was brought up to believe in. So as I have reached the age in life where
nothing should surprise me, I realize now how fragile our Rights are, in this warring nation that
calls itself America.
When it comes to Israel I have two names, Jonathan Pollard & the USS Liberty, and with that,
that is enough said.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:33 pm
This week's congressional hearings on "extremist content" on the Internet mark a new stage
in the McCarthyite witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies
and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet.
One after another, congressmen and senators goaded representatives of Google, Twitter and Facebook
to admit that their platforms were used to sow "social divisions" and "extremist" political opinions.
The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises
not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed
world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin.
The hearings revolved around claims that Russia sought to "weaponize" the Internet by harnessing
social anger within the United States. "Russia," said Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, promoted
"discord in the US by inflaming passions on a range of divisive issues." It sought to "mobilize
real Americans to sign online petitions and join rallies and protests."
The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label
all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing
opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities.
Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing
organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in
treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution.
Watching this Orwellian tragedy play out in our American society, where our Congress is insisting
that disclaimers and restrictions be placed upon suspicious adbuys and editorial essays, is counterintuitive
to what we Americans were brought up to belief. Why, all my life teachers, and adults, would warn
us students of reading the news to not to believe everything we read as pure fact, but to research
a subject before coming to a conclusion toward your accepting an opinion to wit. And with these
warnings of avoiding us being suckered into a wrong belief, we were told that this was the price
we were required to pay for having a free press society. This freedom of speech was, and has always
been the bedrock of our hopes and wishes for our belief in the American Dream.
Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards'
to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the
stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally
arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. Little by little, and especially since 911
one by one our civil liberties were taken away. Here again our freedom of speech is being destroyed,
and with this America is now where Germany had been in the mid-thirties. America's own guilty
conscience is rapidly doing some physiological projections onto their imaginary villain Russia.
All I keep hearing is my dear sweet mother lecturing me on how one lie always leads to another
lie until the truth will finally jump up and bite you in the ass, and think to myself of how wise
my mother had been with her young girl Southside philosophy. May you Rest In Peace Mum.
Martin , November 7, 2017 at 3:21 pm
Yankees chicks are coming home to roost. So many peoples rights and lives had to be extinguished
for Americans to have the illusion of pursuing their happiness, well, what goes around comes around.
Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:39 pm
Gee wiz Adam Schiff you make it sound as if signing petitions and rallying to causes and civil
protests are unamerican or something. And Russians on the internet are harnessing social anger!
Pathetic. These jerks who would have us believe they are interested in "saving" democracy or stopping
fascism have sure got it backward.
Geoffrey de Galles , November 8, 2017 at 12:33 pm
Joe, Allow me please, respectfully, to add Mordecai Vanunu -- Israel's own Daniel Ellsberg
-- to your two names.
Erik G , November 6, 2017 at 3:55 pm
Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate
a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely
as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle
and Plato warned thousands of years ago.
It is especially significant that the zionists are the sole beneficiaries of this scam as well
as the primary sponsors of the DNC, hoping to attack Russia and Iran to support Israeli land thefts
in the Mideast. It is well established that zionists control US mass media, which never examine
the central issue of our times, the corruption of democracy by the zionist/MIC/WallSt influence
upon the US government and mass media. Russia-gate is in fact a coverup for Israel-gate.
Why did we ever believe that the democrat party was a defender of free speech? These bought
and paid for tools of the economic elites are only interested in serving their masters with slavish
devotion. Selfishness and immorality are their stock in trade; betraying the public their real
intention.
Cratylus , November 6, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Great essay.
But one disagreement. I may agree with Trump on very, very few things, among them getting rid
of the horrible TPP, one cornerstone of Hillary's pivot; meeting with Putin in Hamburg; the Lavrov-Tillerson
arranged cease-fire in SE Syria; the termination of the CIA's support for anti-Assad jihadis in
Syria; a second meeting with Putin at the ASEAN conference this week; and in general the idea
of "getting along with Russia" (a biggie) which Russia-gate is slowing to a crawl as designed
by the neocons.
But Trump as an "incompetent buffoon" is a stretch albeit de rigueur on the pages of the NYT,
the programs of NPR and in all "respectable" precincts. Trump won the presidency for god's sake
– something that eluded the 17 other GOP primary candidates, some of them considered very"smart"
and Bernie and Jill, and in the past, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul – and the supposedly "very smart"
Hillary for which we should be eternally grateful. "Incompetent" hardly seems accurate. The respectable
commentariat has continually underestimated Trump. We should heed Putin who marveled at Trump's
seemingly impossible victory.
Bill Cash , November 6, 2017 at 4:13 pm
How do you explain all the connections between Trump acolytes and Russia and their lying about
it. I think they've all lied about their contacts. Why would they do that?I lived through the
real McCarthyism and, so far, this isn't close to what happened then.
Bill , November 6, 2017 at 4:40 pm
Probably because they are corruptly involved. Thing is, the higher priority is to avoid another
decades-long cold war risking nuclear war. Do you remember how many close calls we had in the
last one?
I'm more suspicious of Trump than most here, but even I think we need some priorities. Far
more extensive corruption of a similar variety keeps occurring and no one cares, as Mr. Parry
points out here yet again.
As for McCarthyism, whatever the current severity, the result is unfolding as a new campaign
against dissenting voices on the internet. That's supremely not-okay with me.
Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:46 pm
Right. Just because we don't yet have another fulll-fledged HUAC happening doesn't mean severe
perils aren't attached to this new McCarthyism. Censorship of dissent is supremely not-okay with
me as well.
That class of people lie as a matter of course; it's standard procedure. If you exacerbate
it by adding on the anti-Russia hysteria that was spewed out by the Democrats before the ink was
dry on the ballots, what possible reason would they have for being truthful?
The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over,
including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying
Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 7:10 pm
I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken
aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her
apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house
-- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans
-- were driven by Russia-Gate.
Obviously, Brazile, like millions of voters, saw these films and made appropriate inferences:
that Hillary's basic health and stamina were a question mark. Of course, Hillary also offered
Americans nothing in her campaign rhetoric. She came across as the mother-in-law from hell.
Was it also a Russia-Gate initiative when Hillary hid from her supporters on election night
and let Podesta face the screaming sobbing supporters? Too much spiked vodka or something? Our
political stage in the USA is a madhouse.
Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:20 pm
These people probably have "connections" with a relatively large number of people, and only
very small fraction of the people they have contact with are probably Russians. Now, since
the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in
the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere
of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have
contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing
these all.
Today's political atmosphere in the United States probably has a lot in common with the Soviet
Union. There, people got in trouble if they had contacts with people from Western, capitalist
countries – and if they were asked and did not mention these contacts in order to avoid problems,
they could get in trouble even more.
I think it is absolutely clear that no one who takes part in this hateful anti-Russian campaign
can pretend to be liberal or progressive. The kind of society these xenophobes who detest pluralism
and accuse everyone who has opinions outside the mainstream of being a foreign agent is absolutely
abhorrent, in my view.
Leslie F , November 6, 2017 at 6:40 pm
Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state.
There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the
US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will
be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian
government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not
just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against.
occupy on , November 7, 2017 at 12:47 am
Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon
pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the
way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was
rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?)
Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The
Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only
interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary.
In the meantime, Trump Jr. was connected with an evil Russian (Natalia), William Browder was
able to link the neocon-hated Trump Sr with neocon-hated, evil Russians (who currently have a
warrant out for Browder's arrest on a 15 [or 50?] million dollar tax evasion charge), and neocons
have a good chance of claiming victory out of chaos (as is their style and was their intent for
the Middle East [not Washington DC!] in the neocon Project For a New American Century – 1998).
Clinton may have lost power in Washington DC, but Clinton-supporting neocons may not have – thanks
to George Papadopoulis. We shall see. Something tells me the best is yet to come out of the Mueller
Investigations.
Roy G Biv , November 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm
You are seeing it clearly Bill. This site was once a go-to-source for investigative journalism.
Now it is a place for opinion screeds, mostly with head buried in the sand about the blatant Russian
manipulation of the 2016 election. The dominant gang of posters here squash any dissent and dissenting
comments usually get deleted within a day. I don't understand why and how it came to be so, but
the hysterical labeling of Comey/Mueller investigations as McCarthyism by Parry has ruined his
sterling reputation for me.
Stygg , November 7, 2017 at 2:24 pm
If this "Russian manipulation" was as blatant as everyone keeps telling me, how come it's all
based on ridiculous BS instead of evidence? Where's the beef?
anon , November 7, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Unable to substantiate anything you say nor argue against anything said here, you disgrace
yourself. Do you think anyone is fooled by your repeated lie that you are a disaffected former
supporter of this site? And you made the "Stygg" reply above.
Tom Hall , November 6, 2017 at 4:46 pm
It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist
witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while
the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped
in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's
slander machine.
At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the
path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something
they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the
unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold
War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the
new order.
So it's no surprise that liberalism is the rallying point for a new wave of repression. The
dangerous buffoon currently occupying the White House stands as a perfect foil to the phony indignation
of the liberal leadership- Schumer, Pelosi et al.. The jerk was made to order, and they mean to
dump him as their ideological forebears unloaded old Tail Gunner Joe. In fact, Trump is so odious,
the Democrats, their media colleagues and major elements of the national security state believe
that bringing down the bozo can be made to look like a triumph of democracy. Of course, by then
dissent will have been stamped out far more efficiently than Trump and his half-assed cohorts
could have achieved. And it will be done in the name of restoring sanity, honoring the constitution,
and protecting everyone from the Russians. I was born in the fifties, and it looks like I'm going
to die in the fifties.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:37 pm
Truman started it. And he used it very well.
THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE AND ORIGINS OF ""McCARTHYISM
By Richard M. Freeland
This book argues that Truman used anti-Communist scare tactics to force Congress to implement
his plans for multilateral free trade and specifically to pass the Marshall Plan. This is a sound
emphasis, but other elements of postwar anti-Communist campaigns are neglected, especially anti-labor
legislation; and Freeland attributes to Truman a ""go-soft"" attitude toward the Soviets, which
is certainly not proven by the fact that he restrained the ultras Forrestal, Kennan, and Byrnes
-- indeed, some of Freeland's own citations confirm Truman's violent anti-Soviet spirit.
The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association,
and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political
and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon
of McCarthyism."" Freeland's revisionism is confined and conservative: he deems the Soviets
most responsible for the Cold War and implies that ""subversion"" was in fact a menace.
You are one of the very few critical journalists today willing to print objective measures
of the truth, while the MSM spins out of control under the guise of "protecting America" (and
their vital sources), while at the same time actually undermining the very principles of a working
democracy they sanctimoniously pretend to defend. It makes me nostalgic for the McCarthy era,
when we could safely satirize the Army-McCarthy Hearings (unless you were a witness!). I offer
the following as a retrospective of a lost era.:
Top-Ten Criteria for being a Putin Stooge, and a Chance at Winning A One Way Lottery Ticket:to
the Gala Gitmo Hotel:
:
(1) Reading Consortium News, Truth Dig, The Real News Network, RT and Al Jeziera
(2) Drinking Starbucks and vodka at the Russian Tea Room with Russian tourists (with an embedded
FSS agent) in NYC.
(3) Meeting suspicious tour guides in Red Square who accept dollars for their historical jokes.
(4) Claiming to catch a cell phone photo of the Putin limousine passing through the Kremlin Tower
gate.
(4) Starting a joint venture with a Russian trading partner who sells grain to feed Putin's stable
of stallions. .
(5) Catching the flu while being sneezed upon in Niagara Falls by a Russian violinist.
(6) Finding the hidden jewels in the Twelfth Chair were nothing but cut glass.
(7) Reading War and Peace on the Brighton Beach ferry.
(8) Playing the iPod version of Rachmaninoff's "Vespers" through ear buds while attending mass
in Dallas, TX..
(9) Water skiing on the Potomac flying a pennant saying "Wasn't Boris Good Enough?"
(10) Having audibly chuckled even once at items (1) – (9). Thanks Bob, Please don't let up!
Lisa , November 6, 2017 at 7:47 pm
Howard,
I chuckled loudly more than once – but luckily, no one heard me! No witnesses! So you are acquainted
with the masterpiece "12 chairs"? Very suspicious.
David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:42 pm
I've heard that's Mel Brooks favorite among his own movies.
David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:48 pm
I always find it exasperating when I have to remind the waiter at the diner to bring Russian
dressing along with the reuben sandwich, but these days I wonder if my loyalty is being tested.
Dave P. , November 6, 2017 at 10:27 pm
David G –
They will change the name of dressing very soon. Remember 2003 when French refused to endorse
the invasion of Iraq. I think they unofficially changed the name of "French Fries" to "Freedom
Fries".
It is just the start. The whole History is being rewritten – in compliance with Zionist Ideology.
Those evil Russkies will be shown as they are!
Clearly, since I've published one book by a Russian, one by a now-deceased US ex-pat living
in Russia, and have our catalog made available in Russia via our international distributor, I
am a traitor to the US. If you add in my staunch resistance to the whole Russiagate narrative
AND the fact I post links to stories in RT America, I'm doomed.
I wish I could think I'm being wholly sarcastic.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:38 pm
You are not alone. Many of us live outside the open air prison and feel the same way
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 5:29 pm
Robert Parry has described "the New McCarthyism" having "its own witch-hunt hearings". In fact
"last week's Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google" was merely an exercise
in political theatre because all three entities already belong to the "First Draft" coalition:
Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as
a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners"
in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and
Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake.
In a remarkable post-truth declaration, the "First Draft" coalition insists that members will
"work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".
In the "post-truth" regime of US and NATO hybrid warfare, the deliberate distortion of truth
and facts is called "verification".
The Washington Post / PropOrNot imbroglio, and "First Draft" coalition "partner" organizations'
zeal to "verify" US intelligence-backed fake news claims about Russian hacking of the US presidential
election, reveal the "post-truth" mission of this new Google-backed hybrid war propaganda alliance.
Hysterical demonization of Russia escalated dramatically after Russia thwarted the Israeli-Saudi-US
plan to dismember the Syrian state.
With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of
Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern Lebanon
and Syria.
South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war in
southern Lebanon.
Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli planned
assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or Russia.
Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober heads
are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be optimistic.
"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of 2006
due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to occupy key
strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency of attacks in
Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in the fighting in
the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists considerable political pressure
to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the complexity and unpredictability of
the situation we may assume the future conflict will feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah.
Based on the bellicose statements of the leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be
initiated by Israel.
"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in the
north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be possible
to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of civilians. Hezbollah
units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and simultaneously open fire
on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population of southern Lebanon will most
likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing great damage to the social infrastructure
and some damage to Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected
and camouflaged rocket launchers and launch sites.
"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently, regardless
of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and electronic warfare
systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including through the use of fibre-optic
communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has such equipment during the 2006 war.
Smaller units will operate independently, working with open communication channels, using the
pre-defined call signs and codes.
"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN peacekeeping
mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement of a greater number
of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding heights and begin to prepare
for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The Israelis do not score a quick victory
as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need to secure occupied territory with patrols
and checkpoints will cause further losses.
"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian infrastructure,
allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli cities. While Israel's
missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched missiles, there are not enough
of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation paralyzes life in the country. As soon
IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the
bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets
do not require much time to prepare for launch and may target the entire territory of Israel,
causing further losses.
"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems certain
is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's exercises.
Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite the fact that
they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.
"Conclusions
"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster Israeli
public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the victory would
be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of relative capabilities,
Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast, the Hezbollah has thus far
demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.
"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes are
paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest Israeli
leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite dumb. In reality,
Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the already too nervous
neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it for their leader. For Hezbollah,
it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to them. According to the IDF soldiers who
served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous
terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights,
tunnels, and settlements, where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.
"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good time
for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb says:
'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."
Yes, the latest "big fish" outed yesterday as an agent of the Kremlin was the U.S. Secretary
of Commerce (Wilbur Ross) who was discovered to hold stock in a shipping company that does business
with a Russian petrochemical company (Sibur) whose owners include Vladimir Putin's son-in-law
(Kirill Shamalov). Obviously the orders flow directly from Putin to Shamalov to Sibur to the shipping
company to Ross to Trump, all to the detriment of American citizens.
From RT (another tainted source!): "US Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr. has a stake in
a shipping firm that receives millions of dollars a year in revenue from a company whose key owners
include Russian President Vladimir Putin's son-in-law and a Russian tycoon sanctioned by the U.S.
Treasury Department as a member of Putin's inner circle," says the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the main publisher of the Paradise Papers. After the report
was published, some US lawmakers accused Ross of misleading Congress during his confirmation hearings."
Don't go mistaking the "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists for "Consortium
News." These guys are dedicated witch hunters, searching for anyone with six degrees of separation
to Vladimir Putin and his grand plan to thwart the United States and effect regime change within
its borders.
In a clear attempt to weasel out of his traitorous transgression, Ross stated "In a separate
interview with CNBC, that Sibur [which is NOT the company he owned stock in] was not subject to
US sanctions." 'A company not under sanction is just like any other company, period. It was a
normal commercial relationship and one that I had nothing to do with the creation of, and do not
know the shareholders who were apparently sanctioned at some later point in time,' he said." Since
when can we start allowing excuses like that? Not knowing that someone holds stock in a company
that does business with a company in which you own stock may at some later point in time become
sanctioned by the all-wise and all-good American federal government?
I can't wait till they make the first Ben Stiller comedy based on this fiasco twenty years
from now. It will be hilarious slap-stick, maybe titled "Can You Believe these Mother Fockers?"
President Chelea Clinton of our great and noble idiocracy will throw out the first witch on opening
day of the movie.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Let's be honest. Most Americans think McCarthy is a retail store. No education. And they think
Russia is the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Trump is in Japan to start war with N. Korea to hide the
blemishes or the canker on his ass. America is rapidly collapsing.
Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence
for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists
largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established
fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence
services, it probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian
people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia
or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that
they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
But when people daily spew hate against anything and anyone "Russia linked" and still don't
recognize that they have gone over to the far right and even claim they are liberal or progressive,
this is completely absurd.
McCarthyism, as terrible as it was, at least originally was motivated by hatred against a certain
political ideology that also had its bad sides. But today's Russiagate peddlers clearly are motivated
by hatred against a certain ethnicity, a certain country, and a certain language. I don't think
there is any way to avoid the conclusion that with their hatred against anyone who is "Russia
linked", they have become right-wing extremists.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:46 pm
"Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world
to harass people who criticize the Zionist project."
Yes, very well organized.
In fact virtually every synagogue is a center for organizing people to harass others who are exercising
their First Amendment rights to diseminate information about Israel's occupation of Palestine.
The link below is to a protest and really, personal attack, against a Unitarian minister in Marblehead,
Mass., for daring to screen the film ""The Occupation of the American Mind, Israel's Public Relations
War in the United States." In other words, for daring to provide an dissenting opinion and, simply,
to tell the truth. Ironic is that the protesters' comment actually reinforce the basic message
of the film.
No other views on Israel will be allowed to enter the public for a good airing and discussion
and debate. The truth about the illegal Israeli occupation will be shouted down, and those who
try to provide information to the public on this subject will be vilified as "anti-semites." Kudos
to this minister for screening the film.
The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States (2016)
examines pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda efforts within the U.S.
This important documentary, narrated by Roger waters, exposes how the Israeli government, the
U.S. government, and the pro-Israel Lobby join forces to shape American media coverage in Israel's
favor.
Documentary producer Sut Jhally is professor of Communication at the University of Massachusetts,
and a leading scholar on advertising, public relations, and political propaganda. He is also the
founder and Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation, a documentary film company that
looks at issues related to U.S. media and public attitudes.
Jhally is the producer and director of dozens of documentaries about U.S. politics and media
culture, including Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land: U.S. Media & the Israeli–Palestinian
Conflict.
The Occupation of the American Mind provides a sweeping analysis of Israel's decades-long battle
for the hearts, minds, and tax dollars of the American people – a battle that has only intensified
over the past few years in the face of widening international condemnation of Israel's increasingly
right-wing policies.
Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 2:45 am
Abe –
The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish
some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview
is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA
This Roger Waters interview is worth watching.
It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered
the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks
to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every
where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy
witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it.
As a Canadian I could not get over, even though I was just a teenager back then, just how a
people in a supposedly advanced country could be so collectively paniced. I think back then it
was just a scam to get rid of unions and any kind of collective action against the owners of the
country, and this time around I think it is just a continuation of that scam, to frighten people
into subservience to the police state. I heard a women on TV today commenting on the Texas masscre,
she said " The devil never sleeps", well in the USA the 1/10 of 1% never sleeps when it comes
to more control, more pwoer and more wealth, in fact I think they are after the very last shekle
still left in the pockets of the bottom 99.9 % of the population. Those evil Russians are just
a ploy in the scam.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:58 pm
"The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons
by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for
Trump and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses
have blinded them to the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they
are playing into the hands of the war-hungry neocons."
And they are driving more and more actual and potential Dem Party members away in droves, further
weakening the party and depriving it of its most intelligent members. Any non-senile person knows
that this is all BS and these people are not only turning their backs on the Dem Party but I think
many of them are being driven to the right by their disgust with this circus and the exposure
of the party's critical weaknesses and derangement.
Paolo , November 6, 2017 at 6:59 pm
You correctly write that "the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure
the continued rule of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin". The irony is that a few years later
Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor, and presumably the 'mericans gave him a hand to win his
first term.
How extremely sad it is to see the USA going totally nuts.
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:00 pm
In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed
the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges,
and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after
his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53)
Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to
McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the
Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part
of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead
of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless
McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55)
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:15 pm
On March 9, 1954, Edward R. Murrow and a news team at CBS produced a half-hour See It Now special
titled "A Report on Senator Joseph McCarthy".
Murrow interspersed his own comments and clarifications into a damaging series of film clips
from McCarthy's speeches. He ended the broadcast with a warning:
"As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves–as
indeed we are–the defenders of freedom, what's left of it, but we cannot defend freedom abroad
by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and
dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies, and whose fault
is that? Not really his. He didn't create the situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and rather
successfully. Cassius was right: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.'"
CBS reported that of the 12,000 phone calls received within 24 hours of the broadcast, positive
responses to the program outnumbered negative 15 to 1. McCarthy's favorable rating in the Gallup
Poll dropped and was never to rise again.
Gary , November 6, 2017 at 11:34 pm
Sad to see so many hypocrites here espousing freedom from McCarthyism while they continue to
vote for capitalist candidates year in year out. Think about the fact that in 2010 when Citizens
United managed to get the Supreme Court to certify corporations as people the fear among many
was that this would open US company subsidiaries to be infiltrated by foreign money. I guess it
is happening in spades with collusion between Russian money & Trump's organization along with
Facebook, Twitter & many others. How Mr. Parry can maintain that this parallels the 1950s anti-communist
crusade is quite ingenuous. When libertarians, the likes of Bannon, Mercer, Trump et al, with
their "destruction of the administrative state" credo are compared to the US communists of the
50s we know progressives have become about as disoriented as can be.
geeyp , November 7, 2017 at 3:30 am
I guess these "Paradise Papers" were released just yesterday, i.e., Sunday the 5th. Somehow
I didn't get to it.
john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 6:01 am
So it looks like Hillary will be crossing Putin off her Xmas card list this year! I sometimes
wonder if all we posters on here and other similar sites are on a list somewhere and when the
day of reckoning comes, the list will be produced and we will have to account for our treasonous
behaviour? Of course, one man's treason is another man's truth. I suppose in the end it boils
down to the power thing. If you have a perceived enemy you can claim the need for an army. If
you have an army you have power and with that power you can dispose of anyone who disagrees with
you simply by calling them the enemy.
Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 9:38 am
John, your post made me wonder whether I would be on a list of traitors. I've written three
posts, starting yesterday, and tried to explain something about the background of Yuri Milner,
mentioned in the article. After "your comment has been posted, thank you" nothing has appeared
on this thread.
Well, once more: Milner is known to me as a well-educated physicist from Moscow State University,
and the co-founder and financier of The Breakthrough Prize, handing out yearly awards to promising
scientists, with a much larger sum than the humble Nobel Prize. The awarding ceremony is held
in December in Silicon Valley.
john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 12:34 pm
Hi Lisa, I have just looked up Milner on Wiki and he appears to be into everything including
investment in internet companies. He is the co-founder of the "break through prize" that you mention
and seems to have backed face book and twitter in their start up. I don't see why you posts haven't
appeared as anyone can look Milner up on Wiki and elsewhere in great detail. You don't say where
you have tried to post, but I would have thought on this site you would have no trouble whatever.
If you have watched the last episode of 'cross talk' on RT you will see that anyone who as ever
mentioned Russia in a public place is regarded as some kind of traitor. I guess you and me are
due for rendition anytime now!! LOL
Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm
Hi John,
Naturally I had been trying to post on this site. First I tried three times in the comment space
below all other posts, and they never went through. Only when I posted a reply to someone else's
comment, my reply appeared. Maybe some technical problem on the site.
My motive was to show that Milner is doing worthwhile things with his millions, even if he
is an "evil Russian oligarch". The mentioned prize has its own website: breakthroughprize.org.
Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) is a board member.
The prize is certainly a "Putin conspiracy", as it has links to Russia. (sarc)
Zachary Smith , November 7, 2017 at 8:05 pm
Maybe some technical problem on the site.
Possibly that's the case. Disappearing-forever posts happen to me from time to time. For at
least a while afterwards I cut/paste what I'm about to attempt to "post" to a WORD file before
hitting the "post comment" button.
In any event, avoid links whenever possible. By cut/pasting the exact title of the piece you're
using as a reference, others can quickly locate it themselves without a link.
K , November 7, 2017 at 9:44 am
I'm a lifelong Democrat. I was a Bernie supporter. But logic dictates my thinking. The Russia
nonsense is cover for Hillary's loss and a convenient hammer with which to attack Trump. Not biting.
Bill Maher is fixated on this. The Rob Reiner crowd is an embarrassment. The whole thing is embarrassing.
The media is inept. Very bizarre times.
Excellent article which should shed light on the misunderstandings manifested to manipulate
and censor Americans. Personally, it's ludicrous to imply that Russia was the primary reason I
could not vote for Hillary. My interest in Twitter peaked when Sidney Blumenthal's name popped
up selling arms in Libya. He was on The Clinton Foundation's Payroll for $120K, while the Obama
Administration specifically told HRC Sidney Blumenthal was not to work for the State Department.
Further research showed Chris Stevens had no knowledge of Sidney Blumenthal selling arms in
Libya. Hillary NEVER even gave Chris Stevens, a candidate with an outstanding background for diplomatic
relations in the Middle East, her email. Chris Stevens possessed a Law Degree in International
Trade, and had previously worked for Senator Lugar (R). Senator Lugar had warned HRC not to co-mingle
State Department business with The Clinton Foundation.
To add salt to the wound Hillary choose to put a third rate security firm in Libya, changing
firms a couple of short weeks before the bombing. I think she anticipated the bombing, remarking
"What difference does it make? " at the congressional hearings.
If you remember Guccifer (that hacker) he said he'd hacked both Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal.
He also said he found Sidney Blumenthal's account more interesting.
That's just one reason why I started surfing the internet. Sidney Blumenthal was a name that
hung in the cobwebs of my memory, and I wanted to know what this scum-job of a journalist was
doing!
Then there was Clinton Cash, BoysonTheTracks, Clinton Chronicles, the outrageous audacity of
the Democrats Superdelegates voting before a single primary ballot had been cast, MSM bias to
Hillary, Kathy Shelton's video "I thought you should know." and maybe around September 2016, wondering
what dirty things Hillary had done with Russia since 1993?
So I guess it's true. In the end after witnessing what has transpired since the election I
would not vote for Hillary because she'd rather risk WWIII, than have the TRUTH come out why she
lost.
After living in Europe much of the last three years we've recently returned to the U.S. I must
say that life here feels very much like I'm living within a strange Absurdist theatre play of
some sort (not that Europe is vastly better). Truth, meaning, rationality, mean absolutely nothing
at this juncture here in the United States. Reality has been turned on its head. The only difference
between our political parties runs along identity politics lines: "do you prefer your drone strikes,
illegal invasions, regime change black-ops, economic warfare and massive government spying 'with'
or 'without' gender specific bathrooms?" MSM refer to this situation as "democracy" while of course
any thinking person knows we are actually living within a totalitarian nightmare. Theatre of the
Absurd as a way of life. I must admit it feels pretty creepy being home again.
I wish it wasn't asking too much, but I suspect it is. If the NYT was reporting it, I'd feel
better about our chances. But the Deep State controls the narrative, and thus controls Pompeo,
Trump's order notwithstanding. I hope I'm wrong.
Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Yes Joe. It is rather painful to watch as you said this Orwellian Tragedy playing out in the
Country which has just about become a police state. For those of us who grew up admiring the Western
Civilization starting with the Greeks and Romans, and then for its institutions enshrining Individual
Rights; and its scientific, literary, and cultural achievements, it is as if it still happening
in some dream, though it has been coming for some time now – more than two decades now at least.
The System was not perfect but I think that it was good as it could get. The system had been in
decline for four decades or so now.
From Robert Parry's article:
"The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California, warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility.
You created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do
something about it. Or we will."
Diane Feinstein's multi-billionaire husband was implicated in those Loan and Savings scandals
of Reagan and G.H.W. Bush Era and in many other financial scandals later on but Law did not touch
him. He has a dual residency in Israel. These are very corrupt people.
Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Perle, Nulad-Kagan clan, Kristol, Gaffney . . . the list goes
on; add Netanyahu to it. In the Hollywood Harvey Weinstein, Rob Reiner. and the rest . . . In
Finance and wall Street characters like Sandy Weiss and the gang. The Media and TV is directly
or indirectly owned and controlled by "The Chosen People". So, where would you put the blame for
all what is going on in this country, and all this chaos, death, and destruction going on in ME
and many countries in Africa.
Any body who points out their role in it or utters a word of criticism of Israel is immediately
called an anti-semite. Just to tell my own connections, my wife youngest sister is married to
person who is Jewish (non-practicing). In all the relatives we have, they are closest to us for
more than thirty five years now. They are those transgender common restroom liberals, but we have
many common views and interests. In life, I have never differentiated people based on their ethnic
or racial backgrounds; you look at the principles they stand for.
As I see it, this era of Russia-Gate and witch hunt is hundred times worse than McCarthy era.
It seems irreversible. There is no one in the political establishment or elsewhere in Media or
academia left for regeneration of the "Body Politic". In fact, what we are witnessing here is
much worse than it was in the Soviet Union. It is complete degeneration of political leadership
in this country. It extends to Media and other institutions as well. People in Soviet Union did
not believe the lies they were told by the government there. And there arose writers like Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn in Soviet Union. What is left here now except are these few websites?
Maedhros , November 7, 2017 at 4:27 pm
If there is evidence, you should be able to provide some so that readers can analyze and discuss
it. Exactly what evidence has been provided that the Russian government manipulated the 2016 election?
CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 10:42 pm
Robert Parry You Nailed It!!!
I need to do a little research to see how far back you used the term "New McCarthyism" to describe
the next cold war with Russia. It was about the same time the first allegations of a Trump-Russia
conspiracy was floated by the MSM. I do not pretend to know how much airtime they spent covering
their coverup for all that the MSM did to profit from SuperPacs. They have webed a weave that
conspires to conceive to the tunes of billions of dollars spent to reprieve their intent to deceive
us and distract us away from their investment in Donald Trump which was the real influence in
the public spaces to gain mega profits from extorting the SuperPacs into spending their dollars
to defeat the trumped up candidate they created and boosted. One has to look no further than the
Main Stream Press (MSM) to find the guilty party with motive and opportunity to cash in on a candidacy
which if not for the money motive would not pass any test of journalistic integrity but would
make money for the Media.
The Russian Boogeyman was created shortly after the election and is an obvious attempt to shield
and defend the actions of the MSM which was the real fake news covered in the nightly news leading
up to the election which sought to get money rather than present the facts.
This is an example of how much power and influence the MSM has on us all to be able to upend
a National election and turn around and blame some foreign Devil for the results of an election.
The Russians had little to do with Trumps election. The MSM had everything to do with it. They
cast blame on the Russians and in so doing create a new Cold War which suits the power establishment
and suitably diverts all of our attention away from their machinations to influence the last presidential
election.
Win Win. More Nuclear Weapons and more money for the MIC and more money for all of the corporations
who would profit from a new Cold War.
Profit in times of deceit make more money from those who cheat.
CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 11:25 pm
Things not talked about:
1. James Comey and his very real influence on the election has never entered the media space
for an instant. It has gone down the collective memory hole. That silence has been deafening because
he was the person who against DOJ advice reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the
Servergate investigation after it had been closed by the FBI just days before the election.
The silence of the media on the influence on the election by the reopening of James Comey's
Servergate investigation and how the mass media press coverage implicating Hillary Clinton (again)
in supposed crimes (which never resulted in an indictment) influenced the National Election in
ways that have never been examined by the MSM is a nail in the coffin of media impartiality.
Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman?
Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his
own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken
of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants
to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces
us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election
but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame.
It serves many interests. The MSM lies to all of us for the benefit of the MIC. It serves to
support White House which will deliver maximum investments in the Defense Industry. It does this
by creating a foreign enemy which they create for us to fear and be afraid of.
It is obvious to everyone with a clear eyed history of how the last election went down and
how the MSM and the government later played upon our fears to grab more cash have cashed in under
the present administration.
It is up to us to elect leaders who will reject this manipulation by the media and who will
not be cowed by the establishment. We have the power enshrined in our Constitution to elect leaders
who will pave the path forward to a better future.
Those future leaders will have to do battle with a media infrastructure that serves the power
structure and conspires to deceive us all.
Clear critical thinking must accompany free speech, however, and irrationality seems to have
beset Americans, too stuck in the mud of identity politics. Can they get out? I have hopes that
a push is coming from the new multipolar world Xi and Putin are advocating, as well as others
(but not the George Soros NWO variety). The big bully American government, actually ruled by oligarchy,
has not been serving its regular folks well, so things are falling apart. Seems like the sex scandals,
political scandals especially of the Democrat brand, money scandals are unraveling to expose underlying
societal sickness in the Disunited States of America.
It is interesting that this purge shakeup in Saudi Arabia is happening in 2017, one hundred
years since the shakeup in Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution. So shake-ups are happening everywhere.
I think a pattern is emerging of major changes in world events. Just yesterday I read that because
"Russia-gate" isn't working well, senators are looking to start a "China-gate", for evidence of
Trump collusion with Chinese oligarchs. Ludicrous. As Seer once said, "The Empire in panic mode".
Patricia, thanks for the info on Sid Blumenthal, HRC and the selling of arms from Libya to
ME jihadists, which seems to exonerate Chris Stevens from those dirty deeds and lays blame squarely
at Blumenthal's and Clinton's doorstep; changes my thinking. And thanks to Robert Parry for continuing
to push back at the participation of MSM and government players in the Orwellian masquerade being
pulled on the sheeple.
Truther , November 8, 2017 at 12:54 pm
Just the facts for those of you who have minds still open. suggest you bookmark it quickly
as the moderator will delete it within the hour.
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created
by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent
Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security
complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia
has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to
have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary
and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of
further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.
Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative
circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked
Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.
Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver
Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their
naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin
Russia.
The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US
foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US
unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and
of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.
Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington
convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO
bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO
provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more
reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.
Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential
election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and
the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.
These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth.
"... "It's difficult to imagine that a campaign chairman, that the head of the DNC would not know of an expenditure of this magnitude and significance. But perhaps there's something more going on here. But certainly it's worth additional questioning of those two witnesses," ..."
"... "more than anyone." ..."
"... On the same day, Elias' law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented the Clinton campaign and the DNC, confirmed it had hired Fusion GPS in April 2016. The funding arrangement brokered in the spring of 2016 lasted until right before the election, AP reported earlier this week, citing sources familiar with the matter. ..."
"... The document, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged a compromising relationship between Trump and the Kremlin. It was finalized in December 2016, and published online by BuzzFeed in January. It contained unsubstantiated claims of links and allegations of deals between Moscow and the Trump campaign. ..."
"... It was funded initially by a Republican-funded journalism website, The Washington Free Beacon. However, the website insisted the enquiry had no Russian angle at that time. The alleged collusion between Trump and Russia became the focal point of the research after it was taken over by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... The Clinton campaign paid more than $5.6 million to Perkins Coie, recording the expenditures as "legal services," ..."
"... "legal and compliance consulting" ..."
"... "fake dossier," ..."
"... "Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier," ..."
"... "so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out." ..."
Several top Democrats should be summoned to testify before the US Senate Intelligence
Committee on the infamous Trump-Russia dossier, US Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) has said. Her
remarks were prompted by new revelations linking the file to the Democratic Party and the
Clinton campaign, Collins, who is a member of the Senate's Intelligence Committee, was emphatic
that Hillary Clinton's election campaign manager, John Podesta, and the former head of the
Democratic National Committee (DNC), Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "absolutely need to be
recalled."
She added that they were most likely aware of the Democrats role in the preparation of this
document.
"It's difficult to imagine that a campaign chairman, that the head of the DNC would not
know of an expenditure of this magnitude and significance. But perhaps there's something more
going on here. But certainly it's worth additional questioning of those two witnesses,"
she told CBS' Face the Nation.
She said further that Marc Elias, a lawyer representing Hillary for America and the DNC,
should be questioned "more than anyone." On Tuesday, the Washington Post alleged that
Elias retained research firm Fusion GPS in April 2016 to continue research into Trump's alleged
coordination with Russia; and which later became known as the Steele dossier.
On the same day, Elias' law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented the Clinton campaign
and the DNC, confirmed it had hired Fusion GPS in April 2016. The funding arrangement brokered
in the spring of 2016 lasted until right before the election, AP reported earlier this week,
citing sources familiar with the matter.
The document, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged a compromising
relationship between Trump and the Kremlin. It was finalized in December 2016, and published
online by BuzzFeed in January. It contained unsubstantiated claims of links and allegations of
deals between Moscow and the Trump campaign.
It was funded initially by a Republican-funded journalism website, The Washington Free
Beacon. However, the website insisted the enquiry had no Russian angle at that time. The
alleged collusion between Trump and Russia became the focal point of the research after it was
taken over by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
The Clinton campaign paid more than $5.6 million to Perkins Coie, recording the
expenditures as "legal services," according to the Federal Election Commission. The
DNC paid the law firm more than $2.9 million for "legal and compliance consulting" and
reported $66,500 for research consulting.
Taking note of the recent revelations concerning the dossier, the US House Intelligence
Committee has been granted access to Fusion GPS bank account records as part of its
investigation into the alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
On Sunday, Donald Trump lashed out in a series of tweets at the dossier and said something
should be done about Hillary Clinton's links to the "fake dossier," as the US
president put it.
"Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of
investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier," he wrote, later adding, that there is "so
much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out."
Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of
investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?),....
Earlier this week, Trump said it is "commonly agreed" that there was no collusion
between his presidential bid and the Russian government, and accused Clinton of being the one
who really colluded with Russia.
"... At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and his campaign and to deflect the revelations of her own campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote to FBI head James Comey and demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" be investigated. In September Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received." ..."
"... The linkage between the dossier and the timing of the Democratic Party attempt to tie Trump to Moscow is significant given what has been revealed over the past several days. As it turns out, it has been confirmed that Steele's firm Fusion GPS was indeed paid not only by the DNC, but also by the Clinton Campaign itself. A Washington lawyer named Marc Elias, whose firm Perkins Coie worked for both the DNC and Hillary, was the go-between on the arrangement, which began in April 2016 and continued until the election. ..."
"... As a former intelligence officer who has seen numerous overseas investigations done for clients, I can say with some confidence that the Steele Dossier is a composite of some fact, a lot of speculation, and even occasional fiction. Some indisputable and confirmable information is inevitably used to provide credibility for a lot of speculation and false stories that were intended to sow doubt and confusion. Gossip and rumors are reported as fact, with the whole product being put together in such a fashion as to appear credible to satisfy a client interested in exploitable information rather than the truth. Including some proper names, which the dossier does occasionally, provides credibility and the FBI's ability to confirm some of the dates and places regarding travel and meetings provided bona fides ..."
"... The dossier was designed to dig up "dirt" on Trump and his associates, but, more to the point, it was clearly intended from the start to do so by manufacturing and nurturing a Russian angle. It sought to discredit Donald Trump and to deceive the public, which suggests that Trump has been right all along regarding something like a conspiracy against him which included the active participation of the FBI and possibly other national security agencies. ..."
"... Perspectives expressed in op-eds are not those of The Daily Caller. ..."
The central mystery involving what has become known as Russiagate is the lack of any real
understanding of what exactly took place. It is alleged in some circles that Moscow somehow
interfered in the 2016 Presidential election and might even have tilted the result in favor of
candidate Donald Trump. Others suspect that the tale is politically motivated in an attempt to
exonerate Hillary Clinton and find Donald Trump or his associates guilty of collusion with an
unfriendly foreign government.
Caught in between are those who are not completely convinced by either narrative and are
demanding evidence to confirm that there was a sequence of events involving Russia and various
American individuals that demonstrates both intent and actual steps taken which would lend
credibility to such a hypothesis. So far, in spite of a year and a half of highly intrusive
investigation, there has been remarkably little evidence of anything apart from the
unchallengeable fact that someone took files from John Podesta as well as the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) computers and the stolen information wound up at WikiLeaks.
One of the most damaging revelations made regarding Donald Trump consisted of the so-called
"Dossier," which had been compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.
Initial reports suggested that Steele's investigation was commissioned initially by a
Republican opponent of Trump, possibly Jeb Bush, and later it was possibly continued by someone
connected to the Democratic Party. This genesis of the document was widely reported at the time
but no "names" were attached to the claims even though the identities of those who had
commissioned the work were known to some journalists who had uncovered
additional details relating to the investigation.
The drafts of some parts of the document itself
began to make the rounds in Washington during the summer of 2016, though the
entire text was not surfaced in the media until January. The dossier was reportedly still
being worked on in June by Steele and by one account was turned over to the FBI in Rome by him
in July . It later was passed to John McCain in November and was presented to FBI Director
James Comey for verification, which he agreed to do.
The Steele Dossier contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's
connection to the Vladimir Putin regime as a businessman who sought and obtained significant,
and possibly illegal, favors on real estate transactions from the Russian government. On a more
personal level, it also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades with prostitutes at
the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow. Few of the allegations could be verified as the report relied
on mostly unnamed, unidentifiable sources. On a more serious note, the dossier concluded with
an assessment that Donald Trump was compromised by the Russian intelligence services and could
be blackmailed.
At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with
Russia as a way to discredit him and his campaign and to deflect the revelations of her own
campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
wrote to FBI head James Comey and
demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's
presidential campaign" be investigated. In September Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative
Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused the
Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received."
The linkage between the dossier and the timing of the Democratic Party attempt to tie Trump
to Moscow is significant given what has been revealed over the past several days. As it turns
out, it has been confirmed that Steele's firm Fusion GPS was indeed paid not only by the DNC,
but also by the Clinton Campaign itself. A Washington lawyer named Marc Elias, whose firm
Perkins Coie worked for both the DNC and Hillary, was the go-between
on the arrangement, which began in April 2016 and continued until the election.
As a former intelligence officer who has seen numerous overseas investigations done for
clients, I can say with some confidence that the Steele Dossier is a composite of some fact, a
lot of speculation, and even occasional fiction. Some indisputable and confirmable information
is inevitably used to provide credibility for a lot of speculation and false stories that were
intended to sow doubt and confusion. Gossip and rumors are reported as fact, with the whole
product being put together in such a fashion as to appear credible to satisfy a client
interested in exploitable information rather than the truth. Including some proper names, which
the dossier does occasionally, provides credibility and the FBI's ability to confirm some of
the dates and places regarding travel and meetings provided bona fides for the entire
document and resulted in the launching of a top-level law enforcement investigation.
The dossier was designed to dig up "dirt" on Trump and his associates, but, more to the
point, it was clearly intended from the start to do so by manufacturing and nurturing a Russian
angle. It sought to discredit Donald Trump and to deceive the public, which suggests that Trump
has been right all along regarding something like a conspiracy against him which included the
active participation of the FBI and possibly other national security agencies.
The president also comes across as credible vis-à-vis his critics because of what has
become evident since the dossier was surfaced. The clearly politically motivated multiple
investigations carried out so far in which no rock has been unturned have come up with
absolutely nothing, either in the form of criminal charges or in terms of actual collusion with
a foreign government. And, one might add, there has been little in the way of evidence to
sustain the charge that Russia sought to influence the election and might even have succeeded
in doing so. But there is one thing new that we do know now: Russiagate began within the
Clinton Campaign headquarters.
Phil Giraldi is a former CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer who spent 20
years overseas in Europe and the Middle East working terrorism cases.
Perspectives expressed in op-eds are not those of The Daily Caller.
Hillary
Clinton 's presidential campaign was accused of breaking election rules Wednesday as she
and fellow Democrats faced fallout from the disclosure that her campaign and party operatives
paid for research used in a salacious anti- Trump dossier.
President Trump called the revelation "a
disgrace," and the head of the House investigative committee said he wants
to know whether the FBI relied on the
dossier in its counterintelligence work.
"It's very sad what they've done with this fake dossier," Mr. Trump told reporters at the
White House. "The Democrats always denied it. Hillary Clinton always denied it.
I think it's a disgrace. It's a very sad commentary on politics in this country."
The dossier, first reported on late in the presidential campaign and eventually published in
its entirety by BuzzFeed after the election, contained a series of unsubstantiated and often
salacious accusations against Mr. Trump , including supposed
contacts between his associates and Russian officials.
The 35-page document was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, who was hired by
research firm Fusion GPS.
Law firm Perkins Coie, which handled legal work for the Clinton campaign, admitted Tuesday
that it paid Fusion "to perform a variety of research services" as part of its work for
Mrs.
Clinton .
... ... ...
Operatives for Mr. Trump 's chief opponents during
the Republican primary have denied involvement in the dossier, but Mr. Trump said it was a
possibility.
"Yes, it might have started with the Republicans early on in the primaries. I think I would
know, but let's find out who it is," he told reporters. "If I were to guess, I have one name in
mind."
But given the revelations about Democrats' involvement and fresh investigations into a
uranium deal with a Russian firm approved by the Obama administration, Mr. Trump said the Russia
controversy has "turned around" on the Democrats.
"This was the Democrats coming up with an excuse for losing an election. They lost it very
badly," he said. "They didn't know what to say, so they made up the whole Russia hoax. Now it's
turning out that the whole hoax is turned around."
... ... ...
House Speaker
Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, accused the executive branch of stonewalling Congress from
obtaining documents related to the Trump dossier. He said the FBI and Justice
Department have not complied with requests from congressional members for documents related to
the dossier.
"... Michael Sussmann, a lawyer from the same firm that hired Fusion GPS on order of Democrats, hired the Crowdstrike cyber-outlet to investigate the leak of DNC emails. Crowdstrike and the DNC denied the FBI access to the relevant servers but asserted that "Russian hacking" was the source of the leak. ..."
"... The "Trump dossier" was opposition research ordered up and paid for by the Clinton/DNC mafia. Most of its content was obviously fake or patched together from publicly known facts. But it took up to now for U.S. media to point that out. The fake dossier, paid for by the Democrats, was used by the FBI under Obama to get FISA warrants to spy on Republican party operatives. ..."
"... We noted in January that the dossier was additionally used by the British and American deep state to sabotage Trump's plans for better relations with Russia (see original for source quotes): ..."
"... Steele then decided to hand the papers to the FBI and to talk to its agents hoping they would start an official investigation. He cleared his move (or was ordered to proceed?) at the highest level of the British government ..."
"... When Steele's first move with the FBI in October did note deliver the hoped for results an attempt to stove pipe them through Senator John McCain was launched. A "former" British ambassador to Moscow arranged the hand over ..."
"... The MI6 is well known for launching fakes on behalf of the British government. ..."
"... After Trump unexpectedly won the election a new effort was launched to publish the smears. The Director of National Intelligence decided (or was ordered to) "brief" the President, the President elect and Congress on the obviously dubious accusations ..."
"... After the election the Democrats stopped paying for new Steele reports. But by then efforts to make the fake Steele reports public and to thereby sabotage Trump policies turned into high gear. McCain had already been involved in distributing the report and it was he or the Brits who who paid for the last fake report Steele delivered: ..."
"... What I want to know is why the Washington Post has switched sides and is publishing something approaching the truth. Do they know a whole lot more malfeasance by the Clintons is about to be uncovered and are doing their best to protect their "journalistic" "reputation?" ..."
"... In the WaPo link, it was pretty specific. The political lobbies hire law firms to subcontract intelligence in order to maintain "confidentiality agreements". If the confidentiality agreement legitimizes defying the laws and orders of not only the legislative branch, but the collective government, it becomes clear the corporations regulate government, not the other way around. ..."
"... Yikes. I recall reading that Steele's contacts were 'Eastern Europeans', this doesn't rule out Ukrainians. Okay, maybe there really are some Russians looking for a quick buck. The point is that we are not even close to establishing ties to 'the Kremlin' but this doesn't stop MSM commentators from going there, a lot. ..."
"... When considered in conjunction with the increasing awareness of the close relationship between Western intelligence agencies and terrorism, a big part of why Russia is the bogeyman du juor in both the US and UK is revealed. The continued rapacious plunder of Western societies for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many requires an external threat to justify eternal war, police state tactics such as surveillance and militarization of police forces, the reduction of civil liberties, and expanded austerity measures in the name of "security". ..."
"... For the Dem lackeys at CNN attacking Trump with false charges was "news," their hero Obama's farewell speech was not. ..."
"... When the agency //MI6// was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior officer to plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was Steele, sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian state "hit". ..... ;) ..."
"... Reading a large part of the Podesta e-mails showed how completely terminally incompetent and out of touch the whole Dem. apparatus is. One usually likes to think that crooks and Mafia types are wily beasts who figure the angles and have several pots boiling and are good at juggling different scenarios and disculpating themselves. Your dem leader can be dumb as a brick, corrupt to the bone, a high-level sadist, all no problem - even adulation awaits. ..."
"... I recall the strenuous effort put forth to sell the "Magic Bullet" verdict of the Warren Commission, which allows me to repeat what Russia's Foreign Ministry said about the USA's trustworthiness: "They lie without shame," lying that began in earnest in 1945, escalating ever since. http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2920164 ..."
"... Why did Clapper and Brennan peddle so hard the Russians colluded with Trump meme? Why did they fear Trump so much? ..."
"... Yes, the big question why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to take down Trump? ..."
"... I think it's because Donald Trump fired them. Nothing like dropping a deuce in the room on the way out. ..."
"... IMO, the cash flow to MIC on both sides of the Atlantic. No bogeyman, no wars, no new toys and no treats. War is a money racket. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on America First; rebuild factories and infrastructure, less foreign wars, detente with Russia. These promises were taken seriously and Russiagate was unwrapped. See how quickly, after his taking the oath of office, he fell in line with the junta? Really, do you think he selected his cabinet people? ..."
"... I take it to mean Trump was a threat to the establishment, or at least a majority of the establishment that controls MSM and CIA (then again it is more likely the CIA control the establiushment and media). The threat has now passed and the Trump Putin meme is being wound back. A few scapegoats from the swamp may lose their heads but thats about it. ..."
"... The secret world has always shielded incompetence. The Wilderness of Mirrors is the only place where you can generate the myth of quality through withholding the facts of your actions. One suspects that the CIA is saturated with incompetence. Part of the reason that it hated to see it in the Brits. ..."
"... The dossier is a US fabrication, merely using the lackeys du jour . All useful analysis will flow from this. ..."
Hillary Clinton campaign cut-out hires the (former?) British intelligence agent Steele to pay
money to (former?) Russian intelligence agents and high-level Kremlin employees for dirt
about Donald Trump. They deliver some fairy tales. The resulting dossier is peddled far and
wide throughout Washington DC with the intent of damaging Trump.
There was never evidence that Steele indeed talked to any Russian, or really had contact
with his claimed sources. He has been for years persona non grata in Moscow and could not visit
the country.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a
Washington firm, to conduct the research.
..,
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence
officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Told ya so ...
Michael Sussmann, a lawyer from the same firm that hired Fusion GPS on order of Democrats,
hired the
Crowdstrike cyber-outlet to investigate the leak of DNC emails. Crowdstrike and the DNC denied
the FBI access to the relevant servers but asserted that "Russian hacking" was the source of
the leak.
The "Trump dossier" was opposition research ordered up and paid for by the Clinton/DNC
mafia. Most of its content was
obviously fake or patched together from publicly known facts. But it took up to now for
U.S. media to point that out. The fake dossier, paid for by the Democrats, was used by the FBI
under Obama to get FISA warrants to spy on Republican party operatives.
We noted in January that the dossier was
additionally used by the British and American deep state to sabotage Trump's plans for
better relations with Russia (see original for source quotes):
The "former" desk officer for Russia in the British MI6 Christopher Steele was the one who
prepared the 35
pages of obviously false claims about Russian connections with and kompromat against
Trump. There are so many inconsistencies in these pages that anyone knowledgeable about the
workings in Moscow
could immediately identify it as fake .
...
Steele spread the fakes throughout the press corps in Washington DC but no media published
them because these were obviously false accusations.
Steele then decided to hand the papers to the FBI and to talk to its agents hoping they
would start an official investigation. He cleared his move (or was ordered to proceed?) at
the highest level of the British government :
... When Steele's first move with the FBI in October did note deliver the hoped for results an
attempt to stove pipe them through Senator John McCain was launched. A "former" British
ambassador to Moscow
arranged the hand over :
... The MI6 is well
known for launching fakes on behalf of the British government.
Even the second, more official handover to the FBI still did not result in the hoped for
publication of the allegations. But by that time Clinton was widely expect to win the
election anyway so no further steps were taken.
After Trump unexpectedly won the election a new effort was launched to publish the smears.
The Director of National Intelligence decided (or was ordered to) "brief" the President, the
President elect and Congress on the obviously dubious accusations.
It was this decision that made sure that the papers would eventually be published. As the
NYT noted
:
...
Only after Clapper or others leaked to CNN about the briefing of Obama, Trump and Congress,
did CNN
publish about the 35 pages :
...
The attack was a deep state attempt to stage a
coup against Trump :
After the election the Democrats stopped paying for new Steele reports. But by then efforts
to make the fake Steele reports public and to thereby sabotage Trump policies turned into high
gear. McCain had already
been involved in distributing the report and it
was he or the Brits who who paid for the last fake report Steele delivered:
Let me remind you of the basic facts about the Dossier--It consists of 13 separate reports.
The first is dated 20 June 2016. That date is important because it shows that it took a
little more than two months [after the Democrats started paying] for Fusion GPS to generate
its first report on Trump's alleged Russian activities. If Fusion GPS already had something
in the can then I would expect them to have put something out in early May. Eleven more
reports were generated between 26 July and 19 October 2016. That tracks with the letter from
Perkins Coie that the engagement by the Clinton Campaign ended at the end of October.
But there is a big problem and unanswered question--The Dossier includes a final report
that is dated 13 December 2016. Who paid for this? Was it John McCain?
The purpose of the final fake report Steele added to the dossier was to provide "evidence"
that Trump was involved in the "Russian hacking" of the DNC:
What I want to know is why the Washington Post has switched sides and is publishing something
approaching the truth. Do they know a whole lot more malfeasance by the Clintons is about to
be uncovered and are doing their best to protect their "journalistic" "reputation?"
Wake me when someone actually goes to gaol for any of this... yawn...
The protected class has been the protected class for centuries, and shall, without drastic
beyond planetary intervention, remain the protected class for centuries more.
Seems HMSS Agent '.007' didn't quite deliver to "Q" this time... sad state of affairs that
the former once somewhat 'great' Britain has fallen so low in the IQ stakes that they would
even think such contrived rubbish would work. Hubris or desperation? What a laugh! Judging by
the MSM emissions I'd suggest we have a whole generation of policy cretins in 'da service'.
Pure Putin Envy, I suspect: gone blind with geopolitical onanism.
And, can we now assume, as this DC delicacy boils in the cauldron for a few weeks, that we
will soon see Julian Assange make his prison break? He must have enough material in encrypted
dead-man locks on the Clinton Gang et al to get a free pass from diplomatic 'jail' AND
gift his kind South American hosts some diplomatic credits to cash-in down London Town.
....and instantly the anti trump msm leak that a person close to Trump have once contacted
Wikileaks. Sigh.
The clinton paid for dossier is so implacting, or should be, because the media wont cover it
as they should, they will bury it.
The western msm is done, its so corrupt and propagandistic its amazing that not more people
take note of this.
The sad thing is just like you said you brought this up last year. This was being said
throughout last year prior to the POTUS election and had all good investigative reporting
behind it. Now that the court case comes out the msm along with all their pupp[ets are
spouting out this stuff. Everybody with a scintilla of grey matter since mid 2016 new full
well that the whole xenophobic narrative was total BS.Just like the Syrian civil war
narrative was all BS or Benghazi /Qadaffi slaughtering his people. To this day the sheeple
are in this Orwellian stupor. It is dangerous and troubling. We are living like zombies with
no critical thinking or capacity to cal out BS and lies . For heavens sake will the people
wake up and stop supporting this BS and start voting with our brains. Political system is
dead the economy is dead society is sick so we being the 99 percent by shear numbers should
be able to demand and garner change.
You ever notice how everybody can deny it all except for the few unfortunate souls who have
to go into hiding?
My thought is the intelligence community includes the US, UK and Russia, and that's just a
short list. They're all collaborating, and they are the immortal institutions we identify as
"corporations" and "think tanks" regulating government. The idea "the people" have influence
is absurd until one considers all those institutions consist of communities of people.
In the WaPo link, it was pretty specific. The political lobbies hire law firms to
subcontract intelligence in order to maintain "confidentiality agreements". If the
confidentiality agreement legitimizes defying the laws and orders of not only the legislative
branch, but the collective government, it becomes clear the corporations regulate government,
not the other way around.
The alleged Prague connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda came through an alleged meeting
between September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi consulate Ahmad Samir al-Ani in April
2001.
Has someone been watching too many "Cold War" spy movies or is the Czech counterintelligence
service's head stuck so far up Washington's arse they can't see anything. If they'd said it
was Prague, OK perhaps it would have had a bit more credibility.
Russians behind dossier: Anyone else notice that as this story is being reported that Russia (the victim) is being
blamed for the Dossier?
In its most blatant form it goes like this ... 'HRC colluded with the Kremlin against
Trump'. The way they connect the dots; HRC -> DNC -> Steele -> 'alleged Russian
contacts' = Kremlin.
Yikes. I recall reading that Steele's contacts were 'Eastern Europeans', this doesn't rule
out Ukrainians. Okay, maybe there really are some Russians looking for a quick buck. The
point is that we are not even close to establishing ties to 'the Kremlin' but this doesn't
stop MSM commentators from going there, a lot.
This government is not spending enough to meet the risks, threats, nor the opportunities
identified in its own National Defence and Security Strategy.
Politicians go where the power - the money - is. Clinton/Democrats decided to ride the
wave they did not start it. It does get very silly with
Boris Johnson as the top clown .
Anyone who threatens to challenge the status quo of the ruling establishment with a move to
the left will be discredited, and in the event they can't have their character assassinated,
their person will be assassinated instead. See Paul Wellstone, Dr. David Kelly, Pat Tillman,
John Lennon, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, JFK, RFK, etc, almost ad infinitum.
When considered in conjunction with the increasing awareness of the close relationship
between Western intelligence agencies and terrorism, a big part of why Russia is the bogeyman
du juor in both the US and UK is revealed. The continued rapacious plunder of Western
societies for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many requires an external threat
to justify eternal war, police state tactics such as surveillance and militarization of
police forces, the reduction of civil liberties, and expanded austerity measures in the name
of "security".
Both Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party and what should have been Bernie Sanders' Democratic
Party were threatening to turn back the clock on the Neoliberal/Neoconservative (see:
Zionist) strategy of consolidating both capital and power through divisive politics,
unfettered predatory capitalism, and war; all enabled by a well-orchestrated campaign of
fear, xenophobia, and state-sponsored terror.
Until we root out the Zionist menace from our governments, industries, media, and - in a
hat-tip to psychohistorian - our treasuries, we will continue to toil in an artificially
divided society wherein we work for the benefit of a self-proclaimed chosen few, all the
while being tricked into fighting their wars which are of no benefit to us and then being
given the bill for those wars.
I haven't owned a teevee in years, but I happened to be in a motel room the night that Obama
gave his farewell speech a year or so ago.
After the conclusion of the speech, FoxNews thoroughly critiqued the speech. Switching over
to CNN, Trump's "fake news" network, the speech wasn't covered at all. Instead they covered
the dossier in depth, with several "journalists" droning on and on about all the collusion
evidence.
Which just goes to prove that Trump was correct (again). For the Dem lackeys at CNN attacking
Trump with false charges was "news," their hero Obama's farewell speech was not.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 26, 2017 9:48:32 AM | 14
The link in that post requires utmost caution, and should not be opened if your mental
health can be compromised by an excessive dollop of nonsense. Finding two consecutive
sentences with a consistent thread of though is pretty hard. Look at this:
We should consider renewing attempts to expand the UN Security Council to include India,
Brazil, Germany and Japan, and to promote the idea of a rapid reaction force under its
control, however difficult this might prove to be. Our two new aircraft carriers HMS Queen
Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales along with the French carrier in production could play a
leading role in a naval version.
So, "we need" to expand UNSC and the navy. What is the connection? New council members do not
seem useful for the naval expansion (why do not postulate a Brazilian aircraft carrier?!),
and vice versa. And where those aircraft carriers are supposed to go? A new Crimean war? If
you seriously want to address threats to democracy and everything we find good and dear, we
should target Tuvalu, but for that it suffices to have a ship that has, say, 20 berths for
marine infantry, and, most importantly, resolve -- sadly lacking.
This belongs to a genre of political analysis that is boldly nonsensical. Typically, there
is a call for clarity followed by mental spaghetti. And/or a call for boldness followed by
verbiage that is offensive only in its lack of content. But what makes this article somewhat
unique is the sheer number of sentences that come without explanation and go absolutely
nowhere. Why suddenly UNSC expansion? What would improve with two new aircraft carriers owned
by European powers? The threats that have to be addressed are cyber attacks, Islamic
terrorism and Russia undermining the growth of democracy in Ukraine.
The author also mentions his childhood in Nigerian countryside together with the British
need to prevent any single power dominating over continental Europe. The latter would suggest
the need to reduce American influence, the former ????
When the agency //MI6// was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent
Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior
officer to plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was
Steele, sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian
state "hit". ..... ;)
Steele quit MI6 (wiki) in 2009 and tried to monetize his 'knowledge' and 'subservience' in
private cos., > hack to the highest bidder type.
The relations between Fusion GPS and Orbis https://orbisbi.com - see the symbolic images (Steele a
co-founder) remain murky imho but there you go, such private cos. can make money off paying
hubris-deluded clients who require! this or that.
Reading a large part of the Podesta e-mails showed how completely terminally incompetent
and out of touch the whole Dem. apparatus is. One usually likes to think that crooks and
Mafia types are wily beasts who figure the angles and have several pots boiling and are good
at juggling different scenarios and disculpating themselves. Your dem leader can be dumb as a
brick, corrupt to the bone, a high-level sadist, all no problem - even adulation
awaits.
The media have to keep running Russia stories--so much so that it seems they ultimately come
round to the point where they're biting the hand that fed them.
Twitter just banned RT and Sputnik from having ads!
Freedom of speech folks, its not worth anything these days. Twitter is nothing but a deep
state empire tool.
@27 karlof1.. but the optics look good for the continued smear of russia... man, this endless
msm story gets very boring.. all it tells me is how decrepit the western msm is at this point
groveling in the ditch 24/7...
Movie Producers are fighting to get another blockbuster "based a true story"
Who will publish the script first of " A Kink in Moscow"? the UK or the USA?
"And there's absolutely zero evidence for them to use as a basis for the bans."
Indeed, will Twitter now ban western msm on their respective reporting of Russia? No of
course not, what a friggin joke. In fact its not a joke its pretty damn scary this censorship
and masshysteria against Russia and these days clearly tells us
who spread propaganda in our soceity and who enable it (Twitter). Its nothing but a tool of
CIA/FBI now. No doubt about that.
Sick McCarthyism is alive 2017, who would have thought? Apparently the western
establishment thought that he was more than right.
To be clear on my part, my opinion is that all major turmoil, wars and financial crises
lead to the Rothchilds.
Do you do PR for Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan? I only ask 'cos Rothschilds ain't what they
used to be by a few million miles and if anyone is responsible for all major turmoil, wars
and financial crises, it's Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. Stop with the dumb conspiracy
theories, there is enough real shit in the world to be bothered about for many, many
lifetimes.
When a Big Lie is exposed, or simply goes flat like an automobile tire with multiple
pinhole-prick slow leaks, the Big Liars have a damage control strategy: Go Bigger!
This may be a semantic quibble, but to me even blithely characterizing the Steele dossier
as "opposition research" is a mendacious euphemism.
There's a well-known, and perhaps apocryphal, story that Lyndon Johnson once directed his
aides to spread the rumor that his opponent in a Texas election enjoyed physical relations
with barnyard animals. When his staffers allegedly objected that this assertion could never
be proved, Johnson supposedly replied "I know that. I just want to hear him deny
it."
By present-day standards, LBJ's ploy would be characterized as perfectly legitimate
"opposition research".
Judging from preliminary indications, the deluded or desperate anti-Trump resistance and
Democratic Party Establishment may double down and, incredibly, "own" the scurrilous smear.
Not just by dignifying the dirty trick as "normal", i.e. nominally routine, "ethical"
opposition research, but by implying that the fabrications it contains are indeed a "smoking
gun" that ought to be sufficient to fatally undermine Trump's presidency after all.
As I've been remarking more and more lately, a literary committee composed of Jonathan
Swift, Lewis Carroll, Mark Twain, Joseph Heller, Mikhail Bulgakov, and Kurt Vonnegut couldn't
create a more surrealistic and bizarre political landscape.
@Christian Chuba #12
"Eastern Europeans" -> think Ukraine, or more specifically the SBU (Ukraine CIA). The link
with McCain and the Democratic party becomes more clear then (Nuland).
to Ghostship: Have a read "Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown and "Beyond Banksters" by
Joyce Helson. The references they provide will get you started. Another excellent reference
is "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins.
When you start researching the issue of the crippling financial debts that characterize
western countries then it comes evident the primary cause is a predatory private banking
system. Private money manufactures financial crises and wars to coerce governments to impose
local and foreign policies that promote only the interests of private money and which only
has destructive and negative consequences for the 99%. You may not like it hear it and but
all money leads to the House of Rothschild and it's net worth reported to be several hundred
TRILLION!
An undeniable truth. But what do we know about those?
The so called "Democratic Party" is the equivalent of the grand old NSDAP. As with the
original, its followers are as die hard Fascists, as were the good Germans looking the other
way when the truth became obvious.
While I don't believe it will go on for centuries, the callousness and gullibility of the
American people makes them perfect Fascists.
Sieg Heil is the only greeting missing when addressing The Führer. Well, actually the
person's soaking wet dream has always been to be the first Führerin of all times.
Thatcher sucked at it, so the position is still vacant.
The question is, when will we hear the equivalent of "Sieg Heil meine Führerin"?
I recall the strenuous effort put forth to sell the "Magic Bullet" verdict of the Warren
Commission, which allows me to repeat what Russia's Foreign Ministry said about the USA's
trustworthiness: "They lie without shame," lying that began in earnest in 1945, escalating
ever since. http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2920164
Trump declares opioid epidemic a National Emergency. Guess he needs to sanction the CIA's
opium growing project in Afghanistan along with that organization's top officers. After all,
that's what he did to Venezuela for far lesser offences.
I'll try this again w/o link
--from The Saker: Re-visiting Russian counter-propaganda methods
What I propose to do today is to share with you a few recent examples of what Russian
households are regularly exposed to.
By now, you must have heard about the CNN report about how the evil Russkies used Pokemon
to destabilize and subvert the USA. If not, here it is: (video)
In Russia this report was in instant mega-success: the video was translated and
rebroadcasted on every single TV channel. Margarita Simonian, the brilliant director of
Russia Today, was asked during a live show "be truthful and confess – what is your
relationship with Pokemon, do they work for you?" to which she replied "I feed them"
– the audience burst in laughter.
The Russian Pokemon was just the latest in a long series of absolutely insane,
terminally paranoid and rabidly russophobic reports released by the western Ziomedia, all
of which were instantly translated into Russian and rebroadcasted by the Russian media.
One of the techniques regularly used on Russian talkshows is to show a short report
about the latest crazy nonsense coming out of the United States or Europe and then ask a
pro-US guests to react to it. The "liberals" (in the Russian political meaning of this
word, that is a hopelessly naïve pro-western person who loves to trash everything
Russian and who hates Putin and those who support him) are intensely embarrassed and
usually either simply admit that this is crazy nonsense or try to find some crazy nonsense
in the Russian media (and there is plenty of that too) to show that "we are just as bad".
Needless to say, no matter what escape route is chosen, the "liberal" ends up looking like
a total idiot or a traitor.
Why did Clapper and Brennan peddle so hard the Russians colluded with Trump meme? Why did
they fear Trump so much?
The FISA warrant to intercept Trump campaign officials was issued on the basis of the fake
Steele dossier smear. And then Susan Rice used her position to unmask all the participants in
those intercepts.
Yes, the big question why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and
UK try so hard to take down Trump?
as far as i've been able to tell, no one has linked to this TRNN interview w/ marcy wheeler,
a.k.a. "emptywheel" on the subject. if the transcript was close to correct, her rant was
totally illogical, even w/ aaron maté pushing back pretty hard.
'Democrats Funded the Steele Dossier that Fueled Russiagate'; After months of obfuscation,
the Washington Post reveals that the Clinton campaign and the DNC funded the infamous Steele
dossier at the heart of Russiagate. Empty Wheel's Marcy Wheeler and TRNN's Aaron Mate
discuss
while understanding that TRNN is a 'progressive' (whatever that means any more: librul?)
site in general, at least the comments below reflected how anti-roosian, anti-putin
emptywheel is. and illogical.
In reply to ab initio | Oct 26, 2017 7:46:15 PM | 51
I think it's because Donald Trump fired them. Nothing like dropping a deuce in the room on
the way out.
"...why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to
take down Trump?"
Russia too I say. It may not have been a take down so much as an (failed)attempt to become
his handlers. The "dossier" became useless once it was opened to the public. Who are Donald
Trump's handlers? Do we have a puppet, or do we have a puppeteer in Donald Trump?
IMO, the cash flow to MIC on both sides of the Atlantic. No bogeyman, no wars, no new toys
and no treats. War is a money racket.
Trump campaigned on America First; rebuild factories and infrastructure, less foreign
wars, detente with Russia. These promises were taken seriously and Russiagate was
unwrapped.
See how quickly, after his taking the oath of office, he fell in line with the junta? Really,
do you think he selected his cabinet people?
A day of reckoning abides HRC, CF, Mueller, Clapper, Brennan and cohorts. When you dig a
hole for your enemy make sure you also dig one for yourself.
In 2010, Uranium One was labelled a conspiracy theory.
Interesting times ahead.
Now WSJ, Wapo, are all over it. At least NYT wrote on the deal and money flow in April 2015 noting HRC's wish to be
president, Very detailed article but who would believe? Read up on details: timelines, the Canadian connection and the money flow..
NYT: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Have a read "Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown and "Beyond Banksters" by Joyce Helson.
The references they provide will get you started. Another excellent reference is "Secrets
of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins.
I don't need to as I previously worked for a number of financial institutions in the City
of London and I'm well aware of all the shit that banks and bankers get up to.
You may not like it hear it and but all money leads to the House of Rothschild and it's net
worth reported to be several hundred TRILLION!
Go on believing that crap if you want to but I'd be interested to know exactly what you
mean by the "House of Rothschild" other than a 1934 film. Also exactly who is reporting that
it's worth several hundred trillion although I notice you don't say what currency their
fortune is in but if it's Zimbabwean dollars that'd mean they're worth less than five dollars
bearing in mind that all Zimbabweans were almost certainly undecillionaires back in 2009.
ab initio | Oct 26, 2017 7:46:15 PM | 51 "Yes, the big question why did the top officials in
the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to take down Trump?"
I take it to mean Trump was a threat to the establishment, or at least a majority of the
establishment that controls MSM and CIA (then again it is more likely the CIA control the
establiushment and media). The threat has now passed and the Trump Putin meme is being wound
back. A few scapegoats from the swamp may lose their heads but thats about it.
Tillerson now treading the straight and narrow and fully on board for regime change
...
Since by all indications it took Romans a coupla centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire
to accept they were no longer top dog, eg the so-called 'dark ages' when the rule of roman
law disintegrated took a few hundred years to really kick off, we shouldn't be surprised that
many englanders struggle to accept their role of just being another beta in the pack. However
what interests me more is the group so well described by recently dubbed Aotearoan deputy PM
Winston Peters, as 'waka jumpers'. (a waka being the te reo name for a canoe).
Peters coined the term back in 1999 when the coalition government between the conservative
National Party and the Peters' formed New Zealand First Party, broke down and the government
lacked the numbers to guarantee supply etc. Some NZF MP's jumped ship over to the Natz
ignoring the policies under which the public gave them their electoral mandate.
Instead they took up bullshit cabinet positions which gave them increased salaries, all
sorts of travel perks for them and their families as well as the title 'Right Honourable'
etc. Needless to say there was no power attached to these new roles - nobody is gonna trust a
traitor - apart from which the Natz Party would have been deep in the doo-doo if they gave
actual power to outsiders while so many hacks 'n whores queued up dutifully in the National
Party waiting for their turn at copping a decent earner. That government limped along for
about 18 months before Helen Clark's Labour mob arseholed them.
Now the term waka jumpers shouldn't just be hung around the necks of the obvious target,
politicians - not when there are low lifes such as Rupert Murdoch, who swap nationalities
about as often as some change their underwear.
Murdoch kicked off existence as an australian then became an englander when he wanted to
dominate english TV and print media - that got him through quite a few british
parliamentary inquiries into media ownership. By the time he was ready to set up Fox and
still enjoy his print media ownership in amerika, Murdoch became an amerikan citizens. That
didn't affect his brit holdings cos once his buyouts had been approved there was no mechanism
for taking ownership back again.
The amerikan citizenship wasn't intended to be permanent, I have no doubt his marriage to
a NewsCorp executive based in Hongkong who 'just by chance' had PRC citizenship was the
beginning of a switch to a Chinese passport for old Rupe. However it rapidly became obvious
that such a move would cost fox big with its looney toons audience, so instead he set about
solving the expansion into China another way.
Murdoch got Star TV, plus China based web portals up and running without having to swap
nationality again - presumably by way of the 'three B's - bullying, blackmailing and
bribing.
That allowed him to give the Chinese missus the flick, so then he decided to do some PR
damage limitation in england & amerika by hooking up with Jaggers seconds, the Anglo
Amerikan Jerry Hall.
Many waka jumpers don't have to swap passports they follow the money eschewing any regard
for their compatriots in the process, and are the biggest obstacle to the notion of one world
that there is.
I reckon there would be nothing better than getting rid of borders and the associated
tyranny over individuals, except there are just too many arsehats out there who would twist
everything up, squirm thru loopholes and screw the rest of us over, so before that happens
more power must be devolved downwards and equality of education, opportunity etc must be much
more robustly organised. Then it makes sense, but any shift before that point and the usual
arseholes are gonna pull their usual strokes.
In this case most brits would be appalled that their establishment got so heavily involved
in another nation's electoral process, but no one asked them. Typically just as happens in
amerika, the call to take a side was made by a self-interested shadow state which has
entirely too much, too poorly defined power.
Issues of nationalism should be put to one side where that is possible, while all of us
ordinary human beings work together to flush the parasites outta their hidey holes.
@ Debsisdead who wrote:
Issues of nationalism should be put to one side where that is possible, while all of us
ordinary human beings work together to flush the parasites outta their hidey holes.
I agree! The cry for nationalism is a cry for further control by playing countries off
each other.....divide and conquer.
I would hope we can evolve to working terms for anthropological groupings of our species
that transcends nationalism but can be agreed upon as representing cultural significance and
cohesive regional identity.
Or maybe Trump will evolve the world to be a proper empire with galactic uniforms and
badges and stuff for all the MIC....to fit with the game show meme....
Interesting thread. Rich with turmoil. But very real, I think, and exploring ground that is
not that firm.
We know the Brits have been the "Step'n Fetchit" guy for the US spooks for a long time. We
gather that several decades ago, Langley used to be impressed by the English insouciance,
until the moles that tore holes in the UK fabric - Burgess, MacLean, Blunt etc. - destroyed
that old colonial myth of "effortless superiority", and revealed the worst quality of all,
incompetence.
The secret world has always shielded incompetence. The Wilderness of Mirrors is the only
place where you can generate the myth of quality through withholding the facts of your
actions. One suspects that the CIA is saturated with incompetence. Part of the reason that it
hated to see it in the Brits.
But the SAS could do things for the CIA that didn't need to get reported to the
legislatures of either country. So Britain could do a few hit jobs and earn a few points, a
few shekels. And MI6 must surely have been yearning to crawl back under the US intel umbrella
for a long, long time, until it regained trust somehow - probably from actions of unspeakable
subservience. So it's apparent that the relationship - at this point in history - between the
two spook enterprises is master and servant, US > UK.
A Le Carre fan could tell you all this, and plenty of analyses in the public sphere
could confirm it. So, in sum, there's absolutely no mystery why, or in what hierarchy of
relationship, the UK spooks would work for the US spooks.
The dossier is a US fabrication, merely using the lackeys du jour . All useful
analysis will flow from this.
Comey is actually a politician. And he definitely wanted to keep Russiagate hot, and probably was
instrumental in creating it ... As this situation suits him political desire for higher autonomy from
Justice Department
Notable quotes:
"... James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials. ..."
"... The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior. ..."
"... Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to Rosenstein. ..."
"... "The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department . ..."
"... Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence, according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official. ..."
"... "Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the Wall Street Journal wrote . ..."
"... A 2005 report from the FBI's Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated, "Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. " ..."
James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee
that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department
oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing
rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials.
The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction
from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement
with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally
decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this
direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior.
The group decided that it could override standard FBI protocol and possibly legal obligations
to report the incident because of its expectations that Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia
matter, although that recusal would not come until weeks later. The Comey cabinet also decided that
it wasn't obligated to approach the acting Deputy Attorney General because he would likely be replaced
soon.
"We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected
would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks
later.) The Deputy Attorney General's role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States
Attorney, who would also not be long in the role," Comey said. "After discussing the matter, we decided
to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation
progressed."
According to three different former federal law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity, there is no precedent for the director of the FBI to refuse to inform a Deputy Attorney
General of a matter because of his or her "acting" status nor to use the expectation of a recusal
as a basis for withholding information.
"This is an extraordinary usurpation of power. Not something you'd expect from the supposedly
by-the-books guys at the top of the FBI," one of those officials told Breitbart News.
The closest precedent to the Comey cabinet's decision to conceal information from Justice Department
superiors is likely Comey's widely criticized earlier decision to go public about the investigation
of Hillary Clinton's emails. That decision received a sharp rebuke in the May 9 memo by Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein that formed the basis for Comey's firing by Trump.
Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of
Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors
and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for
how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to
Rosenstein.
"The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein
wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta
Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and
assume command of the Justice Department . There is a well-established process for other
officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however,
the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation,
without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders."
Comey's testimony on Thursday seemed to double-down on this defense, which amounts to a claim
that the FBI's top agents can act outside of the ordinary processes intended to establish oversight
and accountability at the nation's top law enforcement agency.
The FBI's adherence to Department of Justice guidelines and instructions from Attorneys General
has been a centerpiece of its ongoing independence, often cited by officials as a reason why the
FBI does not need a general legislative charter that would restrict or control by statute its authority.
Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence,
according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official.
"He's not only put the credibility of the bureau in doubt, he's now putting the entire basis for
our independence in jeopardy," the official said.
The official pointed to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal as explaining the dangers of an
FBI that decides not to inform the Department of Justice of its activities.
"Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police
powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses
is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention
to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming
the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the
Wall Street
Journal wrote .
A 2005 report from the FBI's
Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated,
"Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines
are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General
Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or
to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. "
This is an interesting old article by guardian which suggest that Trump thought the Steele memo
was a blatant attempt to blackmail him launched against him by intelligence agencies. He proved to be
half-right. FBI was involved with Steele dossier and probably paid some money. It is unclear if
MI6 was involved but Steele would be really reckless if he did his job without consulting the agency.
This is not a regular report -- that was a direct interference into US election. The paper hint that
Steele source might be Ukrainians, not Russians.
Unverified and blighted with factual errors damaging
rumor/insinuation was picked up by media to damage Trump. This is so "color regulation style"
that it hurts.
Notable quotes:
"... Shift from measured tone to 'hysterical hostility' at press conference could destroy relationship with agencies Trump likened to Nazi Germany ..."
"... Clapper had denounced "the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated". ..."
"... Before CNN reported that aspects of the dossier, acquired by the FBI in December from the Arizona Republican senator John McCain, ..."
"... Trump had previously referred to an intelligence " as the witch-hunt " and threw the CIA's fatefully erroneous 2002 assessment that Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction back in the agency's face. ..."
Shift from measured
tone to 'hysterical hostility' at press conference could destroy relationship with agencies Trump
likened to Nazi Germany
, experts say
A shaky
detente between
Donald
Trump
and the intelligence agencies he will soon control has broken down, as Trump wrongly accused
US intelligence of leaking an unverified, salacious document to damage his nascent presidency.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Trump said that "who knows, but maybe the intelligence agencies"
were responsible for the document, which he said would be "a tremendous blot on their record".
Earlier, Trump likened the intelligence agencies to "
Nazi Germany",
in a tweet, saying they "never should have allowed this fake news to 'leak' to the public. One
last shot at me".
... ... ...
James Clapper, US director of national intelligence, said he told Trump on Wednesday evening that
the [US] intelligence community had not been responsible for the leaking of the documents.
"I emphasized that this document is not a US intelligence community product and that I do not
believe the leaks came from within the IC," Clapper said in a statement. Trump referred to the call
in a tweet first thing on Thursday morning, which said
Clapper had denounced "the false and fictitious
report that was illegally circulated".
Before CNN reported that aspects of the dossier,
acquired by the FBI in December
from the Arizona Republican senator John McCain,
were briefed
to Barack Obama and Trump, no news organization had published the accusations, which purport to reveal
compromising information Russia possesses on Trump. Trump has denied them, and
NBC later reported
that the material was prepared for the Trump briefing, but not discussed.
Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee and a consistent critic of
spycraft excesses, told the Guardian it was "profoundly dangerous" for Trump to continue his feud
with the agencies.
"The president is responsible for vital decisions about national security, including decisions
about whether to go to war, which depend on the broad collection activities and reasoned analysis
of the intelligence community. A scenario in which the president dismisses the intelligence community,
or worse, accuses it of treachery, is profoundly dangerous," Wyden said.
... ... ...
Trump's outburst was a departure from the moderated tone he had taken on the intelligence agencies
since Friday, when he met with the director of national intelligence, James Clapper; FBI director
James Comey; NSA director Mike Rogers and CIA director John Brennan to discuss their
joint conclusion
that Russia had intervened extensively in the 2016 election to benefit Trump.
Trump had previously referred to an intelligence "
as the
witch-hunt
" and threw the CIA's fatefully erroneous 2002 assessment that Iraq possessed stockpiles
of weapons of mass destruction back in the agency's face.
Clapper and Rogers had warned of plummeting
morale within the intelligence community ahead of Trump's presidency. After the meeting, Trump spoke
of his "tremendous respect for the work and service done by the men and women of this community".
At his press conference on Wednesday, Trump simultaneously accepted and diminished the intelligence
assessment that Russia was responsible for the Democratic National Committee hack, saying "I think
it was Russia" and later adding the caveat: "
You know what? It could be others also.
"...
"... After it was revealed that Rob Goldstone - the man who arranged the now infamous Trump Jr. " setup " with a shady Russian attorney, is associated with Fusion GPS - the firm behind the largely discredited 35 page Trump-Russia dossier, the co-founder of Fusion GPS abruptly canceled his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week to testify in the ongoing probe into Russian influence in the 2016 election, according to Politico . ..."
Co-Founder Of Trump-Russia Dossier Firm Cancels Testimony While
Lynch Claims Ignorance
The ongoing efforts to bring down Donald Trump are unraveling at an accelerating pace...
Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS Co-Founder
After it was revealed that
Rob
Goldstone
- the man who arranged the now infamous Trump Jr. "
setup
" with a shady Russian attorney, is associated with Fusion GPS - the firm behind the
largely discredited 35 page Trump-Russia dossier, the co-founder of Fusion GPS abruptly
canceled his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week to testify in the
ongoing probe into Russian influence in the 2016 election, according to
Politico
.
The committee announced Wednesday that Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS was scheduled to
voluntarily appear on July 19.
During the 2016 US election, Simpson's firm hired former British spy Christopher Steele to
produce the 35 page dossier, accusing then-candidate Donald Trump of all sorts of salacious
dealings with Russians. When Steele couldn't verify it's claims, the FBI
refused to pay him $50,000
for the report - which didn't stop John McCain from
hand-delivering it
to former FBI director James Comey, or the Obama Administration from
using it to start spying on Trump associate
Carter
Page
.
That's two attempts to take down President Trump involving Fusion GPS.
A spokesman for the President's legal team told The Independent they now believed Ms
Veselnitskaya and her colleagues had misrepresented who they were and who they worked for.
"Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with
Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to
develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier ."
-Mark Corallo
Perhaps sensing he's totally screwed and now a huge liability to the deep state, Simpson
canceled his testimony next week.
Loretta Lynch Knows Nothing
After it
The Hill
at a press conference during his visit to France, stating "She [Veselnitskaya] was
here because of Lynch, following up with "Nothing happened from the meeting... Zero happened
from the meeting, and honestly I think the press made a big deal over something that many
people would do."
Lynch distanced herself in a Thursday statement, with a spokesperson claiming that the
former Attorney General "does not have any personal knowledge of Ms. Veselnitskaya's
travel."
The spokesperson did not go into detail about Veselnitskaya's case, but followed up by
saying "The State Department issues visas, and the Department of Homeland Security oversees
entry to the United States at airports."
After Lynch's DOJ allowed Veselnitskaya into the country to participate in a lawsuit and
nothing more , she had the now infamous meeting at Trump tower, met with current and former
lawmakers from both parties, and was spotted in primo front-row seating at a House Foreign
Affairs committee hearing on Russia.
The Moscow lawyer had been turned down for a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully but then was
granted special immigration parole by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the limited
purpose of helping a company owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, her client, defend
itself against a Justice Department asset forfeiture case in federal court in New York
City.
During a court hearing in early January 2016, as Veselnitskaya's permission to stay in the
country was about to expire, federal prosecutors described how rare the grant of parole
immigration was as Veselnitskaya pleaded for more time to remain in the United States.
"In October the government bypassed ?the normal visa process and gave a type of
extraordinary ?permission to enter the country called immigration parole," Assistant U.S.
Attorney Paul Monteleoni explained to the judge during a hearing on Jan. 6, 2016.
".. Lynch distanced herself in a Thursday statement, with a spokesperson claiming that the
former Attorney General "does not have any personal knowledge of Ms. Veselnitskaya's
travel."...
I suspect Loretta got some coachin' from Slippery Bill on the tarmac, how to say something
that only a fool would believe means anything.
" I do not have any personal knowledge of Ms Veselnitskaya's .... breakfast plans" what
does that mean?
The drunk on DNC propaganda religious MSNBC ultra left watchers are going to get very
agitated screaming "show trials" when their heroes start doing the orange jumpsuit frog
march. That is when it will get ugly in the streets and on the DC mall. Cheer up comrades, it
is going to get a lot worse.
This whole shit storm will be over soon, because if they peel back the final layer to this
story, they will find that the entire apparatus of Washington, DC is on the take.
and Veselnitskaya is linked to the Bill Browder/Edmund Safra Hermitage Capital Hedge Fund
through her work for people affected by Magnitsky Act........this swamp is certainly deep but
it is hard to know who is a swamp monster and who is being dragged in
How is $ 6 million "pennies on the dollar"? If the U.S. was at one time seeking $ 12
million, is a settlement for half that amount unusual as pre-trial settlements go?
Also how she now insists that it's State and DHS that handle this stuff, while in filed
court briefs in January, DOJ was all breathless about what an extraordinary, rare exemption
Ms. V received, direct from the AG.
Someone is lying. But then, lawyers are involved so I guess it's inevitable.
"... When I first read the memos, I knew none of the backstory, and looked forward to the salacious content to bring this clown down, particularly any facts showing that the Trump people had prior knowledge of the Russian hacks - a Watergate-sized story, if true, even if the effects of the hacks on the election are being overblown. But with nearly 40 years of investigative experience, mostly on international issues, the wording of the memos quickly caused me to slam on the breaks, because they were worded in such a way as to make confirmation of the charges impossible. The rule involved in making professional judgments on these kinds of things is simple: you look for information that can be proven either true or false, and from that factual template, you then build out one incontrovertible fact at a time. These memoranda had no such facts, with the possible exception of Cohen's trip to Prague, which the FBI told the WSJ was false. ..."
... think it was wrong for BuzzFeed to publish it and the media company
bears responsibility for this debacle, which has made the entire profession look even worse and generated
sympathy for, of all people, Donald Trump.
Simpson's firm is being berated at the moment but there are a lot
of companies in Washington who do the same thing - namely produce political and business intelligence
for paying clients - and they operate openly and everyone, including journalists, know who they are.
In terms of political intelligence, there are firms who work for Democrats and firms that work for
Republicans, and some who work for both. The Democrats don't have a monopoly on these firms as one
might imagine from the current hysteria.
... ... ...
As has been widely reported, the Trump dossier had circulated for
many months - at least as far back as August - and even though there was a fever on the part of the
media to get anti-Trump stories into print, everyone with the exception of David Corn of Mother
Jones declined to write about the "dossier," and even he only referred to parts of it. The fact
that dozens of journalists reviewed these documents and declined to use them, on the grounds that
their allegations could not be verified shows that the information contained within them was very
shaky.
I read the documents online and it's clear that they are thinly sourced and there
were apparently serious errors in them, for example the bit about Trump's attorney's trip to
Prague...
... ... ...
Whatever you think of Trump, he won this embarrassing election under
the rules of the game. (And yes, Hillary won the popular vote and in a serious democracy she would
have been declared the winner, but we are stuck for the time being with the Electoral College.) The
Golden Showers story is quite a sensational accusation to make given that he was about 10 days out
from inauguration. If Hillary had won the election would Buzzfeed have posted an unproven dossier
on her that alleged she had hired prostitutes during an overseas trip to Ukraine? I seriously doubt
it, especially given Buzzfeed's notable pro-Hillary tilt during the campaign.
... ... ...
When Chuck Todd accused Smith of publishing "fake news," he suggested
that BuzzFeed was just being a good Internet news organization and not letting the media and political
elite keep information from the public. This would be easier to take more seriously if BuzzFeed is
not so obviously a part of the media elite and doesn't fraternize so comfortably with the political
elite like most other news outlets. BuzzFeed was chasing clicks and that's fine, but dressing this
up as public service doesn't cut it and especially given the political calculations involved.
BuzzFeed's other excuse was that the documents were already being
talked about and were referred to in the Intelligence Community's very dubious report on Trump. But
the documents appear to have been given to various agencies by political figures seeking to burn
Trump, which BuzzFeed was only too happy to help out with. So it appears that Trump's political enemies
and media enemies were working together to get this information out before the inauguration.
I'd also note here one peculiar, and possibly unethical, thing about
the New York Times' behavior here. The Times, like everyone but BuzzFeed, didn't
publish the report but they wrote quite a bit about it. In an early story it said that they would
not identify the research firm behind the leaked memos because of "a confidential source agreement
with The New York Times." Then it revealed the firm's name in a later story and edited the earlier
one to take out the line about their confidential source agreement.
So it looks like the Times violated a confidentiality agreement, which
is pretty troubling...
... ... ...
Note: I'd strongly urge anyone following this story to friend long-time investigative
journalist and researcher Craig Pyes on Facebook. ....
Here is an excerpt:
When I first read the memos, I knew none of the backstory, and looked forward
to the salacious content to bring this clown down, particularly any facts showing that the Trump
people had prior knowledge of the Russian hacks - a Watergate-sized story, if true, even if the
effects of the hacks on the election are being overblown. But with nearly 40 years of investigative
experience, mostly on international issues, the wording of the memos quickly caused me to slam
on the breaks, because they were worded in such a way as to make confirmation of the charges impossible.
The rule involved in making professional judgments on these kinds of things is simple: you look
for information that can be proven either true or false, and from that factual template, you then
build out one incontrovertible fact at a time. These memoranda had no such facts, with the possible
exception of Cohen's trip to Prague, which the FBI told the WSJ was false.
"... Warning that a "soft coup" is being waged against Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he sees attempts in the United States to "delegitimize" US President-elect Donald Trump using "Maidan-style" methods previously used in Ukraine, where readers will recall president Yanukovich was ousted in 2014 following a violent coup, which many suspect was conducted under the auspices of the US State Department and assorted US intelligence operations. ..."
"... Putin said he doesn't believe that Donald Trump met with prostitutes in Russia, calling the accusations part of a campaign to undermine the election result, and suggested that an internal political struggle is underway in the United States despite the fact that the presidential election is over, and added that reports of alleged Russian dossier on Trump are fake as "our security services do not chase every US billionaire." ..."
Warning that a "soft coup" is being waged against Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin
said that he sees attempts in the United States to "delegitimize" US President-elect Donald Trump
using "Maidan-style" methods previously used in Ukraine, where readers will recall president Yanukovich
was ousted in 2014 following a violent coup, which many suspect was conducted under the auspices
of the US State Department and assorted US intelligence operations.
Putin said he doesn't believe that Donald Trump met with prostitutes in Russia, calling the
accusations part of a campaign to undermine the election result, and
suggested that an internal political struggle is underway in the United States despite the fact
that the presidential election is over, and added that reports of alleged Russian dossier on Trump
are fake as "our security services do not chase every US billionaire."
Unsubstantiated allegations made against Trump are "obvious fabrications," Putin told reporters
in the Kremlin on Tuesday. "People who order fakes of the type now circulating against the U.S. president-elect,
who concoct them and use them in a political battle, are worse than prostitutes because they don't
have any moral boundaries at all," he said.
The Russian president,
cited by BBG, said that Trump wasn't a politician when he visited Moscow in the past and Russian
officials weren't aware that he held any political ambitions.
"... As Lambert has remarked, this is not the behavior of a confident elite. ..."
"... Trump has responded that Steele is a "failed spy". That is not an impetuous tweet. It's the assessment of both US and British intelligence agencies, including MI6, for which Steele worked undercover in Moscow between 1994 and 1996. His cover was blown; he was evacuated; and as British intelligence sources report this week, Steele has been unable to enter Russia for a decade. "No Russian with official links and knowledge would risk communicating with Steele for fear of being detected by Russian counter-intelligence," said an intelligence source in London, Said another: "I met [Steele] a couple of times and thought that for a relatively undistinguished man who never made very senior rank he was a smug, arrogant s.o.b. So I don't work with him. The description of his being the top expert on Russia in MI6 is bollocks. " ..."
"... The Steele dossier contains 35 pages, commencing on June 20, 2016, and ending on December 13, 2016. The published form can be read here . It comprises 17 reports. But the file numbering from 2016/ 080 to 2016/166 implies there were 86 such reports altogether, so only one in five has become public. What was in the remaining 67 reports is unknown. Unknown, too, is whether it's possible that over six months Steele was producing reports on Russia at the rate of 11 per month, 3 per week, one every two days. ..."
"... A London newspaper claims Steele was paid Ł200,000 for his job. The newspaper also claims that a friend of Steele "who does not want to be named, says he sold them in instalments at $15,000 (Ł12,300) a time every three weeks to anti-Trump Republicans looking for dirt on the tycoon in the run-up to the presidential nomination." This means there were no other reports in the series; the numbering was intended to mislead. That's not all. ..."
"... Steele's career in Russian intelligence at MI6 had hit the rocks in 2006, and never recovered. That was the year in which the Russian Security Service (FSB) publicly exposed an MI6 operation in Moscow. Russian informants recruited by the British were passed messages and money, and dropped their information in containers fabricated to look like fake rocks in a public park. Steele was on the MI6 desk in London when the operation was blown. Although the FSB announcement was denied in London at the time, the British prime ministry confirmed its veracity in 2012. Read more on Steele's fake rock operation here , and the attempt by the Financial Times to cover it up by blaming Putin for fabricating the story. ..."
As Lambert has remarked, this is not the behavior of a confident elite.
By John Helmer , the
longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist
to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been
a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States,
and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to
establish himself in Russia. Originally published at
Dances with Bears
Almost everyone goes to bed at night. Some get up to urinate. The older, less continent ones
can't get up easily, so they urinate on themselves. If properly cared for, they do so in what
is known in the geriatric product market as roll-ups.
A small minority arrange to be urinated upon by others, though not usually on the bed they
aim to sleep in. This may be an erotic pleasure for you, a perversion to the next man. The name
for it is Golden Showers. If conducted between consenting adults, it's not a crime. Paying for
it may be a crime, depending on the local law on procuring. In the Russian criminal code it's
not a felony but a misdemeanour with a fine so small it usually isn't enforced by the police;
certainly not in expensive big-city hotels.
A claim is being widely reported in the US media which supported Hillary Clinton for president
that President-elect Donald Trump paid for at least two ladies to urinate on the bed in the presidential
suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel of Moscow. A former British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6)
agent named Christopher Steele has reported the episode in a memorandum dated June 20, 2016, because
he was paid by a US client to do it; and also because he was paid to speculate that the Russian
Security Service (FSB) filmed it, and has been blackmailing Trump ever since.
Trump has responded that Steele is a "failed spy". That is not an impetuous tweet. It's the
assessment of both US and British intelligence agencies, including MI6, for which Steele worked
undercover in Moscow between 1994 and 1996. His cover was blown; he was evacuated; and as British
intelligence sources report this week, Steele has been unable to enter Russia for a decade. "No
Russian with official links and knowledge would risk communicating with Steele for fear of being
detected by Russian counter-intelligence," said an intelligence source in London, Said another:
"I met [Steele] a couple of times and thought that for a relatively undistinguished man who never
made very senior rank he was a smug, arrogant s.o.b. So I don't work with him. The description
of his being the top expert on Russia in MI6 is bollocks. "
The story of the Obama-Trump bed, according to Steele, comes from 2013. Another story, the
one of the Putin bed on which Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had sex with a prostitute
in Rome, dates from 2009. The true part has been verified with a tape the lady made of Berlusconi
boasting about the source of the bed as he exercised himself on it. Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for
Putin then and now, says the Trump-Obama bed story is "a complete fake. It's total nonsense."
But about the Putin-Berlusconi bed, he said at the time: "We reject this information. I am not
in a position to explain." In short, that bedtime story may be
true .
The Steele dossier contains 35 pages, commencing on June 20, 2016, and ending on December 13,
2016. The published form can be read
here . It comprises 17 reports. But the file numbering from 2016/ 080 to 2016/166 implies
there were 86 such reports altogether, so only one in five has become public. What was in the
remaining 67 reports is unknown. Unknown, too, is whether it's possible that over six months Steele
was producing reports on Russia at the rate of 11 per month, 3 per week, one every two days.
A London newspaper
claims Steele was paid Ł200,000 for his job. The newspaper also claims that a friend of Steele
"who does not want to be named, says he sold them in instalments at $15,000 (Ł12,300) a time every
three weeks to anti-Trump Republicans looking for dirt on the tycoon in the run-up to the presidential
nomination." This means there were no other reports in the series; the numbering was intended
to mislead. That's not all.
The Guardian newspaper, the Financial Times and US newspapers claim the dossier has been circulating
"for months and acquired a kind of legendary status among journalists, lawmakers, and intelligence
officials who have seen them",
according to one reporter.
According
to Financial Times reporter Courtney Weaver, she "investigated some of the allegations contained
in the report but was unable to confirm them." She has published them, nonetheless. For more on
Weaver's record for veracity in Moscow, read
this .
A source at a London due diligence firm which is larger and better known than Steele's
Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd. says "standard
due diligence means getting to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There
are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means the client wants you to dig up dirt
on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client wants
you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace;
it's also leaked to the press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire
a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop
him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious."
Steele's career in Russian intelligence at MI6 had hit the rocks in 2006, and never recovered.
That was the year in which the Russian Security Service (FSB) publicly exposed an MI6 operation
in Moscow. Russian informants recruited by the British were passed messages and money, and dropped
their information in containers fabricated to look like fake rocks in a public park. Steele was
on the MI6 desk in London when the operation was blown. Although the FSB announcement was denied
in London at the time, the British prime ministry confirmed its veracity in 2012. Read more on
Steele's fake rock operation here
, and the attempt by the Financial Times to cover it up by blaming Putin for fabricating the story.
The wet bed story, as Steele reported it to his client who then leaked it to the media, looks
like this:
The June 20, 2016, memo, which started the wet bed story, reports seven sources, identified
as Source A through G. No other report in the dossier has as many sources; some of the original
seven reappear in the series. Look carefully to detect what the Clinton media have missed.
Source D isn't Russian at all. He is American; Steele reports him as a "close associate of
Trump who organized and managed his trips to Moscow". D claims to have been "present"; there is
a bedside armchair in the Ritz Carlton photograph, so "present" is possible.
Source E's identity has been blacked out in the first memo, but he is identified elsewhere
in the series as another American – a "Russian émigré figure close to Trump's campaign team" –
not to Trump himself. Within the space of a paragraph, however, he turns into an "émigré associate
of Trump". Several memos and weeks later, on August 10, this source has become "the ethnic Russian
associate of Trump".
The others reported by Steele to have been in on the wet bed story include Source F, "a female
staffer at the hotel when Trump stayed there". From the dossier it appears she told her story
to an American who was an "ethnic Russian operative" of the company run by Source E, the émigré.
So Source F isn't a direct or independent source at all. If this is beginning to bewilder you,
it should. The only sources for the wet bed story turn out to be Americans, not Russians at all.
Just how difficult it was for Steele to pinpoint Trump's sexual activities in Russia, as well
as his business, is indicated by the September 14 memo in the file. This claims to report Trump's
visits to St. Petersburg. No dates have been given. One source, termed as a Russian from the "local
services and tourist industry", reportedly told "a trusted Russian compatriot", three years after
the event, that Trump had "participated in sex parties in the city". How many people make a sex
party isn't reported; two may have sufficed. The memo reports no trace because "all direct witnesses
had recently been 'silenced', i.e., bribed or coerced to disappear".
Trump posed for this photograph during the Miss Universe pageant, one of his business
affairs in Moscow in November 2013. Source:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-russia-moscow-miss-universe-223173 In a
European newspaper
published on January 15, Trump confirmed this was the occasion for the wet bed story. Trump
said: "I just got a letter from people that went to Russia with me - did you see that letter -
very rich people, they went with me, they said you were with us, I was with them, I wasn't even
here when they said such false stuff. I left, I wasn't even there . . . I was there for the Miss
Universe contest, got up, got my stuff and I left - I wasn't even there - it's all." .
The same report by Steele admits it was "hard to prove" what business, if any, Trump had done
in St. Petersburg. The allegation that, in order to make no reportable real estate transactions,
Trump had "paid bribes to further his interests through affiliated companies", is presented in
the dossier as evidence of Trump's corruption. Steele was taking Ł12,000 to portray the businessman
as someone so inexperienced as to pay bribes before he had a deal, not during or after completion.
Steele's only Russian sources have no reported knowledge of Trump's sexual conduct. They include
two people reported as serving government officials – Source A, a "senior Foreign Ministry figure";
and Source G, a "senior Kremlin official". One is a retiree – a "former top level Russian intelligence
officer still active inside the Kremlin"; and one is "an official close to the Presidential Administration
head [Sergei] Ivanov". That makes four who British intelligence sources are certain had no contact
at all with Steele, his company, or foreigners. A source with direct knowledge of operations says:
"Basic rule [of MI6] is that you are probably identified after a couple of jobs. Then in any other
visit you might infect anyone you associate with." Second rule, according to this source, is that
by the time his cover was blown in 1996 Steele had "infected everyone he had been associated with
in Moscow." Since then all he has been able to collect is hearsay three or four times removed
from its origin.
Among Steele's kibitzers, he names a businessman, a "senior Russian financial officer"; "two
well-placed and established Kremlin sources", a "Kremlin insider", a "well-placed Russian figure",
and a "close associate of Rosneft President and Putin ally Igor Sechin". The duo claims that Peskov,
the presidential spokesman, had "botched" his role in the military coup in Turkey on July 15,
2016, and was in trouble with chief of staff Ivanov, the Russian intelligence agencies and Putin.
Steele's sources provided "no further details" so they didn't know what Peskov had done.
Steele failed to check the record. Had he done so, he would have discovered that Peskov made
a public denial of Middle East press reports claiming Russian military intelligence had warned
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of the plot against him, enabling him to survive. ""I don't
have such information and I don't know the sources, to which the news agency Fars is referring,"
Peskov declared . This was either
a less than convincing denial of the truth, or an incredulous falsehood. Either way, no Russian
source, civilian or military, has suggested Peskov had done anything remarkable. "If Peskov botched
that one," said a source in a position to know, "he does the same all the time. What's news about
that?"
The "Kremlin insider" – not an official, not a retiree, possibly a journalist – is presented
by Steele in a memo of October 19, 2016, as his only source for reporting that Trump's lawyer,
Michael Cohen, had met secretly with Kremlin officials "in the attempt to prevent the full details
of Trump's relationship with Russia being exposed." The "insider" had revealed what he knew "speaking
in confidence to a longstanding compatriot friend". However, between the two of them they didn't
know which Kremlin officials Cohen had met; where; when; or what had been discussed. The "insider"
did confide that Ivanov's replacement as chief of the presidential staff by his deputy, Anton
Vaino, on August 12, 2016, and Sergei Kirienko's transfer from the state nuclear power holding
Rosatom to deputy chief of the staff at the Kremlin on October 5 were both connected to the same
thing – the "need to cover up Kremlin's Trump support operation".
Ivanov, extreme left, has remained an active member of the National Security Council, as
this council session of January 13
shows . Russian
gossip and speculation on the reasons for Ivanov's exit from the chief of staff post were voluminous
at the time, including as many personal as policy and political reasons. Steele selected the story
his client asked for with a blind attribution in a crowd; added the adjective "Kremlin"; and submitted
a fresh invoice for Ł12,000.
The source "close" to Sechin was reported as saying that during a visit to Moscow in July 2016,
Carter Page, a sometime advisor to Trump, had met Sechin, and been told that Sechin "continued
to believe that Trump could win the US presidency". Sechin reportedly also told Page that if Trump
lifted US sanctions on Rosneft, he would offer "Page/Trump's associates the brokerage [sic] of
up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft in return." This was reported on October 18.
On December 12 Carter, back in Moscow, told Russian reporters he had revisited Rosneft: "I had
the opportunity to meet with some of the top managers of the company Rosneft. The recent Rosneft
deal, in which the Qatar Fund and Glencore could take part is unfortunately a good example of
how American private companies are limited to a great degree due to the influence of sanctions."
Page added
: "The most classic example [of fake news] was of course the claims of my contacts with Igor
Ivanovich [Sechin] which would have been a great honor but nevertheless did not take place."
That Sechin and his associates at Rosneft had been scouring the global markets for a formula
to privatize a 19.5% stake in Rosneft had been well-known for months. No news either was Page's
personal interest in Russian deal-making to support his one-man business,
Global Energy Capital LLC
. Steele has run the two stories together for a client who knew neither, and for reporters at
the Clinton media who didn't check. Page's comments in Moscow reveal he has failed to understand
the "privatization" Sechin was intending. For details, read
this .
If Steele's operations were as well-known to the Russian services as the fake rock caper, the
Russians were capable of planting disinformation intended to confuse or mislead Steele and his
clientele, as well as the long line of Americans arriving in Moscow to advertise themselves as
Trump advisors. "Intelligence is not evidence, and Steele would have known, better than anyone,
that the information he was gathering was not fact and could be wrong", the Guardian has
reported . In Moscow Russian sources say Page has made a record of wishful thinking and hustling
for a job in the new administration; in Washington Trump's announcement of one has yet to be made.
Russian and western intelligence sources say there is one point the Steele dossier reports
more accurately than the report
issued on January 6 by the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. That's entitled
"Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections". Although Air Force Lieutenant-General
James Clapper, the departing Director of National Intelligence (below, left), and his subordinates,
who authored this paper, refer to "Russia's intelligence services" – plural – they claim the operations
against civilian targets were conducted by just one, the military intelligence organization, GRU.
Watch carefully as the Clapper group slips from what it knows about military cyber warfare
(signals interception, weapons jamming) into civilian email hacking. "We assess with high confidence
that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and Wikileaks to release victim data
obtained in cyber operations We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired
from the DNC [Democratic National Committee] and senior Democratic officials to Wikileaks."
Steele's dossier reports that the Russian information campaign was run very differently, and
from several different sources. In overall command, next to Putin, was his chief of staff until
August, Ivanov. Surveillance of Americans in Russia, including electronic and photographic, was
the responsibility of the FSB. The Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) was in charge of "targeting
foreign, especially western governments, penetrating leading foreign business corporations, especially
banks."
Peskov's role was to arrange for media publication of kompromat on Clinton and "black PR",
collected by the FSB and SVR. According to a "former intelligence officer, the FSB was the lead
organization within the Russian state apparatus for cyber operations." Not a word about the GRU.
The FSB, according to Steele, was reportedly in charge of "using botnets and porn traffic to
transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data, and conduct 'altering operations' against the Democratic
party leadership. There is no mention of GRU. In Clapper's version, "Romanian hackers" were GRU
agents. In Steele's version they were "paid by both Trump's team and the Kremlin, though their
orders and ultimate loyalty lay with Ivanov as Head of the PA [Presidential Administration]."
The Steele memo No. 095 of July 2016 even admits there were "Trump moles" and "agents/facilitators
within the Democratic Party structure itself" who leaked internal Clinton campaign emails. The
Trump team, it is also reported, provided the Russians with the information that was their highest
priority – "the activities of [Russian] business oligarchs and their families' activities and
assets in the US." Memo no. 097 of July 30 repeats that "Putin's priority requirement had been
for intelligence on the activities, business and otherwise, in the US of leading Russian oligarchs
and their families." This didn't come from a Russian source. According to Steele, the source was
an American, who was also a Russian émigré, and who was "speaking in confidence to a trusted [American]
associate."
Both the Clapper and Steele dossiers depend on a great deal of speaking in confidence to trusted
associates, but they can't both be right about which Russian agency was in charge of which US
operation. A London associate of Steele's, who doesn't trust him, comments: "I am sure in this
case he left no stone unturned in his search for the truth. Steele and his associates became so
fixated on the import of what he had on his hands, he lost track of the fact that these are compelling
STORIES. Being plausible is vitally important, but that doesn't make the stories true. And if
not true, well they are dust. "
"There may have been only one Trump bed, but there are so many fleas."
As I commented about Mr. Steele several days ago, he must be a relative of the famous Remington
Steele. In true family tradition, both Steeles are products of falsehood. They bring a "little
joy into (peoples) humdrum lives," and "feel (their) hard work ain't been in vain for nuthin,"
to paraphrase that shining star in the firmament, Lina Lamont. All that's missing here is the
obligatory disclaimer; "This product sold for entertainment purposes only." That the "product"
is being bruited about as "real" and of consequence is the basic deception intended.
What should be of worry here is the fact that what passes for journalism today is actually
"disinfotainment." The Paris Revue it ain't.
Thanks for the debunking although Golden Showers Gate is so last week. Perhaps come Friday
the looney sitzkrieg period will finally be over and our famously free press can start reporting
some real stuff.
I know but I thought readers would still appreciate the fine detail, particularly regarding
Steele, since the later efforts to prop up the story revolved around finding some folks to
vouch for him.
Plus – if a patently fake (although plausible) story is not completely debunked, the problem
is that its after-effects linger on in people's consciousness for a long time
I put the odds at 99% that in 2020 we are still seeing polls indicating 50% of Americans
believe Russia hacks or influences America. 75% of Ds and 25% of Rs. In 2021, depending on
election outcome, the ratios may switch, or stay the same. Assuming we didn't have WW3 before
then.
By all means, thank you. Helmer always shines light from unusual directions, and the perspective
shown by looking in formerly unexamined nooks and crannies is always, well, illuminating.
It can't be hacking because Pedestal gave whomever his password. And it can't be espionage
because the DNC is a private organization. It can't be subversion because all the information
that was released was true, unlike the top secret smear campaign on Trump. Can't wait for Trump's
summary of hacking.
I only skimmed through this but thanks. Have had a couple of conversations with people about
this, uh, situation. People who despise Trump really really want to believe it from the bottom
of their hearts, and the fact that Mr. Steele is former MI6 just adds to their fervent belief
in this legend.
A buncha hooey, if ya ask me. From the get-go, Steele seemed desparate to me. He hasn't
been in Russia in quite a long time. I fail to see him as a credible source.
As "b" at Moon of Alabama has said, there's plenty of concerns about Trump, and we should
all be vigilent in witnessing what he does and responding accordingly. This crap is just more
distraction from actually paying attention to Trump's cabinet picks and their vetting process.
How much time has been wasted hyperventilating about golden showers, while some of these cabinet
weasels slip through the congressional vetting process without even having their ethics reviews
completed? Where's the outrage over that? As usual: crickets.
I'm so DONE with the Democratic party and their antics. They're appear to me to be signalling
that they're not intending to really play hard ball with Trump and, you know, actually do the
job that we are paying them to do. Rather they'd prefer to waste time, money and other resources
by trying to play "gotcha" with Trump overy stupid stuff.
This. Is the real point. The media is splashing around noisily like swimmers in a bidet
while some very nasty pieces of work are being installed in the highest office in the federal
bureaucracy. And then there's the new congress. You've got to be scouring the news every day
to catch word of the bills they are writing. As if nothing has changed, and the impact on our
lives will remain small and distant.
+1 yes and also the new Congress Maybe Trump is just a big fat DISTRACTION (although that
remains to be seen of course, I have no absolute certainty on what he will do after Jan 20,
but perhaps it really is all distraction even if unplanned).
And maybe Congress (and the appointees) hold the real power (and they are a piece of work!!!
And people bother protesting Trump and yet by the lack of such go around normalizing these
horrible, possibly even worse than Trump, Republicans that aren't Trump – people like Paul
Ryan).
Steele reminds me of a character in
The Tailor of
Panama , by John Le Carré. That book also could be used relative to
Curveball , who featured in our recent Iraq adventures.
There is an obvious demand for more books that allow us to predict the future.
I did want to find a true fact. Didn't ever believe the Golden Shower story. We know that
the Trump organization sold real estate in NYC to Russian Oligarchs. We can believe that Putin
would have motives to discover who of his orbits bought what & for how much.
Black, White, Red categories of jobs is of use to a fiction spy story writer.
Every big residential real estate developer in NYC sells condos to Russians. Selling real
estate to someone does not give them a hold over you. Let us not forget that the Chinese are
yuuge real estate buyers too but Trump has been rattling China's cage.
The link to the fake rock story, and apparently all the other links to Helmer's website.
Appear to be broken. Or his site is down. I was interested in that, seems like some real Spy
vs. Spy type stuff.
"... "It now turns out that the phony allegations against me were put together by my political opponents and a failed spy afraid of being sued," Trump wrote on Twitter Friday morning, adding , "Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives, both Democrats and Republicans – FAKE NEWS!" ..."
"... According to the New York Times , a wealthy Republican donor funded political opposition group Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. The investigation was continued by Hillary Clinton's Democratic supporters, and the group hired Steele to investigate Trump. ..."
President-elect Donald Trump continued excoriating the forces behind the published document
of unsubstantiated accusations of compromising behavior, accusing his political rivals for leaking
the document prepared by a private investigator.
"It now turns out that the phony allegations against me were put together by my political opponents
and a failed spy afraid of being sued," Trump
wrote
on Twitter Friday morning,
adding
, "Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives, both Democrats and Republicans
– FAKE NEWS!"
The Wall Street Journal
reported that former British spy Christopher Steele, now the director of a private investigation
firm, prepared the document.
According to the
New York Times , a wealthy Republican donor funded political opposition group Fusion
GPS to investigate Trump. The investigation was continued by Hillary Clinton's Democratic supporters,
and the group hired Steele to investigate Trump.
Trump again
pointed
to Russian
denials of possessing information on him and suggested "intelligence" sources released
it.
"... This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News." ..."
"... Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party , seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing - eager ..."
"... What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families. ..."
"... Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1% . ..."
"... The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news by using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved, and unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist with one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link ..."
"... It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated President-elect. ..."
"... Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners declared war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing like losing a presidential election get in the way. ..."
IN JANUARY, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered
his farewell
address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans
of this specific threat to democracy: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." That warning
was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War
mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction's power even
further.
This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and
already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty
tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News."
Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves,
believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their
unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as
a systemic collapse of their party , seemingly divorced further and further from reason with
each passing day, are willing - eager - to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align
with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.
The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide
array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional
coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive
civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times
of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.
But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election
and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive.
Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit
over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous
assertions be instantly venerated as Truth - despite emanating from the very precincts designed
to propagandize and lie - is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality.
And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign
operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.
January 11, 2017 "Their ability to falsify is unlimited": Douglas Valentine provides background
for understanding "USIC v Trump"
What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence
community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families.
Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are
the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses
atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1%
.
Here is an article outlining a journalistic technique getting some more notoriety these days:
The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news by
using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved, and
unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist with
one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link
If any of the significant claims in this "dossier" turn out to be provably false - such
as Cohen's trip to Prague - many people will conclude, with Trump's encouragement, that large
media outlets (CNN and BuzzFeed) and anti-Trump factions inside the government (CIA) are deploying
"Fake News" to destroy him. In the eyes of many people, that will forever discredit - render
impotent - future journalistic exposés
LOL! The horse is long gone from that stable, I think.
Plenty to dislike about Greenwald, but he is certainly very intelligent and competent, and
almost always makes good points well, in his writings. In some ways, he clearly is more genuinely
principled than most on the left who make loud noises about supposed principles that they never
adhere to when it's inconvenient to do so.
If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet
or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot.
"If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet
or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot."
If the CIA have indeed declared war on DJT, Steele's in more danger from them than from
the FSB. After all , a death like that would 'prove' Steele correct.
Here is an article outlining a journalistic technique getting some more notoriety these days:
The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news
by using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved,
and unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist
with one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link
NYTimes follows the script word for word, doubles down:
TODAY's HEADLINES:
How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump
By SCOTT SHANE, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
"The consequences of the dossier, put together by a former British spy named Christopher Steele,
are incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day."
Carlos Slim's Blog (CSB = the NYT) calls Steele "respected". By whom? Typical journalistic
sleight-of-hand.
It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement
of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big
Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated
President-elect.
NYTimes follows the script word for word, doubles down:
TODAY's HEADLINES:
How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump
By SCOTT SHANE, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
"The consequences of the dossier, put together by a former British spy named Christopher Steele,
are incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day."
http://tinyurl.com/ztkodcj
-- one question, tho: I thought public figures could not initiate libel suits ???
Carlos Slim's Blog (CSB = the NYT) calls Steele "respected". By whom? Typical journalistic
sleight-of-hand.
It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement
of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big
Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated
President-elect.
open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect
Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners
declared war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing
like losing a presidential election get in the way.
It's going to be like this for a while, I daresay. Dig in for a long fight. But don't give
up. Never give up.
Lets support our soon to be President! To hell with the rubbish from the MSM. I don't watch
them, don't have cable,(I give a better use to the savings, take the family out at least once
a month), and my window to the world is the Internet!
January 11, 2017 "Their ability to falsify is unlimited": Douglas Valentine provides background
for understanding "USIC v Trump"
What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence
community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/01/11/falsify/
Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are
the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses
atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1%
.
open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect
Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners declared
war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing like
losing a presidential election get in the way.
It's going to be like this for a while, I daresay. Dig in for a long fight. But don't give
up. Never give up.
Lets support our soon to be President! To hell with the rubbish from the MSM. I don't watch
them, don't have cable,(I give a better use to the savings, take the family out at least once
a month), and my window to the world is the Internet!
This "dossier" is what Steve Sailer calls, of social justice warrior bully tactics, a "hate
hoax."
And we all know how irresistible hate hoaxes are and how valuable as propaganda hate hoaxes
are to the Invade The World / Invite The World E$tabli$hment $ellout schmucks who hold the Megaphone
– the same schmucks who bury their follow-up reports that admit that they were wrong about the
"truth" of such "incidents" that are, of course, the usual series of hate hoaxes.
The same schmucks whose Megaphone told us that Saddam's nonexistent WMD's and yellowcake formed
a genuine casus belli , that Trayvon Martin was a cute innocent juvenile murdered deliberately
by a "White Hispanic," that "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" were all gospel truth.
If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet
or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot.
"If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin
pellet or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot."
If the CIA have indeed declared war on DJT, Steele's in more danger from them than from
the FSB. After all , a death like that would 'prove' Steele correct.
The Deeps State better mind their manners lest DT send a busload of Hillbilly's over to get
midevil on their skinny asses. Don't think they won't know where to look or how to get er done.
Heads will be on pikes if they don't watch themselves.
"The deep state was responsible for Trump" – remember how convincing that sounded a month ago?
What happened? Not much at all. The 'show', as it were, goes on. Now we're to suspect the "deep
state was for Trump before they were again' Trump." Entertained yet? They hope so. A great fear
of the dictorial oligarchy is that the average rube will doubt the presentation of team sports
via the courtesans in elected office and their whore/megaphones in the ministry of truth. The
show must go on. Alternatively, Americans can decide they're no longer interested. Look out!
I would hesitate to credit the 1% as lead instigators in this orgy of chaos; they are mainly
above the fray. I would look to their minions who appear terrified the boat may leave and their
tickets canceled. But it is a splendid display of puerility; we are truly shameless. Imagine
this country faced with a real crisis; no don't. We still must pretend we are sane and nobody
around the world is listening and watching the show. Altogether now: WE'RE NUMBER ONE!
Today the
Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)
alleging the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign committee
violated campaign finance law by failing to accurately disclose the purpose and recipient of
payments for the dossier of research alleging connections between then-candidate Donald Trump
and Russia. The CLC's complaint asserts that by effectively hiding these payments from public
scrutiny the DNC and Clinton "undermined the vital public information role of campaign
disclosures."
On October 24, The Washington Post revealed that the DNC and Hillary for America paid
opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig into Trump's Russia ties, but routed the money
through the law firm Perkins Coie and described the purpose as "legal services" on their FEC
reports rather than research. By law, campaign and party committees must disclose the reason
money is spent and its recipient.
"By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public
information role of campaign disclosures," said Adav Noti, senior director, trial litigation
and strategy at CLC, who previously served as the FEC's Associate General Counsel for Policy.
"Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable
for how they raise and spend money. The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take
appropriate action."
"Questions about who paid for this dossier are the subject of intense public interest, and
this is precisely the information that FEC reports are supposed to provide," said Brendan
Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at CLC. "Payments by a campaign or party committee to
an opposition research firm are legal, as long as those payments are accurately disclosed. But
describing payments for opposition research as 'legal services' is entirely misleading and
subverts the reporting requirements."
While details of the payment arrangements remain
scarce, FEC records indicate that the Hillary campaign and the DNC paid a total of $12 million
to Perkins Coie for "legal services." Marc Elias, a Perkins partner and general counsel for
Hillary's campaign, then used some portion of those funds to turn around and hire Fusion GPS
who then contracted with a former British spy, Christopher Steele, to compile the now-infamous
dossier. Per the
Daily Caller :
It was revealed on Tuesday that the Clinton campaign and DNC began paying Fusion GPS, the
research firm that commissioned the dossier, last April to continue research it was conducting
on Trump. The Washington Post reported that Fusion approached lawyers at Perkins Coie, the firm
that represented the campaign and DNC, offering to sell its investigative services.
Marc Elias, a Perkins Coie partner, and the general counsel for the campaign and DNC,
oversaw the operation, according to The Post.
It is not clear how much Democrats, through Perkins Coie, paid Fusion for the project, which
lasted until early November. Federal Election Commission records show that the campaign and DNC
paid the law firm $12 million during the election cycle.
Ironically, most of the sources listed in the dossier were based in Russia and include a
"senior Kremlin official" as well as other "close associates of Vladimir Putin." Moreover, as
CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell notes, it's h ighly likely that some portion of the $12
million paid to Perkins Coie by the DNC and Hillary campaign made it's way into the pockets of
those "senior Kremlin officials" as compensation for the services.
In the dossier, Steele cites numerous anonymous sources, many of which work in the upper
echelons of the Russian government.
The first two sources cited in the dossier's first memo, dated June 20, 2016, are "a senior
Russian Foreign Ministry figure" and "a former top level Russian intelligence officer still
active inside the Kremlin."
A third source is referred to as "a senior Russian financial official." Other sources in the
dossier are described as "a senior Kremlin official" and sources close to Igor Sechin, the head
of Russian oil giant Rosneft and a close associate of Vladimir Putin's.
To summarize, after a full year of mainstream media hysteria over alleged Trump-Russia
collusion, it now appears as though the Hillary campaign may have been the only one to funnel
cash to "Kremlin operatives" in return for political dirt...
Of course, we have no doubt that Hillary was in the dark about all of these
arrangements.
trump will closely (hillery's undoing) follow suit as a 'Protest far greater than the
final days of the Vietnam Era' sweep the country....--- wanting war with NK (China &
Russia).
The long-help suspicions that Andrew McCabe is intimately involved in this dossier
procurement are gaining traction:
"...FBI insiders say fired FBI Director James Comey and Andrew McCabe , deputy FBI
director, used Bureau funds to underwrite the controversial dossier on President Donald Trump
during the 2016 presidential election, sources confirm.
And the deal to dig dirt on a presidential candidate was put together with the help of
Sen. John McCain, sources said.
These new revelations in fact might be the worst kept secrets in Washington, D.C. but now
rank-and-file FBI agents want the Bureau to come clean on its relationship with the author of
the problematic Trump dossier, former British spy Christopher Steele..."
"...Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS
and the FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney General
Loretta Lynch , now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the Hillary
Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe , who is under investigation by
the Senate and the Justice inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial
and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democratic activist wife.
Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with
Steele..."
"...Steele hadn't worked in Moscow since the 1990s and didn't actually travel there to
gather intelligence on Trump firsthand. He relied on third-hand "friend of friend" sourcing.
In fact, most of his claimed Russian sources spoke not directly to him but "in confidence to
a trusted compatriot" who, in turn, spoke to Steele -- and always anonymously.
But his main source may have been Google. Most of the information branded as
"intelligence" was merely rehashed from news headlines or cut and pasted -- replete with
errors -- from Wikipedia.
In fact, much of the seemingly cloak-and-dagger information connecting Trump and his
campaign advisers to Russia had already been reported in the media at the time Steele wrote
his monthly reports..."
"... Mr. McCabe's appearance of a partisan conflict of interest relating to Clinton
associates only magnifies the importance of those questions. That is particularly true if Mr.
McCabe was involved in approving or establishing the FBI's reported arrangement with Mr.
Steele, or if Mr. McCabe vouched for or otherwise relied on the politically-funded dossier in
the course of the investigation. Simply put, the American people should know if the FBI's
second-in-command relied on Democrat-funded opposition research to justify an investigation
of the Republican presidential campaign...."
Now it is clear that Steele dossier was clearly a British intelligence services fake ordered and
paid by DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign... And now we know who paid for it. and we know
who tried to "spread the news". Atlantic tried to embellish actions of DNC and Hillary Clinton
campaign but there were clearly against the law.
Not that different from Iraq WMD and uranium purchase story
Notable quotes:
"... Other reporting, including from my colleague Rosie Gray , has already begun to poke holes in the assertions contained in the dossier. Trump denied the report on Twitter, writing, "FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!" Now that the documents are in the public domain, the work under way within some news organizations to suss out what is true in the report will likely accelerate. ..."
"... Lawfare ..."
"... That raises a range of potential objections. First, it unfairly forces a public figure -- Trump, in this case -- to respond to a set of allegations that might or might not be entirely scurrilous; the reporters, by their own admission, do not know. ..."
Late Tuesday afternoon, CNN published a story reporting that intelligence officials had given
Trump, President Obama, and eight top members of Congress a two-page memo, summarizing allegations
that Russian agents claimed they had compromising information on Trump. (If you're finding this chain
difficult to follow, you're not alone;
I tried to parse the story in some detail here .) CNN said officials had given no indication
that they believed the material in the memo to be accurate. That memo, in turn, was based on 35 pages
of materials gathered by a former British intelligence operative who had gathered them while conducting
opposition research for various Trump opponents, both Republicans and Democrats.
The story left many questions unanswered -- most importantly, whether the claims were accurate,
but also just what the claims were; CNN said it was withholding the contents of the memo because
it could not independently verify the allegations.
The second question was answered in short order, when BuzzFeed
posted a PDF of the 35-page dossier a little after 6 p.m. Even in their posting, BuzzFeed
acknowledged some misgivings about the document, admitting that it was full of unverified claims.
"It is not just unconfirmed: It includes some clear errors," the story noted. Verified or not, the
claims were highly explosive, and in some cases quite graphic. Because they are not verified, I will
not summarize them here, though they can be read at BuzzFeed or in any other number of places.
Other reporting,
including from my colleague Rosie Gray , has already begun to poke holes in the assertions contained
in the dossier. Trump denied the report on Twitter, writing, "FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH
HUNT!" Now that the documents are in the public domain, the work under way within some news organizations
to suss out what is true in the report will likely accelerate.
Sensing that the decision to publish would be controversial, BuzzFeed editor-in-chief
Ben Smith wrote a memo to staff explaining the thinking, and
then posted it
on Twitter .
"Our presumption is to be transparent in our journalism and to share what we have with our readers.
We have always erred on the side of publishing. In this case, the document was in wide circulation
at the highest levels of American government and media," Smith wrote. "Publishing this document was
not an easy or simple call, and people of good will may disagree with our choice. But publishing
the dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017."
Smith alluded to the document's wide circulation, a nod to the fact that many outlets have either
acquired or been offered the chance to view it -- a group that includes CNN, Politico (
whose Ken Vogel said he'd chased the story ), and Lawfare
. David Corn of Mother Jones also
published a story based on information collected by the British intelligence operative in October.
Smith's reasoning is sincere and considered, but the conclusion is highly dubious. Even more perturbing
was the reasoning in the published story. "Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the
full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect
that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government," the story stated.
That raises a range of potential objections. First, it unfairly forces a public figure --
Trump, in this case -- to respond to a set of allegations that might or might not be entirely scurrilous;
the reporters, by their own admission, do not know. Second, the appeal to "transparency" notwithstanding,
this represents an abdication of the basic responsibility of journalism. The reporter's job is not
to simply dump as much information as possible into the public domain, though that can at times be
useful too, as some of WikiLeaks' revelations have shown. It is to gather information, sift through
it, and determine what is true and what is not. The point of a professional journalist corps is to
have people whose job it is to do that work on behalf of society, and who can cultivate sources and
expertise to help them adjudicate it. A pluralistic press corps is necessary to avoid monolithic
thinking among reporters, but transparent transmission of misinformation is no more helpful or clarifying
than no information at all.
Looks like the US Senate is a real can of worms...
Notable quotes:
"... One involved the media, which in October were given and encouraged to publish the "report" by the authors of the report (or their sponsors), purportedly a former British intelligence officer working for a private intelligence company ..."
"... Remember, we have a dubious report constructed for the purpose of discrediting Donald Trump, which was first commissioned by one of his Republican primary rivals and later completed under the patronage of someone in Hillary's camp. ..."
"... Enter John McCain. According to media reports, the dossier was handed to Sen. McCain -- again, a strong Trump opponent and proponent of conflict with Russia -- by a former UK ambassador (who presumably received it from the source, a former British intelligence officer). ..."
"... Senator McCain is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one of the most powerful members of the US Senate. Consider the impact of being handed a strange report by some private intelligence-firm-for-hire or a media outlet versus being handed a report by one of the most powerful men in the US government. McCain's involving himself in the case gave the report a sense of legitimacy that it would not otherwise have had. Was this "laundering" intentional on his part? We do not know, but given his position on Trump and Russia that possibility must be considered. ..."
"... So great was the pressure on McCain to come clean on his decision to meet privately with the FBI Director to hand over this report that he released a statement earlier today portraying himself as nothing more than a good citizen, passing information to the proper authorities for them to act on if they see fit. ..."
We all know what money laundering is. When you need to hide the fact that the money in your possession
comes by way of nefarious sources, you transfer it through legitimate sources and it appears clean
on the other end. It's standard practice among thieves, extortionists, drug dealers, and the like.
The same practice can even be used to "clean" intelligence that comes by dubious sources, and
sometimes even US Senators may involve themselves in such dark activities. Case in point US Senator
John McCain (R-AZ), whose virulent opposition to Donald Trump is outmatched only by his total dedication
to fomenting a new cold (or hot?) war with Russia.
While the world was caught up in the more salacious passages from a purported opposition research
report on Donald Trump showing all manner of collusion with Putin's Russia -- and Russia's possession
of blackmail-able kompromat
on Trump -- something very interesting was revealed about the custody of the information.
The "dossier" on Trump seemed to follow two chains of custody. One involved the media, which in October
were given and encouraged to publish the "report" by the authors of the report (or their sponsors),
purportedly a former British intelligence officer working for a private intelligence company. Only
David Corn of Mother Jones bit, and his resulting story picked over the report to construct a mess
of innuendo on Trump's relation to Russia that was short on any evidence.
The other chain of custody is what interests us. Remember, we have a dubious report constructed
for the purpose of discrediting Donald Trump, which was first commissioned by one of his Republican
primary rivals and later completed under the patronage of someone in Hillary's camp. It was created
for a specific political purpose, which may have tainted its reception among more objective governmental
sources had that been known.
Enter John McCain. According to
media reports, the dossier was handed to Sen. McCain -- again, a strong Trump opponent and proponent
of conflict with Russia -- by a former UK ambassador (who presumably received it from the source,
a former British intelligence officer).
Senator McCain then felt duty-bound to bring this "intelligence report" directly (and privately)
to the personal attention of FBI Director James Comey. From this hand-off to Comey, the report then
became part of the Intelligence Community's assessment of Russian interference in the US presidential
election.
Senator McCain is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one of the most powerful
members of the US Senate. Consider the impact of being handed a strange report by some private intelligence-firm-for-hire
or a media outlet versus being handed a report by one of the most powerful men in the US government.
McCain's involving himself in the case gave the report a sense of legitimacy that it would not otherwise
have had. Was this "laundering" intentional on his part? We do not know, but given his position on
Trump and Russia that possibility must be considered.
So great was the pressure on McCain to come clean on his decision to meet privately with the
FBI Director to hand over this report that he
released a statement earlier today portraying himself as nothing more than a good citizen, passing
information to the proper authorities for them to act on if they see fit.
"... For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful. ..."
"... Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued. ..."
"... puts his name on stuff ..."
"... (2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy ..."
"... Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky – ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the US by means of "gravitational weapons". ..."
"... Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele? ..."
"... But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President of the US is to be discredited appears strange. ..."
"... Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible, you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational, and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st and ..."
"... Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a rigged game, you don't care about the niceties. ..."
"... transition ..."
"... And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days. ..."
"... Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. ..."
In any case, a link to the following story in Hamburg's ridiculously sober-sided Die Zeit came
over the transom:
So schockiert von Trump wie alle anderen ("So shocked by Trump like everyone else"). The reporter
is Alexej Kowaljow
, a Russian journalist based in Moscow. Before anyone goes "ZOMG! The dude is Russian
!", everything Kowaljow writes is based on open sources or common-sense information presumably available
to citizens of any nation. The bottom line for me is that if the world is coming to believe that
Americans are idiots, it's not necessarily because Americans elected Trump as President.
I'm going to lay out two claims and two questions from Kowaljow's piece. In each case, I'll quote
the conventional, Steele and intelligence community-derived wisdom in our famously free press, and
then I'll quote Kowaljow. I think Kowaljow wins each time. Easily. I don't think Google Translate
handles irony well, but I sense that Kowaljow is deploying it freely.
(1) Trump's Supposed Business Dealings in Russia Are Commercial Puffery
Here's
the
section on Russia in Time's article on Trump's business dealings; it's representative. I'm going
to quote it all so you can savor it. Read it carefully.
Donald Trump's Many, Many Business Dealings in 1 Map
Russia
"For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," Trump
tweeted
in July, one day before he called on the country to "find" a batch of emails deleted from
Hillary Clinton's private server. Nonetheless, Russia's extraordinary meddling in the 2016 U.S.
election-a declassified report released by U.S. intelligence agencies in January disclosed that
intercepted conversations captured senior Russian officials celebrating Trump's win-as well as
Trump's complimentary remarks about Russian President have stirred widespread questions about
the President-elect's pursuit of closer ties with Moscow. Several members of Trump's inner circle
have business links to Russia, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who
consulted for pro-Russia politicians in the Ukraine. Former foreign policy adviser Carter
Page worked in Russia and
maintains ties there.
During the presidential transition, former Georgia Congressman and Trump campaign surrogate
Jack Kingston
told a gathering of businessmen in Moscow that the President-elect could lift U.S. sanctions.
According to his own son, Trump has long relied on Russian customers as a source of income.
"Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump
Jr.
told a Manhattan real estate conference in 2008 , according to an account posted on the website
of trade publication eTurboNews. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
Back to map .
Read that again, if you can stand it. Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump?
Do you see the name of any businessperson who closed a deal with Trump? Do you, in fact, see any
reporting at all? At most, you see commercial puffery by Trump the Younger: "Russians [in Russia?]
make up a pretty [qualifier] disproportionate [whatever that means] cross-section [whatever that
means] of a lot of [qualifier] our assets."
Now Kowaljow (via Google Translate, so forgive any solecisms):
For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30
years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although
Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest
hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful.
Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the
Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump
Vodka was discontinued.
Because think about it: Trump puts his name on stuff . Towers in Manhattan, hotels, casinos,
golf courses, steaks. Anything in Russia with Trump's name on it? Besides the failed vodka venture?
No? Case closed, then.
(2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy
Five reasons intel community believes Russia interfered in election
The attacks dovetailed with other Russian disinformation campaigns
The report covers more than just the hacking effort. It also contains a detailed list account
of information warfare against the United States from Russia through other means.
Political party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who the report lists as a "pro-Kremlin proxy,"
said before the election that, if Trump won, Russia would 'drink champagne' to celebrate their
new ability to advance in Syria and Ukraine.
Now Kowaljow:
The report of the American intelligence services on the Russian interference in the US elections,
published at the beginning of January, was notoriously neglected by Russians, because the name
of Vladimir Zhirinovsky was mentioned among the "propaganda activities of Russia", which had announced
that in the event of an election victory of Trump champagne to want to drink.
Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky
– ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the
head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is
neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing
populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the
US by means of "gravitational weapons".
If, therefore, the Kremlin had indeed had the treacherous plan of helping Trump to power, it
would scarcely have been made known about Zhirinovsky.
The American equivalent would be. Give me a moment to think of an American politician who's both
so delusional and such a laughingstock that no American President could possibly
consider using them as a proxy in a devilishly complex informational warfare campaign Sara Palin?
Anthony Weiner? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Na ga happen.
And now to the two questions.
(3) Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele?
Kowaljow:
But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and
contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption
that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary
of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President
of the US is to be discredited appears strange.
Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible,
you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational,
and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st
and 20th centuries, suborning the President of the United States, and whose intelligence agencies
are (3) leakly like a sieve. Does that make sense? (Of course, the devilish Russkis could have fed
Steele bad data, knowing he'd then feed it to the American intelligence agencies, who would lap it
up, but that's another narrative.)
(4) How Do You Compromise the Uncompromisable?
Funny how suddenly the word kompromat was everywhere, wasn't it? So sophisticated. Everybody
loves to learn a new word! Regarding the "Golden Showers" - more sophistication! - Kowaljow writes:
But even if such a compromise should exist, what sense should it have, since the most piquant
details have long been publicly discussed in public, and had no effect on the votes of the elected
president? Like all the other scandals trumps, which passed through the election campaign, they
also remained unresolved, including those who were concerned about sex.
This also includes what is known as a compromise, compromising material, that is, video shots
of the unsightly nature, which can destroy both the political career and the life of a person.
The word Kompromat shines today – as in the past Perestroika – in all headlines; It was not invented
in Russia, of course. But in Russia in the Yeltsin era, when the great clans in the power gave
bitter fights and intensively used the media, works of this kind have ended more than just a brilliant
career. General Prosecutor Jurij Skuratov was dismissed after a video had been shown in the country-wide
television channels: There, a person "who looks like the prosecutor's office" had sex with two
prostitutes.
Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for
whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or
the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally
wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a
rigged game, you don't care about the niceties.
Conclusion
It would be nice, wouldn't it, if our famously free press was actually covering the Trump
transition , instead of acting like their newsrooms are mountain redoubts for an irrendentist
Clinton campaign. It would be nice, for example, to know:
The content and impact of Trump's Executive Orders.
Ditto, regulations.
Personnel decisions below the Cabinet level. Who are the Flexians?
Obama policies that will remain in place, because both party establishments support them.
Charters, for example.
Republican inroads in Silicon Valley.
The future of the IRS, since Republicans have an axe to grind with it.
Mismatch between State expectations for infrastructure and Trump's implementation
And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which
Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich
with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy
of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days.
Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were
all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility
voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. Failing
unless, of course, you're the sort of sleaze merchant who
downsizes the newsroom because, hey, it's all about the clicks.
"... BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Steele had previously been an intelligence officer - rather than agent - in MI6, who would have run a team of agents as an intelligence gatherer. ..."
"... Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President Obama last week. ..."
"... But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned. ..."
"... Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community last week but has since described them as fake news, accusing the US intelligence services of leaking the dossier. ..."
An ex-MI6 officer who is believed to have prepared memos claiming Russia has compromising material
on US President-elect Donald Trump is now in hiding, the BBC understands.
Christopher Steele, who runs a London-based intelligence firm, is believed to have left his home
this week.
The memos contain unsubstantiated claims that Russian security officials have compromising material
on Mr Trump.
The US president-elect said the claims were "fake news" and "phoney stuff".
Mr Steele has been widely named as the author of a series of memos - which have been published
as a dossier in some US media - containing extensive allegations about Mr Trump's personal life and
his campaign's relationship with the Russian state.
... ... ...
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Steele had previously been an intelligence officer
- rather than agent - in MI6, who would have run a team of agents as an intelligence gatherer.
However, as Mr Steele was now working in the private sector, our correspondent said, there was
"probably a fair bit of money involved" in the commissioning of the reports.
He said there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations and it was still possible the dossier
had been based on what "people had said" about Mr Trump "without any proof".
Donald J. Tump Twit
@realDonaldTrump
James Clapper called me yesterday to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally
circulated. Made up, phony facts. Too bad!
... ... ...
Obama briefing
The 35-page dossier on Mr Trump - which is believed to have been commissioned initially by Republicans
opposed to Mr Trump - has been circulating in Washington for some time.
Media organisations, uncertain of its credibility, initially held back from publication. However,
the entire series of reports has now been posted online, with Mr Steele named as the author.
Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President
Obama last week.
But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have
been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned.
Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community
last week but has since described them as fake news, accusing the US intelligence services of leaking
the dossier.
So guardian clearly supports Steele dossier. Nice... So the guy clearly tried to influence
the US election and Guardian neoliberal honchos and their Russophobic presstitutes (like Luke
Harding) are OK with it. They just complain about Russian influence. British elite hypocrisy in action...
Notable quotes:
"... Published in January by BuzzFeed , the dossier suggested that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russian intelligence before the US election to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Citing unidentified sources, it said Trump had been "compromised" by Russia's FSB spy agency during a trip to Moscow in 2013. ..."
"... Trump dismissed the dossier as fake news and said Steele was a "failed spy". Vladimir Putin also rejected the dossier. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed Russia did not collect kompromat – compromising material – on Trump or anyone else. ..."
"... As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said. ..."
Christopher Steele speaks publicly for first time since the file was revealed and thanks
supporters for 'kind messages'
The former MI6 agent behind the
controversial Trump dossier has returned to work, nearly two months after its publication caused
an international scandal and furious denials from Washington and Moscow.
Christopher Steele posed for a photograph outside the office of his business intelligence company
Orbis in Victoria, London on Tuesday. Speaking for the first time since his
dossier was revealed , Steele said he had received messages of support.
"I'm now going to be focusing my efforts on supporting the broader interests of our company here,"
he told the Press Association. "I'd like to say a warm thank you to everyone who sent me kind messages
and support over the last few weeks."
Steele, who left British intelligence in 2009 and co-founded Orbis with an MI6 colleague, said
he would not comment substantively on the contents of the dossier: "Just to add, I won't be making
any further statements or comments at this time."
Published in January by BuzzFeed , the dossier suggested that Donald Trump's team had colluded
with Russian intelligence before the US election to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Citing unidentified
sources, it said Trump had been "compromised" by Russia's FSB spy agency during a trip to Moscow
in 2013.
It alleged that Trump was secretly videoed with Russian prostitutes in a suite in the Ritz-Carlton
hotel in Moscow. The prostitutes allegedly urinated on the bed used by Barack Obama during a presidential
visit.
Trump dismissed the dossier as fake news and said Steele was a "failed spy". Vladimir Putin
also rejected the dossier. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed
Russia did not collect
kompromat – compromising material – on Trump or anyone else.
Steele's friends say he has been keen to go back to work for some weeks. They insist he has not
been in hiding but has been keeping a low profile to avoid paparazzi who have been camped outside
his family home in Surrey.
Several of the lurid stories about him that have appeared in the press have been wrong, said friends.
The stories include claims that Steele met Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian dissident who was murdered
in 2006 with a radioactive cup of tea,
probably on Putin's orders .
As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning,
quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his
case officer, friends said.
"... Despite more than twelve months of non-stop charges against the Russians, and claims of Trump's collusion with Russia, not a shred of hard evidence has yet been presented to back these allegations, which are at the heart of the coup plot being run against the President. ..."
"... Brennan set up a task force to look into the Russian meddling charges after a former British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, delivered a fraudulent dossier, prepared by an "ex"-MI6 operative, to Brennan, through anti-Trump Senator John McCain. ..."
In a desperate attempt to defend its collapsing "Russiagate" narrative, the Washington Post launched
an attack on The Nation magazine for its August 9 article by Patrick Lawrence, "A New Report Raises
Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack." Lawrence's article, in the most prestigious left/progressive
magazine in the U.S., broke the attempted media blackout of the memo sent by the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) on July 24 to President Trump, which effectively refutes the claims
of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, allegedly through "hacking" Democratic National Committee
(DNC) emails and releasing them to Wikileaks.
Despite more than twelve months of non-stop charges
against the Russians, and claims of Trump's collusion with Russia, not a shred of hard evidence has
yet been presented to back these allegations, which are at the heart of the coup plot being run against
the President.
The Nation article was followed by a prominent story in Bloomberg News and one in Salon magazine,
which both reported on the Nation article, and the VIPS memo, and how it challenges the narrative
that Trump owes his election victory to Putin and Russia. That story was concocted by leading figures
in British intelligence, and leaked to the U.S. media by corrupt elements of Obama's intelligence
team, led by the trio of Brennan, Clapper and Comey, as part of the "regime change" against Trump
they launched after his November 2016 election victory.
Brennan set up a task force to look into
the Russian meddling charges after a former British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, delivered
a fraudulent dossier, prepared by an "ex"-MI6 operative, to Brennan, through anti-Trump Senator John
McCain.
The attack on The Nation was posted on the Post's "Eric Wemple Blog" on August 15, and is a blatant
attempt to force The Nation's editors to not merely repudiate the Lawrence article, but to join the
campaign against Trump's desire for cooperation with Russia. Wemple's attempt to dismiss the authoritative
report of the VIPS has no substance, and is written to bludgeon the magazine's editors to adopt the
talking points of the coup plotters. As such, it presents the same weak, sophistical argument presented
by the DNC, which released a statement on the VIPS memo which simply reasserted the conclusion reached
by "U.S. intelligence agencies" of Russian interference, adding, "Any suggestion otherwise is false,
and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration."
Such dangerous silliness was countered by Salon's Danielle Ryan, who wrote on August 15,
"For
the media and mainstream liberals to dismiss information presented in The Nation as lacking in evidence
would be breathtakingly ironic, given how little evidence they required to build a narrative" against
Trump and Putin. She concluded that if the VIPS memo is right, "those who pushed the Russia hacking
narrative with little evidence have a lot to answer for."
A Special Report from the Accuracy in Media Center for Investigative Journalism; Cliff Kincaid, Director
The Role of the CIA's John Brennan
In its lengthy feature article on FBI Director James Comey, The
New York Times disingenuously evades the new evidence from the
British press that nails former President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan for using
the "Trump dossier" as weaponized fake intelligence, which he wielded to spearhead an interagency
task force to investigate Trump during and after the election campaign. The Times article's sole
mention of Brennan suppresses any mention of its own reporting by three of the same reporters on
January 19 about the six-agency, anti-Trump task force or working group (and naturally there
is no investigative reporting to dig into the task force's scandalous operations).
But, of course, that was the same New York Times article, in its January 20 print edition, that
headlined the "
Wiretapped Trump Aides ." The Times wants to forget all about that, now that President Trump
has made the Obama "wire tapping" an issue.
The timing and use of the "Trump dossier" suggests that Hillary's agents during the campaign panicked
when Julian Assange announced on
June 12 , 2016, that he would soon release emails from within the Hillary campaign -- unauthorized
and uncensored -- not official State Department releases redacted to protect Hillary.
It seems as if Hillary's backers hired someone to throw together any sleazy garbage that they could
use to blunt the impact, or even nullify the potentially disastrous effects of the Hillary/DNC emails,
which as far as they knew could come out any day or any minute from WikiLeaks. The first Christopher
Steele report in the "dossier," with the vilest allegations of all, was rushed out in record time,
dated barely a week later, on
June 20 .
From their perspective of defending Hillary, it had to be something on Trump so foul, so disgusting,
that no one would pay any attention to what the WikiLeaks emails from Hillary said or disclosed.
Hence, the first "Trump dossier" report concocted on or before June 20 tried to claim Trump hired
prostitutes to "golden shower" (urinate on) the former Obama bed in the Moscow hotel (or as we have
seen, "someone" said "someone else" said Trump "may" have done so, and it "may" have been taped,
maybe in "some year" or other, etc. Our words in quotes). The Hillary funders evidently did not count
on the "Trump dossier" being so repulsive that even the most hate-filled major media, such as The
New York Times and CNN, could not stomach publishing it or risking lawsuits from a billionaire like
Trump. So they simply drew attention to the document without reproducing it, at first only by veiled
allusion.
As the election approached, the increasingly frantic media began leaking out more and more from
the sickening "dossier." (
NYT
, July 29;
Yahoo News September 23;
Mother Jones October 31;
Washington Post November 1,
Newsweek November 4,
Salon November 4, etc.)
In addition to Comey, who took the bait, we have
evidence
that Obama's CIA director
John Brennan was involved in spreading the allegations, briefing Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) (who
turned around and lambasted Comey), and using it and illegal NSA-GCHQ wiretap data to set up an interagency
task force to investigate Trump. Such CIA-led actions were in violation of the CIA charter forbidding
them from carrying out any law enforcement, police or internal security functions (50 U.S. Code 3036(d)(1)).
(AIM
Special Report , April 17)
Trying to make something out of nothing, the illegal intelligence agency leaks suggest that the
CIA has found some minor "aspects" in the "dossier" that are "
corroborated
" by intercepted wiretap communications. But these turned out to be pseudo-corroborations of
long-known matters of public knowledge (such as alleged Trump adviser Carter Page's "secret" visit
to Moscow, actually openly reported in the
press on July 7).
In fact, essentially the same story indicating that a few business meetings in the "dossier" were
"confirmed" by intercepted communications -- but not important facts -- ran in
Yahoo News on September 23, 2016.
So this is old fake news, designed to magnify and exaggerate trivia to suggest the opposite of
what was actually known, which was that nothing incriminating or wrongful about Trump associate's
business activities with Russia had been found -- no "smoking gun." (
AIM
, Febrary 20 and
April 17 , 2017; cf.
Washington Post November 1, 2016; and
CNN )
"... Until now, Susan Rice had always denied spying on Donald Trump and his team both in the transition period and also in the run up to the presidential elections. There have been several times when President Trump has denounced the illegal tappings that the Obama Administration had authorized against him, which the Press in the United States had qualified as completely fabricated. ..."
"... President Richard Nixon had been forced to resign for spying on the Democratic Party's electoral headquarters. However, in the case of Susan Rice, the Congressmen have not "acquired a conviction" that she had committed a federal crime and that she had tried to cover it up. ..."
"... In contrast, President Obama's team is presenting the tappings ordered by Susan Rice as wholly legitimate in the context of an investigation into possible Russian interferences. Furthermore, it is a fact that the United Arab Emirates has organized at the same time, a meeting in the Seychelles, between someone close to President Putin and Erik Prince (former director of Blackwater, military advisor to the Emirates and brother of the current Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos). ..."
Susan Rice, the former National Security Advisor, has admitted before the House of Representatives'
Intelligence Committee that during the transition period, she had spied on Donald Trump and his team
when they were in Trump Tower, New York. She also admitted that she had had the names of Donald Trump,
Jared Kushner, Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon deleted from summaries of the tappings.
Mrs Rice has guaranteed that her intention was not to find out the secret plans of the Team Trump.
She just was trying to figure out what the United Arab Emirates was up to, and was hoping to gather
relevant information from the content of an interview that the President Elect was supposed to have
given to the Prince and heir to the throne of Abu Dhabi.
Until now, Susan Rice had always denied spying on Donald Trump and his team both in the transition
period and also in the run up to the presidential elections. There have been several times when President
Trump has denounced the illegal tappings that the Obama Administration had authorized against him,
which the Press in the United States had qualified as completely fabricated.
President Richard Nixon had been forced to resign for spying on the Democratic Party's electoral
headquarters. However, in the case of Susan Rice, the Congressmen have not "acquired a conviction"
that she had committed a federal crime and that she had tried to cover it up.
In contrast, President Obama's team is presenting the tappings ordered by Susan Rice as wholly
legitimate in the context of an investigation into possible Russian interferences. Furthermore, it
is a fact that the United Arab Emirates has organized at the same time, a meeting in the Seychelles,
between someone close to President Putin and Erik Prince (former director of Blackwater, military
advisor to the Emirates and brother of the current Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos).
"... Federal law enforcement sources said Bharara was simply following the orders of Attorney General Lynch, who lobbied the State Department to issue the disavowed Russian a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. This permitted Veselnitskaya entry into the United States for the sole purpose of entrapping Trump associates to use as fuel to commission wiretaps, federal sources said. ..."
"... Veselnitskaya may have been paid as well by the U.S. government, FBI sources said. It was reported last week that Steele, who compiled the Trump dossier was paid at least $100,000 from FBI funds as well. But that came later, after the wiretapping was well underway. ..."
"... Federal sources said the wiretaps on Trump insiders began in late 2015, almost a year before the 2016 election. The targets then were Flynn and Page, sources confirmed. When no smoking gun was recovered from those initial taps, U.S. intelligence agencies moved to broaden the scope through their newly-formed alliance. ..."
"... Intelligence garnered from the British eavesdropping, which again was merely a front for the NSA, was then used in August 2016 to secure a legitimate FISA warrant on Manafort, Trump Jr. and Kushner. That warrant was issued on or about September, 2016, federal sources confirm. ..."
And none of it was very legal. In fact, most of it was very illegal, according to federal law enforcement sources who are blowing
the whistle on a sweeping scheme to undermine the Executive branch and the electorate's choice for president of the United States.
And according to high ranking FBI sources, the Bureau played a definitive role in plotting this sweeping privacy breach. But the
FBI had much help from the NSA, CIA, the Office of of the Director of National Intelligence, Treasury financial crimes division under
DHS, and the Justice Department, federal law enforcement sources confirmed. The Deep State caretakers involved are familiar names:
James Comey (FBI), John Brennan (CIA), James Clapper (ODNI), Loretta Lynch (DOJ), Jeh Johnson (DHS), Admiral Michael Rogers (NSA).
And then-director of GCHQ Robert Hannigan who has since resigned from the esteemed British spy agency.
President Barack Obama's White House too could be implicated, sources said. But while evidence certainly points to involvement
of the Obama administration, sources said they did not have access to definitive intelligence proving such a link.
Here is what we now know, per intelligence gleaned form federal law enforcement sources with insider knowledge of what amounts
to a plot by U.S. intelligence agencies to secure back door and illegal wiretaps of President Trump's associates:
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates
and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates
to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed
by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct
NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher
Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial
Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates
as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international
security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it
is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not
illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian
collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who spearheaded the Trump Tower meeting with the Trump campaign trio, was previously barred from
entering the United Sates due to her alleged connections to the Russian FSB (the modern replacement of the cold-war-era KGB).
Yet mere days before the June meeting, Veselnitskaya was granted a rare visa to enter the United States from Preet Bharara, the
then U.S. Attorney for the southern district of New York. Bharara could not be reached for comment and did not respond the a Twitter
inquiry on the Russian's visa by True Pundit.
Federal law enforcement sources said Bharara was simply following the orders of Attorney General Lynch, who lobbied the State
Department to issue the disavowed Russian a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. This permitted Veselnitskaya entry into the United States for
the sole purpose of entrapping Trump associates to use as fuel to commission wiretaps, federal sources said.
Veselnitskaya may have been paid as well by the U.S. government, FBI sources said. It was reported last week that Steele,
who compiled the Trump dossier was paid at least $100,000 from FBI funds as well. But that came later, after the wiretapping was
well underway.
The illegal eavesdropping started long before Steele's dossier. Federal sources said the wiretaps on Trump insiders began
in late 2015, almost a year before the 2016 election. The targets then were Flynn and Page, sources confirmed. When no smoking gun
was recovered from those initial taps, U.S. intelligence agencies moved to broaden the scope through their newly-formed alliance.
Intelligence garnered from the British eavesdropping, which again was merely a front for the NSA, was then used in August
2016 to secure a legitimate FISA warrant on Manafort, Trump Jr. and Kushner. That warrant was issued on or about September, 2016,
federal sources confirm.
It was the third time the cabal of U.S. intelligence agencies sought a FISA warrant for the Trump associates and this time it
was approved.
FBI sources said finally obtaining the FISA warrant was important because it provided the agencies cover for previous illegal
wiretapping which they believed would never be discovered.
"This would make for an incredible string of Senate hearings," one federal law enforcement source said. "I don't think they ever
thought he (Trump) would win and information would come out about how they manipulated evidence."
The level of corruption is too deep and people in the FBI/DOJ are complicit, they are covering up the Elite crimes, they
won't do their job, nothing is going to happen, no one is going to jail.
Yeah. This is who the Russian economist close to Putin was talking about when he sid they aren't worried about Nazis in the
Ukraine, that they are worried about the Nazis in Washington.
Trump knew about this because Mike Rogers tipped him off Nov. 17 in an unannounced meeting at Trump Towers. The next day campaign
operations moved to New Jersey and Clapper sent a letter to Obama demanding Rogers be fired.
Baharra was fired...Comey was fired...Harrington resigned Jan 23...Rogers still has his job.
see more
Neocons still dream of Trump impeachment. Neutering him is not enough... the number of potentially illegal wiretaps of Trump associates
suggests that threr was a plan to derail plan in three letter agencies headquarters (with blessing of Obama). Plan of interfere with
the US election to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times reported Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. ..."
"... A typical white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate. ..."
"... Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly. ..."
Then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort at the Republican National Convention. (Matt Rourke/Associated Press)
Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel
Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader
inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign.
CNN
reported
Monday night that the FBI obtained a warrant to listen in on Manafort's phone calls back in 2014. The warrant was part of an
investigation into U.S. firms that may have performed undisclosed work for the Ukrainian government. The surveillance reportedly
lapsed for a time but was begun again last year when the FBI learned about possible ties between Russian operatives and Trump associates.
This news is a big deal primarily because of what it takes to obtain such a wiretap order. The warrant reportedly was issued under
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A FISA warrant requires investigators to demonstrate to the FISA court that there is probable
cause to believe the target may be acting as an unlawful foreign agent.
When
news broke last month that Mueller was using a grand jury to conduct his investigation, many reported it with unnecessary breathlessness.
Although a grand jury investigation is certainly significant, a prosecutor does not need court approval or a finding of probable
cause to issue a grand jury subpoena, and Mueller's use of a grand jury
was not unexpected .
A FISA warrant is another matter. It means investigators have demonstrated probable cause to an independent judicial authority.
Obtaining a warrant actually says much more about the strength of the underlying allegations than issuing a grand jury subpoena.
That's also why the search warrant
executed at Manafort's home in July was such a significant step in the investigation. Unlike a grand jury subpoena, the search
warrant required Mueller's team to demonstrate to a judge that a crime probably had been committed.
But it's important not to get too far in front of the story. The FBI surveillance of Manafort reportedly began in 2014, long before
he was working as Trump's campaign manager. So the initial allegations, at least, appear to have involved potential crimes having
nothing to do with the Trump campaign. And most or all of the surveillance apparently took place before Mueller was even appointed
and was not at his direction.
Mueller's involvement now does suggest that the current focus relates to Manafort's role in the Trump campaign. But we don't know
exactly how, if at all, any alleged crimes by Manafort relate to his work in that role. And we don't know whether any other individuals
involved in the campaign are potentially implicated.
We also don't know what evidence was obtained as a result of the surveillance. The fact that warrants were issued does not mean
any evidence of criminal conduct was actually found.
The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times
reported
Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. Even if Mueller
were to indict Manafort for crimes not directly related to the Trump campaign, it would be a significant development. A typical
white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and
then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to
be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate.
Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know
many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly.
But news of the FISA surveillance is the latest evidence that Mueller's investigation is serious, aggressive and will be with
us for some time.
Randall D. Eliason teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School.
Is this CIA against Hillary Clinton. Did she cross some red line ? Why this revelation
happened now? What changed in deep state to allow such a revelation to surface.
Notable quotes:
"... Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier – which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election ..."
"... Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren't made public until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this would've provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would've been stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices. ..."
"... While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias - $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier. ..."
"... Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion. Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist his campaign for president. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Dunes has tried to compel Fusion's founders to disclose who paid for the dossier, but all three of them pled the fifth during public testimony last week. Nunes has also tried subpoenaing the firm's bank records. ..."
"... The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports ..."
Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton
campaign jointly financed the creation of the infamous "Trump dossier," which helped inspire
the launch of the floundering investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the
Russians.
Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy
Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier
– which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically
suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of
dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election.
Sound familiar?
Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren't made public
until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this
would've provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would've been
stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices.
While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the
Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias -
$5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance
records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since
Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier.
Fusion GPS's work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries when
an unidentified GOP donor reportedly hired the firm to dig into Trump's background. The
Republicans who were involved in the early stages of Fusion's efforts have not yet been
identified. Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump's Russia ties, but quickly realized
that those relationships would be a fruitful place to start,
WaPo reported.
Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was
primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion.
Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected
compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist
his campaign for president.
Fusion turned over Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, and it's unclear
how much of it he shared with the campaign.
The revelation about who funded the dossier comes just days after Trump tweeted that the FBI
and DOJ should publicly reveal who hired Fusion GPS. And lo and behold, that information has
now been made public.
Officials behind the now discredited "Dossier" plead the Fifth. Justice Department and/or
FBI should immediately release who paid for it.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Dunes has tried to compel Fusion's founders to
disclose who paid for the dossier, but all three of them pled the fifth during public testimony
last week. Nunes has also tried subpoenaing the firm's bank records.
The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may
never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering
intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele
was publicly identified in news reports. Officials also decided to withhold information from
the dossier in an intelligence community report published in January alleging that Russian
entities had tried to sway the US election on behalf of the Russian government.
Of course, we still don't know who leaked the dossier to Buzzfeed and CNN back in January.
John McCain – one of the primary suspects – has repeatedly denied it, and Fusion
GPS has said in court documents that it didn't share the document with Buzzfeed. However, we do
known that in early January, then-FBI Director James B. Comey presented a two-page summary of
Steele's dossier to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump.
It therefore strongly suggests that it was the FBI that was instrumental in spreading the
dossier to the media, most of which was too embarrassed to publish it until Buzzfeed came along
and did it... for the clicks.
So to summarize:
Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid to uncover and package dirt, whether factual or not, on
Trump which eventually found its way in the Trump dossier
In doing so, the Clintons and the DNC were effectively collaborating with "deep" sources,
both among the UK spy apparatus and inside Russia
Once Trump won, the FBI was instrumental in "leaking" the dossier to the mainstream media
and select still unknown recipients (the same way Comey "leaked" his personal notebooks just
a few months later, following his termination, to launch a probe of Trump).
The former head of the FBI who was supposed to probe Clinton's State Department - and the
Clinton Foundation - for a bribery and kickback scheme involving Russia's U.S. nuclear
business, is now investigating Trump for Russia collusion instead
But wait, it gets better: as Ken Vogel, formerly the chief investigative reporter at
Politico and currently at the NY Times just reported, " When I tried to report this story,
Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources)
are wrong."
When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back
vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong." https://t.co/B5BZwoaNhI
Another NYT reporter, Maggie Haberman, confirmed as much saying " Folks involved in
funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year ", and by folks she ultimately
means Hillary Clinton herself.
Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year https://t.co/vXKRV1wRJc
Which in light of the latest news suggests that Clinton was lying, which is not
surprising, especially when considering the recent "revelations" that the Clintons may
themselves have been involved in collusion with Russia over the infamous uranium deal.
Which brings us to the questionable role played by the FBI in all of this, and
ultimately, the role still being played by Robert Mueller. Here is the WSJ
,
Let's give plausible accounts of the known facts, then explain why demands that Robert
Mueller recuse himself from the Russia investigation may not be the fanciful partisan
grandstanding you imagine.
Here's a story consistent with what has been reported in the press -- how reliably
reported is uncertain. Democratic political opponents of Donald Trump financed a British
former spook who spread money among contacts in Russia, who in turn over drinks solicited
stories from their supposedly "connected" sources in Moscow. If these people were really
connected in any meaningful sense, then they made sure the stories they spun were
consistent with the interests of the regime, if not actually scripted by the regime. The
resulting Trump dossier then became a factor in Obama administration decisions to launch an
FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign , and after the election to
trumpet suspicions of Trump collusion with Russia.
We know of a second, possibly even more consequential way the FBI was effectively a
vehicle for Russian meddling in U.S. politics. Authoritative news reports say FBI chief
James Comey's intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter was prompted by a Russian
intelligence document that his colleagues suspected was a Russian plant.
OK, Mr. Mueller was a former close colleague and leader but no longer part of the FBI
when these events occurred. This may or may not make him a questionable person to lead a
Russia-meddling investigation in which the FBI's own actions are necessarily a concern. But
now we come to the Rosatom disclosures last week in The Hill, a newspaper that covers
Congress.
Here's another story as plausible as we can make it based on credible reporting. After
the Cold War, in its own interest, the U.S. wanted to build bridges to the Russian nuclear
establishment. The Putin government, for national or commercial purposes, agreed and sought
to expand its nuclear business in the U.S.
Ah yes, the Clinton's own Russia collusion narrative which recently emerged to the
surface and which as of today is
being investigated by the House :
The purchase and consolidation of certain assets were facilitated by Canadian
entrepreneurs who gave large sums to the Clinton Foundation, and perhaps arranged a Bill
Clinton speech in Moscow for $500,000. A key transaction had to be approved by Hillary
Clinton's State Department.
Now we learn that, before and during these transactions, the FBI had uncovered a bribery
and kickback scheme involving Russia's U.S. nuclear business, and also received reports of
Russian officials seeking to curry favor through donations to the Clinton Foundation
This criminal activity was apparently not disclosed to agencies vetting the 2010
transfer of U.S. commercial nuclear assets to Russia . The FBI made no move to break up the
scheme until long after the transaction closed. Only five years later, the Justice
Department, in 2015, disclosed a plea deal with the Russian perpetrator so quietly that its
significance was missed until The Hill reported on the FBI investigation last week.
As the WSJ correctly notes, " for anyone who cares to look, the real problem here is
that the FBI itself is so thoroughly implicated in the Russia meddling story ."
Which then shifts the focus to the person who was, and again is, in charge of it all:
former FBI director, and current special prosecutor Robert Mueller:
The agency, when Mr. Mueller headed it, soft-pedaled an investigation highly
embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton as well as the Obama Russia reset policy . More recently, if
just one of two things is true -- Russia sponsored the Trump Dossier, or Russian fake
intelligence prompted Mr. Comey's email intervention -- then Russian operations, via their
impact on the FBI, influenced and continue to influence our politics in a way far more
consequential than any Facebook ad, the preoccupation of John McCain, who apparently cannot
behold a mountain if there's a molehill anywhere nearby.
Which means that Mr. Mueller has the means, motive and opportunity to obfuscate and
distract from matters embarrassing to the FBI, while pleasing a large part of the political
spectrum. He need only confine his focus to the flimsy, disingenuous but popular (with the
media) accusation that the shambolic Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin.
Mr. Mueller's tenure may not have bridged the two investigations, but James Comey's, Rod
Rosenstein's , Andrew Weissmann's , and Andrew McCabe's did. Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mr.
Mueller as special counsel. Mr. Weissmann now serves on Mr. Mueller's team. Mr. McCabe
remains deputy FBI director. All were involved in the nuclear racketeering matter and the
Russia meddling matter.
The punchline: it's not the Clintons that should be looked at, at least not at first -
their time will come. It's the FBI:
By any normal evidentiary, probative or journalistic measure, the big story here is the
FBI -- its politicized handling of Russian matters, and not competently so. To put it
bluntly, whatever its hip-pocket rationales along the way, the FBI would not have so much
to cover up now if it had not helped give us Mrs. Clinton as Democratic nominee and then,
in all likelihood, inadvertently helped Mr. Trump to the presidency
We eagerly look forward to Trump's furious tweetstorm once he learns of all of this...
and how long before he fires Mueller, in this case with cause.
Another day, another scandal in Washington, DC. Simultaneous opening of inquires that are designed to hurt Hillary and Bill were
complete surprise.
Why now? There was some change on deep state level that is now reflected in this news. Suddenly Uranium 1 scandal comes into the
forfront. And along with Steele dossier it is damaging to Clinton. Were Clintons "Weinsteinalized"? Should be expect "50 women"
phenomena
to be replayed.
There is some storm hitting the US "deep state". The reasons for this storm remains hidden. But attempt of Clintons to preserve
their leadership in Democratic Party after Hillary fiasco in 2016 now are again became questionable.>
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - The Washington Post The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said. ..."
"... After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ..."
"... Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele ..."
Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - The Washington Post The Hillary Clinton campaign and
the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President
Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the
research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI
and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before
that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October 2016,
days before Election Day.
Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele compiled the dossier on President Trump's alleged ties to Russia. (Victoria
Jones/AP)
Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear
how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles
of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of
Fusion GPS's role.
"... Russia cannot be a poor, weak, regional power at best, that doesn't make anything, a gas station masquerading as a country and simultaneously pose an existential threat to the United States, and has the wherewithal and guile to decide US presidential elections. ..."
"... US and Western propaganda fails miserably, because it is so inconsistent and anyone with a modicum basic knowledge of history and has an attention span longer than that of a goldfish is immune to it. ..."
The US and their European Atlanticist minions are trapped by their own propaganda and
ideological prejudices.
Russia cannot be a poor, weak, regional power at best, that doesn't
make anything, a gas station masquerading as a country and simultaneously pose an existential
threat to the United States, and has the wherewithal and guile to decide US presidential
elections.
US and Western propaganda is so inconsistent and contradictory. However, Americans
and their European Atlanticist minions are so myopic – they don't notice it!
It's hilarious, US and Western propaganda fails miserably, because it is so inconsistent
and anyone with a modicum basic knowledge of history and has an attention span longer than
that of a goldfish is immune to it.
Looks like Atlantic honchos are really worrying at the possibility of the release of the JFK
assassination documents. I like the line "One, that the press is "the enemy of the American
people" working in cahoots with the deep state, and, two, by lending credibility to the idea that
the official story of JFK's assassination is indeed suspect."
Notable quotes:
"... The phrase "conspiracy theory" was invented by the CIA to cover up what they were doing. It shouldn't take much smarts to see that LHO was just a patsy. ..."
"... Here's a smarts question for you: did Bush try to launch a rightwing military coup in the USA, yes or no? ..."
"... I don't think there's any doubt that the CIA has and had assets in the media who did and do perpetuate disinformation and distraction. ..."
"... Of course they've tried to hide the fact, but the Church Committee hearings on the plots and assassinations and other criminal behavior by The Agency back in the 1950s and 1960s exposed all sorts of similar schemes. ..."
Trump tweeted Saturday morning,
"I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened."
Trump's announcement came a day after his longtime confidant Roger Stone went on
Infowars , a radio show and website known for spreading conspiracy theories, and
announced that Trump would not block the release of the documents, which are set to be issued
by the National Archives in the coming days. Earlier that day, Politico Magazine had published an in-depth piece saying that Trump would likely
block the release of the files.
Here's the thing that happens, apparently, when a conspiracy theorist becomes president of
the United States: The lines between decision and reaction blur. The American people are
accustomed to public officials spinning their way through public office. No president has been
truly forthcoming with the electorate. Many have misled the American people.
... ... ...
Regardless of the files, though, Trump's attention to them is a window into
how he wants to be seen. In one dashed-off tweet, Trump positions himself as doing something
noble -- advocating for transparency, against the warnings of the intelligence community --
while feeding at least two major conspiracies. One, that the press is "the enemy of the
American people" working in cahoots with the deep state, and, two, by lending credibility to
the idea that the official story of JFK's assassination is indeed suspect.
"The best conspiracy theories have all the trappings of a classic underdog story," wrote Rob
Brotherton in his book, Suspicious Minds . "We want to see top dogs taken down a peg;
we want the downtrodden underdog to triumph. And when it comes to conspiracy theories, unfair
disadvantage is par for the course
The best initial attitude to have is one of skepticism...not only of conspiracy theories
but of denials of conspiracy theories. Until, that is, definitive evidence is revealed. You
are a fool to believe in conspiracy theories without credible evidence You are also a fool
for denying them without evidence. The fact is that we know through credible records
including the CIA's own internal records that they have been involved with many conspiracies
with foreign militias, dictatorships, corporations, thugs, gangsters and assassins. You are a
damn fool not to take an allegation seriously and to blanket dismiss new allegations unless
proven false. In fact, the CIA had (has?) a campaign to discredit any criticism of its
policies as "conspiracy theory". Gaslighting is a common tool they have used against anyone
who dares critiques or questions them.
The phrase "conspiracy theory" was invented by the CIA to cover up what they were doing.
It shouldn't take much smarts to see that LHO was just a patsy.
Here's a smarts question for you: did Bush try to launch a rightwing military coup in the
USA, yes or no?
The files were due to be released on this day after 25 years. In 1992, after the movie JFK
came out, people were intrigued and wanted the files released. The president ordered them
sealed for another 25 years (Oct 2017) and President Trump happens to be President. He will
release the files, if no conspiracy there, we will FINALLY get the transparency we the people
have been asking for. Nothing more, nothing less.
How exactly will the files show there was "no conspiracy there"? Do you expect somehow the
files will erase the numerous eyewitness accounts of shots from in front of the
motorcade?
Not only that, but the Parkland doctors said JFK's wounds ran contrary to what the Warren
Report concluded. And the only doctor who saw both the assassination, the Parkland Hospital
work, and the Bethesda autopsy, Dr. Burkley, was never consulted by the Warren Commission,
and when asked later whether he thought shots may have hit Kennedy from more than one
direction, replied: "I don't care to comment on that."
Bugliosi was intellectually dishonest in his massive tome. He hid inconvenient facts in
order to push his agenda; i.e. that a lone gunman did all of the work alone. Serious scholars
like Newman and DiEugenio have revealed his omissions for all to see.
I can't say for sure how the Clintons did it, but we should recall that Bill met JFK in
1963 and used that opportunity to plant a miniature tracking device. Hillary, using one of
her witch spells, then met Bill earlier than officially recorded, and the two of them
recruited Oswald and Ruby, with the help of Soviet agents using Vince Foster as a temporal
go-between. Foster killed himself over his guilt in the assasination. They were desperate to
get Hillary elected to stop the release of the files, but of course they failed. Now we will
get another reason to lock her up. I have no proof but know this in my heart to be true.
They would have had to recruit Jack Ruby from organized crime --- see Who Was Jack Ruby?
by Scripps-Howard White House correspondent Seth Kantor for more on "the mob's front man when
they moved into Dallas."
Edit: Kantor was previously a reporter in Dallas-Ft. Worth and before that, a veteran of
Guadalcanal --- he played a key role in testifying that Jack Ruby, who he knew well, was at
Parkland Hospital while JFK was in Trauma Room One, which Ruby denied. The circumstances
indicate a strong possibility Ruby planted the so-called "Magic Bullet" on an unattended
stretcher.
The lame stream news media are forever searching for ways to attack Trump. You'd think he
would get some credit for releasing the 3,000 documents. But no, once again he has ulterior
motives.
I remember Walter Cronkite saying that it's difficult for people to come to the conclusion
that one man could have affected history to the extent that Oswald did.
That's a fine thought, but has nothing to do with an actual murder case in which Oswald is
supposed to have killed Patrolman Tippit and then President Kennedy, despite not one single
shred of concrete, credible evidence tying him to either of the weapons supposedly used. In
fact, even worse, the weapon or weapons used don't even consistently show up in the
chain-of-custody by the Dallas police, bullets don't match, wounds are seen by attending
physicians which had to be fired from the front, etc.
"How could Oswald shoot Kennedy in the front from the back?" is one reductio of the Warren
Commission fantasies, which is why they assiduously avoided calling scores of eyewitnesses of
the assassination to testify, and mucked up the autopsy evidence. I mean, their whole "case"
amounted to "Well, Oswald was a communist" (not correct) "who hated Kennedy" (wrong again!)
"and killed a policeman" (this is completely bogus, with key Tippit-killing witness Helen
Markham described by a WC attorney as a "crackpot" among other problems) and "Oswald was at
the Texas School Book Depository" (True, he worked there in a job arranged by Ruth Paine) "so
he must have shot JFK" ---
(Wrong, the eyewitness testimony --- see The Girl on the Stairs: My Search for a Missing
Witness to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by Barry Ernest, for example -- places him in
the "wrong place" to have shot anyone down in the motorcade from the sixth floor, and that's
just the first major problem, it would take too long to recount them all, as in HUNDREDS OF
PAGES, so that's just a few hints about what faces anyone investigating and/or reading about
the JFK assassination, as well as the murders of Tippit and Oswald, or Jack Ruby's extensive
ties as an organized crime factotum in Dallas and Cuba. Yes, Cuba.
Adrienne Lagrange, being the highly intellectual you try and portray. Why don't you see
that by writing this negative story about President Trump you not only make yourself sound
foolish, but you push neutral people to the President's side. Why do you think former
President Bush came out after 9 years of silence to condemn "conspiracy theorist" days before
President Trump announced the release of the JFK files? President Bush sr WAS involved with
the CIA in Texas during the JFK assasination in 1963. Obviously, he does not want the truth
to come out and so he got out in front of story to discredit what the files will show.
Corruption is common in the U.S Government, President Trump is dismantling this corruption a
little bit at a time. This is only the beginning.
What more do you need? The JFK literature is voluminous, and maybe you need to actually
try to read some of the key source material and critics and go from there.
Try reading Accessories after the Fact by Sylvia Meagher or On the Trail of the
Assassins by Jim Garrison, or Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. If you have the time
to deal with over 1200 pages about the JFK assassination, read Vincent Bugliosi's
Reclaiming History , and THEN read the ferocious debunkings of Bugliosi available
online.
N.B. Some of the most important discussions in Bugliosi's massive tome are in the
Endnotes, especially but not only "What the Parkland Doctors Saw." Conspiracy of
Silence by Parkland M.D. Dr. Charles Crenshaw is another useful text, as is Mafia
Kingfish by John Davis.
Ok: my honest opinion is that you can't summarize anything as complex as the planning,
execution, and subsequent coverup of the JFK assassination (including extensive use of media
assets for DECADES afterward) in anything short of a manuscript of hundreds of pages, and
many of the best work is already available, "just google it" ---but again, you have to be
willing to read those hundreds of pages with some sense of other background facts about the
Cold War and spy agencies.
This is one of the most intricate and far reaching events or set
of interconnected events in modern history --- just take a look at the "tags" on the front
page of kennedysandking.com and you'll see what I mean.
On the only occasion in which I had time in tutorials with Chomsky, I asked him first about
his views on the nexus of players at 544 Camp Street. That question and his answer might not
even make much sense to you without extensive background reading. Sorry, but that's just the
facts.
I truly understand your point regarding the complexity of the issue and I apologize for my
earlier comment.
I'm aware of the massive inconsistencies in the examination of his body, how it was
"handled", "magic bullets", and lots of other stuff I once knew but have forgotten. There's a
LOT of stuff, that's for sure.
I'm also very aware of how certain agencies (especially intel agencies) operate. Their
allegience to the truth is suspect at best.
I guess I was asking for was something like "It was basically an effort by (a list such
as... certain elements in the FBI/CIA/NSA/government... and/or foreign governments... and/or
the Mafia... or Cuba... or it was basically a coup driven by the MIC... (which I think it
was) or whatever combination it may be)." Basically the 100k foot view, a very simplistic
view. And I realize my opinion is not _nearly_ as informed as yours.
But that would certainly open up much noise from people like that moron I blocked earlier.
And certainly no one needs more of that....
I'll check out the links. Thanks.
By the way... I met Jim Marrs twice when I lived in Texas, actually around a campfire. It
was interesting meeting him, and he was a very interesting man regarding the JFK
assassination. I didn't know he passed, apparently quite recently.
I hope these documents get released and I hope they answer a lot of the open questions
still remaining.
JFK was murdered by the CIA.....he wanted to "to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces
and scatter it to the winds"......he fired Allen Dulles. Dulles was one of seven
commissioners of the Warren Commission to investigate the assassination of the U.S. President
John F. Kennedy..oh and he had no problem murdering people....
I don't believe a single word from a politician. They are professional liars. It's their
job to lie and spin webs of deception. I watch and judge them by their actions.
I couldn't care less what color orange TrumPutin wears. He declared war on corporate media
and that is good enough for me. I don't support him because of his position on Snowden but I
agree with him on many issues.
JFK was a naive fool. He moved against forces he did not fully understand. I don't blame
him for trying. He was a patriot.
Atantuc reasserting it's superior newsmaking capabilities with click-bait headlines,
unsupported assumptions and trolling. Well done. You fall below tabloid, yellow
journalism.
LOL---americans are little antagonistic children that prefer lies to truth...see comments
below! and are gullible enough to believe anything told them...who needs conspiracy theories
when people are so stupid...everyone in Europe understood that americans were idiots when
they accepted the impossible claim that 1 shooter killed JFK...and now they are more stupid
believing that 1 gambler shot 500 people in las vegas...a nation of dimwits
The American public had to wait TWELVE YEARS to see the Zapruder film of the
assassination, showing the effect of the kill shot from in front of the motorcade. But by the
time Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane had become a best seller a few years after the 26 volumes
of the Warren Commission's hearings and exhibits were published (with no index --- it was
left to United Nations-employed scientist Sylvia Meagher to assemble that, which spurred
critics of the WC fantasies and outright lies to expose the multiple flaws and fallacies in
the first "official investigation," i.e., the first attempted coverup) the credibility of the
Krazy Kid Oswald nonsense was already held in disrepute by informed observers.
The article above can't whitewash the mainstream media's role in the coverup, of course ---
search "Operation Mockingbird" or "Walter Sheridan and the Garrison investigation" or " Jim
Di Eugenio critique of Phil Shenon's JFK books" etc,
Any claims that the Soviets or Cubans did it have been thoroughly debunked. It was an
American domestic coup. If you believe the Warren Commission, I've got Indian treaties to
show you.
No one has presented evidence that there was another shooter. Clint Black, the secret
service agent at the scene adamantly say's no other gunshots from the grassy knoll
area. Simply no proof. As for the Vegas shooting as well.
I disagree with your faith-based following of Bugliosi. I think Dr. Cyril Wecht blows
Bugliosi out of the water, from a forensics standpoint.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
See the book Reclaiming Parkland for an extended dismantling of Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History, or just search "critical reviews of Bugliosi's JFK assassination book." It's an
embarrassment that Bugliosi wrote such fine books on the Simpson case and on the Supreme
Court's Bush v. Gore decision, but was apparently either blackmailed into writing obvious
lies or somehow convinced himself "no one with sufficient familiarity with the JFK
assassination in the requisite granular detail will ever read my book and expose my silly
attempts to distort the historical record." It took enormous chutzpah on his part to title
the book "Reclaiming History."
Search "Reclaiming History? Or Re-framing Oswald?" at
reclaiminghistory.org , which has links to a series of reviews of Bugliosi, none of which
you will ever see discussed on CNN or any other corporate mass media outlet. Instead, without
bothering to read the book much less deal with hundreds and hundreds of footnotes and
"Endnotes," some of bear on crucial points about the JFK assassination (such as "What the
Parkland Doctors Saw" ---see the Endnotes from 404-408} the corporate media is happy to
perpetuate as best they can the "one lone nut with no ties to the CIA killed two days later
by another lone nut with no relevant ties to the mob" confabulations.
"Reclaiming Parkland" is not one I've read, but I will. I don't think there's any doubt that the CIA has and had assets in the media who did and
do perpetuate disinformation and distraction.
Of course they've tried to hide the fact, but the Church Committee hearings on the plots
and assassinations and other criminal behavior by The Agency back in the 1950s and 1960s
exposed all sorts of similar schemes.
Search "MKUltra" and "Operation Artichoke" or just "The CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald" and you
can run across all sorts of interesting facts. not wild speculation, but facts, some of it
from CIA documents etc. etc.
Newman did his homework. He has combed through the declassified records and published his
findings on Oswald and the CIA, and on what really happened in Vietnam.
In my view the Miami and Chicago plans being aborted make the existence of multiple
shooters in Dallas-- such as Files -- more believable; the conspirators were simply not going
to miss another chance. Interestingly, Files himself says his superior told him the Dallas
plot was supposed to be called off, but they ignored the order.
Did you know that Gerald Posner, who wrote the definitive book concluding that Oswald
acted alone ("Case Closed"), is fully in favor of releasing the remainder of the documents --
in agreement with Pres. Trump's friend Roger Stone, who is a "conspiracy theorist"?
Did you know that the original "conspiracy theorist" -- the late Mark Lane -- was a
leftist and ardent supporter of JFK?
For the educated, this is about transparency, not ignorance.
Posner? Are you posting this as some kind of joke? Posner fabricated, altered, distorted
evidence on practically EVERY key point about the supposed role of Oswald, and totally
ignored all the revelations about Oswald's connections which exposed the role he played as an
intelligence agency asset.
Try reading some "critical reviews" of Case Closed, they are devastating and some are
maliciously funny, as well.
I was being sarcastic. I was pointing out that if a guy like Posner is in favor of
releasing the rest of the documents, it's a non-controversial issue.
I can promise you this; Vincent Buglioti wrote THEE masterpiece. Reclaiming history, The
JFK assassination. 1612 pages, twenty year's of research, and he embarrassed every other JFK
assassination writer' I've read Posner's book. Very well researched. But truthfully, it
cannot compare to Bugliotis " opus"
Get real --- Bugliosi has been thoroughly debunked. One of his favorite tricks is to
partially quote the FBI reports from Sibert and O'Neill out-of-context and ignore
contradictory witness testimony from witnesses (and there were dozens) not called to testify
before the Warren Commission. His book (and yes, I read ALL of it but with the advantage of
having ALSO read the WC report (the 26 volumes in large part, although not the part where
they had dental x-rays from Jack Ruby's mother --- I kid you not --- so much as the
inadvertently revelatory portions) as well as dozens and dozens of other books on the
assassination, so I could immediately spot some of Bugliosi's howlers) is considered
essentially a fraud on the public by informed critics of the JFK assassination.
"Conspiracy theories are a way to stand up, through disbelief, against the powerful. Those
who spread conspiracy theories in earnest are, whether they mean to or not, partaking in an
act of defiance against established institutions as much as they are questioning accepted
truths."
I disagree. Conspiracy theories are a way for the ignorant and stupid to delude themselves
that they are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Conspiracy theories provide a way of
feeling smart and shrewd without bothering with all that evidence and logic stuff.
Your comment makes no sense, since there are political assassinations like that of
Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy, for example, which have been both officially and
"unofficially" found to be the result of conspiracies. The House Select Committee on
Assassinations is one "official theory" that posits a conspiracy in the killing of President
Kennedy. You could also search "The Lincoln Conspiracy the book" and read that. In fact, you
don't have any idea at all about any of this, do you? You're just parroting some supposed
sage advice from the usual suspects.
"[L]ending credibility to the idea that the official story (sic) of JFK's assassination is
indeed suspect" is the incontrovertible fact that there are multiple "official stories," and
at least one of them posits the probability of a conspiracy behind JFK's assassination.
Since Oswald cannot even be tied to the supposed murder weapon by a credible
chain-of-evidence, nor placed in the so-called "sniper's nest" at the time shots rang out in
Dealey Plaza, nor be credibly rigged up as the killer of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit, it is
hardly surprising that anyone stuck trying to defend the relentlessly debunked Warren
Commission fantasies about the JFK-Tippit-Oswald murders is up against equally relentless
debunking right up to today.
A fact that the Democratic Party toadies try to push is that Trump does not tell the
truth.
He says things that are at variance with the claims the "press" try to toss at the people,
but that doesn't make them untrue.
The "press" was determined to tell people that the U.S.S. Maine was sunk by Spain, even
though it made no sense for them to be engage in aggressive actions that the New York Journal
claimed would then escalate into overt military action. If they felt that way, they would
have acted militarily from the start. Morons never questioned this and the U.S. easily
entered war with Spain. Even though the explosion on the Maine seems to have been the result
of a carelessly disposed of cigar.
Similarly with R.M.S. Lusitania. Imbeciles wouldn't ask why the Germans would engage in
something like murdering innocent civilians on an ocean liner if they wanted war. Why not
just carry out an invasion or declare war? Only now it's being admitted that Lusitania was
illegally carrying war supplies and ammunition from the U.S. to the Allies, making it a
legitimate target. Indeed, it is not necessarily proved that it actually carried civilian
passengers.
Similarly for the claims the the U.S. spied on the USSY with U-2 spy planes. The same with
the failure of the government and the "press" to admit the suspicious nature of claims of the
"Gulf of Tonkin Incident".
The fact is, Trump and others in the Republican Party have said many things that the
"press" denied, only to have the "press" shown to be lying later.
Hillary Clinton supporters were carrying out acts of violence after the election in
Trump's name to try to undermine him. Germany didn't pay its agreed upon amount for the
maintenance of NATO. Obama did bug Trump's campaign headquarters. Puerto Rico's sorry
condition is the result of massive corruption in its government. There are many women who, as
Trump asserted, will let a man with money and power take liberties. In fact, climate isn't
changing. "Climate" is the massive, interconnected, self regulating system comprised of
things like land, ocean, sky, solar energy, life. Land, ocean, solar energy, life are no
different from fifty years ago. Only the weather is changing, and that is caused by
chemtrails, the program of doping the air with weather modification chemicals from high
flying jets, producing long, non dissipating vapor lanes that stretch from horizon to horizon
and can last for an hour or more. Stop chemtrails and everything will return to normal.
Todd Akin was criticized for saying that, in "legitimate rape" women's bodies will fight
being impregnated. Democratic Party followers insisted Akin was saying rape was legal. He was
referring to rapes that actually occurred, not lies that many women do lodge against rich and
powerful men to get money.
J. Edgar Hoover said that "civil rights" marches and such were tools of the Kremlin to try
to undermine democracy. In their desperate attempt to rescue the claim that the Russians
interfered with the 2016 election, none other than The Atlantic has taken up Hoover's
insistence that such demonstrations were a means used by the USSR to try to destroy
democracy. And the dullards of the Democratic Party's target audience won't realize they are
now agreeing with the Republicans.
Trump and the politicians come from rarefied levels that know facts that government and
the "press" lies to the public about. One fact, that there may be actual sections of
government, or "government", that act independently of any rules and can even roll over the
rest of "government". "Government" is just a sleazy swindle to make the rich richer. No one
controls them! Not even elections! They publish fake "vote tallies", then put who they want
in. Trump speaks of the Deep State of power mongering going on behind the scenes. Hillary
Clinton operated her own shadow government with a system of unregistered servers only one of
which has been acknowledged. It's been suspected for a long time that the "intelligence
network" acted solely on its own recognizance, answerable to no one. Questions Trump raises
can point people to the truth.
"My" research? Look, just GO ONLINE to another website like
JFKfacts.org or kennedysand king.com
, or search "James Di Eugenio on the JFK assassination," I have read around 150 books and
articles and much of the Warren Report (the volumes not the summary) and the House Select
Committee hearings reports, but compared to "serious researchers" I am a dilletante. Besides,
you really NEED to study this either for yourself as a kind of "research project" or if
possible, in a university level course environment.
There are THOUSANDS of really interesting books about aspects of the JFK assassination ---
search "Reclaiming Parkland" by Di Eugenio and go from there, whatever.
Follow the links, and expect it to take many many hours to get the beginning of an
understanding.
Ok, why don't you at least realize it's FAR more complex than any possible "avionics
system," it's something akin to people on Quora asking me to "summarize Hamlet," or
"summarize King Lear." It's just absurd. Besides which, the subject matter is far too
important for anyone to take their views from a few summarized paragraphs, whether about
Hamlet or Lear or the JFK assassination.
So yeah, I did "research" and I think the facts speak for themselves, as you would learn by
delving into the posts at
jfkfacts.org or
kennedysandking.com , or reading Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. The thing is, it's one of
the most complicated interlocking sets of topics in modern history, not something that can be
scrawled on a postcard.
The danger is that intelligence agencies cause Facebook to influence elections.
Notable quotes:
"... Fowler told Rosen that it was "even possible that Facebook is completely responsible" for the youth voter increase. And because
a higher proportion of young people vote Democratic than the general population, the net effect of Facebook's GOTV effort would have
been to help the Dems. ..."
"... In June 2014, Harvard Law scholar Jonathan Zittrain wrote an essay in New Republic ..."
"... But the point isn't that a Republican beat a Democrat. The point is that the very roots of the electoral system -- the news
people see, the events they think happened, the information they digest -- had been destabilized. ..."
"... Chaos Monkeys ..."
"... The information systems that people use to process news have been rerouted through Facebook, and in the process, mostly broken
and hidden from view. It wasn't just liberal bias that kept the media from putting everything together. Much of the hundreds of millions
of dollars that was spent during the election cycle came in the form of "dark ads." ..."
"... Update: After publication, Adam Mosseri, head of News Feed, sent an email describing some of the work that Facebook is doing
in response to the problems during the election. They include new software and processes "to stop the spread of misinformation , click-bait
and other problematic content on Facebook." ..."
"... "The truth is we've learned things since the election, and we take our responsibility to protect the community of people who
use Facebook seriously. As a result, we've launched a company-wide effort to improve the integrity of information on our service," he
wrote. "It's already translated into new products, new protections, and the commitment of thousands of new people to enforce our policies
and standards... We know there is a lot more work to do, but I've never seen this company more engaged on a single challenge since I
joined almost 10 years ago." ..."
And why it was so hard to see it coming In the media world, as in so many other realms, there is a sharp discontinuity in the
timeline: before the 2016 election, and after.
Things we thought we understood -- narratives, data, software, news events -- have had to be reinterpreted in light of Donald
Trump's surprising win as well as the continuing questions about the role that misinformation and disinformation played in his election.
Tech journalists covering Facebook had a duty to cover what was happening before, during, and after the election. Reporters tried
to see past their often liberal political orientations and the unprecedented actions of Donald Trump to see how 2016 was playing
out on the internet. Every component of the chaotic digital campaign has been reported on, here at The Atlantic , and elsewhere:
Facebook's enormous distribution power for political information, rapacious partisanship reinforced by distinct media information
spheres, the increasing scourge of "viral" hoaxes and other kinds of misinformation that could propagate through those networks,
and the Russian information ops agency.
But no one delivered the synthesis that could have tied together all these disparate threads. It's not that this hypothetical
perfect story would have changed the outcome of the election. The real problem -- for all political stripes -- is understanding the
set of conditions that led to Trump's victory. The informational underpinnings of democracy have eroded, and no one has explained
precisely how.
* * *
We've known since at least 2012 that Facebook was a powerful, non-neutral force in electoral politics. In that year, a combined
University of California, San Diego and Facebook research team led by James Fowler published
a study in Nature , which argued that Facebook's "I Voted" button had driven a small but measurable increase in turnout,
primarily among young people.
Rebecca Rosen's 2012 story, "
Did Facebook Give Democrats the Upper Hand? " relied on new research from Fowler, et al., about the presidential election that
year. Again, the conclusion of their work was that Facebook's get-out-the-vote message could have driven a substantial chunk of the
increase in youth voter participation in the 2012 general election. Fowler told Rosen that it was "even possible that Facebook
is completely responsible" for the youth voter increase. And because a higher proportion of young people vote Democratic than the
general population, the net effect of Facebook's GOTV effort would have been to help the Dems.
The potential for Facebook to have an impact on an election was clear for at least half a decade.
The research showed that a small design change by Facebook could have electoral repercussions, especially with America's electoral-college
format in which a few hotly contested states have a disproportionate impact on the national outcome. And the pro-liberal effect it
implied became enshrined as an axiom of how campaign staffers, reporters, and academics viewed social media.
In June 2014, Harvard Law scholar Jonathan Zittrain wrote an essay in New Republic called, "
Facebook
Could Decide an Election Without Anyone Ever Finding Out ," in which he called attention to the possibility of Facebook selectively
depressing voter turnout. (He also suggested that Facebook be seen as an "information fiduciary," charged with certain special roles
and responsibilities because it controls so much personal data.)
In late 2014, The Daily Dot
called attention to an
obscure Facebook-produced case study on how strategists defeated a statewide measure in Florida by relentlessly focusing Facebook
ads on Broward and Dade counties, Democratic strongholds. Working with a tiny budget that would have allowed them to send a single
mailer to just 150,000 households, the digital-advertising firm Chong and Koster was able to obtain remarkable results. "Where the
Facebook ads appeared, we did almost 20 percentage points better than where they didn't," testified a leader of the firm. "Within
that area, the people who saw the ads were 17 percent more likely to vote our way than the people who didn't. Within that group,
the people who voted the way we wanted them to, when asked why, often cited the messages they learned from the Facebook ads."
In April 2016, Rob Meyer published "
How Facebook Could Tilt the 2016 Election " after a company meeting in which some employees apparently put the stopping-Trump
question to Mark Zuckerberg. Based on Fowler's research, Meyer reimagined Zittrain's hypothetical as a direct Facebook intervention
to depress turnout among non-college graduates, who leaned Trump as a whole.
Facebook, of course, said it would never do such a thing. "Voting is a core value of democracy and we believe that supporting
civic participation is an important contribution we can make to the community," a spokesperson said. "We as a company are neutral
-- we have not and will not use our products in a way that attempts to influence how people vote."
From the system's perspective, success is correctly predicting what you'll like, comment on, or share.
The same was true even of people inside Facebook. "If you'd come to me in 2012, when the last presidential election was raging
and we were cooking up ever more complicated ways to monetize Facebook data, and told me that Russian agents in the Kremlin's employ
would be buying Facebook ads to subvert American democracy, I'd have asked where your tin-foil hat was," wrote Antonio García Martínez,
who managed ad targeting for Facebook back then. "And yet, now we live in that otherworldly political reality."
Not to excuse us, but this was back on the Old Earth, too, when electoral politics was not the thing that every single
person talked about all the time. There were other important dynamics to Facebook's growing power that needed to be covered.
* * *
Facebook's draw is its ability to give you what you want. Like a page, get more of that page's posts; like a story, get more stories
like that; interact with a person, get more of their updates. The way Facebook determines the ranking of the News Feed is the probability
that you'll like, comment on, or share a story. Shares are worth more than comments, which are both worth more than likes, but in
all cases, the more likely you are to interact with a post, the higher up it will show in your News Feed. Two thousand kinds of data
(or "features" in the industry parlance) get smelted in Facebook's machine-learning system to make those predictions.
What's crucial to understand is that, from the system's perspective, success is correctly predicting what you'll like, comment
on, or share. That's what matters. People call this "engagement." There are other factors, as Slate' s Will Oremus noted in
this rare story about
the News Feed ranking team . But who knows how much weight they actually receive and for how long as the system evolves. For
example, one change that Facebook highlighted to Oremus in early 2016 -- taking into account how long people look at a story, even
if they don't click it -- was subsequently dismissed by
Lars Backstrom, the VP of engineering in charge of
News Feed ranking , as a "noisy" signal that's also "biased in a few ways" making it "hard to use" in a May 2017 technical talk.
Facebook's engineers do not want to introduce noise into the system. Because the News Feed, this machine for generating engagement,
is Facebook's most important technical system. Their success predicting what you'll like is why users spend
an average of more than 50 minutes a day on the site, and why even the former
creator
of the "like" button worries about how well the site captures attention. News Feed works really well.
If every News Feed is different, how can anyone understand what other people are seeing and responding to?
But as far as "
personalized newspapers " go, this one's editorial sensibilities are limited. Most people are far less likely to engage with
viewpoints that they find confusing, annoying, incorrect, or abhorrent. And this is true not just in politics, but the broader culture.
That this could be a problem was apparent to many. Eli Pariser's The Filter Bubble, which came out in the summer of 2011,
became the most widely cited distillation of the effects Facebook and other internet platforms could have on public discourse.
Pariser began the book research when he noticed conservative people, whom he'd befriended on the platform despite his left-leaning
politics, had disappeared from his News Feed. "I was still clicking my progressive friends' links more than my conservative friends'
-- and links to the latest Lady Gaga videos more than either," he wrote. "So no conservative links for me."
Through the book, he traces the many potential problems that the "personalization" of media might bring. Most germane to this
discussion, he raised the point that if every one of the billion News Feeds is different, how can anyone understand what other people
are seeing and responding to?
"The most serious political problem posed by filter bubbles is that they make it increasingly difficult to have a public argument.
As the number of different segments and messages increases, it becomes harder and harder for the campaigns to track who's saying
what to whom," Pariser wrote. "How does a [political] campaign know what its opponent is saying if ads are only targeted to white
Jewish men between 28 and 34 who have expressed a fondness for U2 on Facebook and who donated to Barack Obama's campaign?"
This did, indeed, become an enormous problem. When I was editor in chief of Fusion , we set about trying to track the "digital
campaign" with several dedicated people. What we quickly realized was that there was both too much data -- the noisiness of all the
different posts by the various candidates and their associates -- as well as too little. Targeting made tracking the actual messaging
that the campaigns were paying for impossible to track. On Facebook, the campaigns could show ads only to the people they
targeted. We couldn't actually see the messages that were actually reaching people in battleground areas. From the outside, it was
a technical impossibility to know what ads were running on Facebook,
one that the company
had fought to keep intact .
Across the landscape, it began to dawn on people: Damn, Facebook owns us .
Pariser suggests in his book, "one simple solution to this problem would simply be to require campaigns to immediately disclose
all of their online advertising materials and to whom each ad is targeted." Which
could happen in future campaigns .
Imagine if this had happened in 2016. If there were data sets of all the ads that the campaigns and others had run, we'd know
a lot more about what actually happened last year. The Filter Bubble is obviously prescient work, but there was one thing
that Pariser and most other people did not foresee. And that's that Facebook became completely dominant as a media distributor.
* * *
About two years after Pariser published his book, Facebook took over the news-media ecosystem. They've never publicly admitted
it, but in late 2013, they began to serve ads inviting users to "like" media pages. This caused a massive increase in the amount
of traffic that Facebook sent to media companies. At The Atlantic and other publishers across the media landscape, it was
like a tide was carrying us to new traffic records. Without hiring anyone else, without changing strategy or tactics, without publishing
more, suddenly everything was easier.
While traffic to The Atlantic from Facebook.com increased, at the time, most of the new traffic did not look like it was
coming from Facebook within The Atlantic 's analytics. It showed up as "direct/bookmarked" or some variation, depending on
the software. It looked like what I called "dark social" back in 2012. But as BuzzFeed 's Charlie Warzel
pointed
out at the time , and as I came to believe, it was primarily Facebook traffic in disguise. Between August and October of 2013,
BuzzFeed 's "partner network" of hundreds of websites saw a jump in traffic from Facebook of 69 percent.
At The Atlantic, we ran a series of experiments that showed, pretty definitively from our perspective, that most of the
stuff that looked like "dark social" was, in fact, traffic coming from within Facebook's mobile app. Across the landscape, it began
to dawn on people who thought about these kinds of things: Damn, Facebook owns us . They had taken over media distribution.
Why? This is a best guess,
proffered by Robinson Meyer as it was happening : Facebook wanted to crush Twitter, which had drawn a disproportionate share
of media and media-figure attention. Just as Instagram borrowed Snapchat's "Stories" to help crush the site's growth, Facebook decided
it needed to own "news" to take the wind out of the newly IPO'd Twitter.
The first sign that this new system had some kinks came with "
Upworthy -style " headlines. (And you'll never guess what happened next!) Things didn't just go kind of viral, they went
ViralNova , a site which, like Upworthy
itself , Facebook eventually smacked down
. Many of the new sites had, like Upworthy , which was cofounded by Pariser, a progressive bent.
Less noticed was that a right-wing media was developing in opposition to and alongside these left-leaning sites. "By 2014, the
outlines of the Facebook-native hard-right voice and grievance spectrum were there," The New York Times ' media and tech writer
John Herrman told me, "and I tricked myself into thinking they were a reaction/counterpart to the wave of soft progressive/inspirational
content that had just crested. It ended up a Reaction in a much bigger and destabilizing sense."
The other sign of algorithmic trouble was the wild swings that Facebook Video underwent. In the early days, just about any old
video was likely to generate many, many, many views. The numbers were insane in the early days. Just as an example,
a Fortune article noted that BuzzFeed
's video views "grew 80-fold in a year, reaching more than 500 million in April." Suddenly, all kinds of video -- good, bad,
and ugly -- were doing 1-2-3 million views.
As with news, Facebook's video push was a direct
assault on a competitor, YouTube . Videos changed the dynamics of the News Feed for individuals, for media companies, and
for anyone trying to understand what the hell was going on.
Individuals were suddenly inundated with video. Media companies, despite no business model, were forced to crank out video somehow
or risk their pages/brands losing relevance as video posts crowded others out.
And on top of all that, scholars and industry observers were used to looking at what was happening in articles to understand
how information was flowing. Now, by far the most viewed media objects on Facebook, and therefore on the internet, were videos without
transcripts or centralized repositories. In the early days, many successful videos were just "freebooted" (i.e., stolen) videos from
other places or reposts. All of which served to confuse and obfuscate the transport mechanisms for information and ideas on Facebook.
Through this messy, chaotic, dynamic situation, a new media rose up through the Facebook burst to occupy the big filter bubbles.
On the right, Breitbart is the center of a new conservative network. A
study of 1.25 million election news
articles found "a right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart developed as a distinct and insulated media system,
using social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world."
Breitbart , of course, also lent Steve Bannon, its chief, to the Trump campaign, creating another feedback loop between
the candidate and a rabid partisan press. Through 2015, Breitbart went from a medium-sized site with a small Facebook page
of 100,000 likes into a
powerful force
shaping the election with almost 1.5 million likes. In the key metric for Facebook's News Feed, its posts got 886,000 interactions
from Facebook users in January. By July, Breitbart had surpassed The New York Times ' main account in interactions.
By December, it was doing 10 million interactions per month, about 50 percent of Fox News, which had 11.5 million likes on its main
page. Breitbart 's audience was hyper-engaged.
There is no precise equivalent to the Breitbart phenomenon on the left. Rather the big news organizations are classified
as center-left, basically, with fringier left-wing sites showing far smaller followings than Breitbart on the right.
And this new, hyperpartisan media created the perfect conditions for another dynamic that influenced the 2016 election, the rise
of fake news.
In a December 2015 article for BuzzFeed , Joseph Bernstein argued that "
the dark forces of the internet became a counterculture ." He called it "Chanterculture" after the trolls who gathered at the
meme-creating, often-racist 4chan message board. Others ended up calling it the "alt-right." This culture combined a bunch of people
who loved to perpetuate hoaxes with angry Gamergaters with "free-speech" advocates like Milo Yiannopoulos with honest-to-God neo-Nazis
and white supremacists. And these people loved Donald Trump.
"This year Chanterculture found its true hero, who makes it plain that what we're seeing is a genuine movement: the current master
of American resentment, Donald Trump," Bernstein wrote. "Everywhere you look on 'politically incorrect' subforums and random chans,
he looms."
When you combine hyper-partisan media with a group of people who love to clown "normies," you end up with things like
Pizzagate , a patently ridiculous and widely
debunked conspiracy theory that held there was a child-pedophilia ring linked to Hillary Clinton somehow. It was just the most bizarre
thing in the entire world. And many of the figures in Bernstein's story were all over it, including several who the current president
has consorted with on social media.
But Pizzagate was but the most Pynchonian of all the crazy misinformation and hoaxes that spread in the run-up to the election.
BuzzFeed , deeply attuned to the flows of the social web, was all over the story through reporter Craig Silverman. His
best-known analysis happened after the election, when he showed that "in the final three months of the U.S. presidential campaign,
the top-performing fake election-news stories on Facebook generated more engagement than the top stories from major news outlets
such as The New York Times , The Washington Post , The Huffington Post , NBC News, and others."
But he also tracked fake news
before the election , as did other outlets such as The Washington Post, including showing that Facebook's "Trending"
algorithm regularly promoted fake news. By September of 2016,
even the Pope himself was talking about fake news, by which we mean actual hoaxes or lies perpetuated by a variety of actors.
The fake news generated a ton of engagement, which meant that it spread far and wide.
What made the election cycle different was that all of these changes to the information ecosystem had made it possible to develop
weird businesses around fake news. Some random website posting aggregated news about the election could not drive a lot of traffic.
But some random website announcing that the Pope had endorsed Donald Trump definitely could . The fake news generated a
ton of engagement, which meant that it spread far and wide.
A few days before the election Silverman and fellow BuzzFeed contributor Lawrence Alexander traced 100 pro–Donald Trump
sites to
a town of 45,000 in Macedonia . Some teens there realized they could make money off the election, and just like that, became
a node in the information network that helped Trump beat Clinton.
Whatever weird thing you imagine might happen, something weirder probably did happen. Reporters tried to keep up, but it was too
strange. As Max Read put it in New York Magazine , Facebook is "like a four-dimensional object, we catch slices of it when
it passes through the three-dimensional world we recognize." No one can quite wrap their heads around what this thing has become,
or all the things this thing has become.
"Not even President-Pope-Viceroy Zuckerberg himself seemed prepared for the role Facebook has played in global politics this past
year," Read wrote.
And we haven't even gotten to the Russians.
* * *
Russia's disinformation campaigns are well known. During his reporting for
a story in The New York Times Magazine
, Adrian Chen sat across the street from the headquarters of the Internet Research Agency, watching workaday Russian agents/internet
trolls head inside. He heard how the place had "industrialized the art of trolling" from a former employee. "Management was obsessed
with statistics -- page views, number of posts, a blog's place on LiveJournal's traffic charts -- and team leaders compelled hard
work through a system of bonuses and fines," he wrote. Of course they wanted to maximize engagement, too!
There were reports that Russian trolls
were commenting on American news sites . There were many, many reports of Russia's propaganda offensive in Ukraine.
Ukrainian journalists run a website dedicated to cataloging these disinformation attempts called StopFake . It has hundreds of posts reaching back into 2014.
The influence campaign just happened on Facebook without anyone noticing.
A Guardian reporter who looked into
Russian
military doctrine around information war found a handbook that described how it might work. "The deployment of information weapons,
[the book] suggests, 'acts like an invisible radiation' upon its targets: 'The population doesn't even feel it is being acted upon.
So the state doesn't switch on its self-defense mechanisms,'" wrote Peter Pomerantsev.
As more details about the Russian disinformation campaign come to the surface through Facebook's continued digging, it's fair
to say that it's not just the state that did not switch on its self-defense mechanisms. The influence campaign just happened on Facebook
without anyone noticing.
As many people have noted, the 3,000 ads that have been linked to Russia are a drop in the bucket, even if they did reach millions
of people. The real game is simply that Russian operatives created pages that reached people "organically," as the saying goes. Jonathan
Albright, research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University,
pulled data on the six publicly known Russia-linked Facebook pages . He found that their posts had been shared 340 million
times . And those were six of 470 pages that Facebook has linked to Russian operatives. You're probably talking billions of shares,
with who knows how many views, and with what kind of specific targeting.
The Russians are good at engagement! Yet, before the U.S. election, even after Hillary Clinton and intelligence agencies
fingered Russian intelligence meddling in the election, even after news reports
suggested that a disinformation campaign was afoot , nothing about the actual operations on Facebook came out.
In the aftermath of these discoveries, three Facebook security researchers, Jen Weedon, William Nuland, and Alex Stamos, released
a white paper called Information
Operations and Facebook . "We have had to expand our security focus from traditional abusive behavior, such as account hacking,
malware, spam, and financial scams, to include more subtle and insidious forms of misuse, including attempts to manipulate civic
discourse and deceive people," they wrote.
"These social platforms are all invented by very liberal people. And we figure out how to use it to push conservative values."
One key theme of the paper is that they were used to dealing with economic actors, who responded to costs and incentives. When
it comes to Russian operatives paid to Facebook, those constraints no longer hold. "The area of information operations does provide
a unique challenge," they wrote, "in that those sponsoring such operations are often not constrained by per-unit economic realities
in the same way as spammers and click fraudsters, which increases the complexity of deterrence." They were not expecting that.
Add everything up. The chaos of a billion-person platform that competitively dominated media distribution. The known electoral
efficacy of Facebook. The wild fake news and misinformation rampaging across the internet generally and Facebook specifically. The
Russian info operations. All of these things were known.
And yet no one could quite put it all together: The dominant social network had altered the information and persuasion environment
of the election beyond recognition while taking
a very big chunk
of the estimated $1.4 billion worth of digital advertising purchased during the election. There were hundreds of millions of
dollars of dark ads doing their work. Fake news all over the place. Macedonian teens campaigning for Trump. Ragingly partisan media
infospheres serving up only the news you wanted to hear. Who could believe anything? What room was there for policy positions when
all this stuff was eating up News Feed space? Who the hell knew what was going on?
Hillary Clinton is running arguably the most digital presidential campaign in U.S. history. Donald Trump is running one of
the most analog campaigns in recent memory. The Clinton team is bent on finding more effective ways to identify supporters and
ensure they cast ballots; Trump is, famously and unapologetically, sticking to a 1980s-era focus on courting attention and voters
via television.
Just a week earlier, Trump's campaign had hired Cambridge Analytica. Soon, they'd ramped up to $70 million a month in Facebook
advertising spending. And the next thing you knew, Brad Parscale, Trump's digital director, is
doing the postmortem rounds talking up his win .
"These social platforms are all invented by very liberal people on the west and east coasts," Parscale said. "And we figure out
how to use it to push conservative values. I don't think they thought that would ever happen."
And that was part of the media's problem, too.
* * *
Before Trump's election, the impact of internet technology generally and Facebook specifically was seen as favoring Democrats.
Even a
TechCrunch critique of Rosen's 2012 article about Facebook's electoral power argued, "the
internet inherently advantages
liberals because, on average, their greater psychological embrace of disruption leads to more innovation (after all, nearly every
major digital breakthrough, from online fundraising to the use of big data, was pioneered by Democrats)."
In June 2015, The New York Times ran an article about
Republicans trying to ramp up their digital campaigns that began like this: "The criticism after the 2012 presidential election
was swift and harsh: Democrats were light-years ahead of Republicans when it came to digital strategy and tactics, and Republicans
had serious work to do on the technology front if they ever hoped to win back the White House."
"Facebook is what propelled Breitbart to a massive audience. We know its power."
It cited Sasha Issenberg, the most astute reporter on political technology. "The Republicans have a particular challenge," Issenberg
said, "which is, in these areas they don't have many people with either the hard skills or the experience to go out and take on this
type of work."
University of North Carolina journalism professor Daniel Kreiss wrote a whole (good) book, Prototype Politics , showing that Democrats had
an incredible personnel advantage. " Drawing on an innovative data set of the professional careers of 629 staffers working
in technology on presidential campaigns from 2004 to 2012 and data from interviews with more than 60 party and campaign staffers,"
Kriess wrote, "the book details how and explains why the Democrats have invested more in technology, attracted staffers with specialized
expertise to work in electoral politics, and founded an array of firms and organizations to diffuse technological innovations down
ballot and across election cycles."
Which is to say: It's not that no journalists, internet-focused lawyers, or technologists saw Facebook's looming electoral presence
-- it was undeniable -- but all the evidence pointed to the structural change benefitting Democrats. And let's just state the obvious:
Most reporters and professors are probably about as liberal as your standard Silicon Valley technologist, so this conclusion fit
into the comfort zone of those in the field.
By late October, the role that Facebook might be playing in the Trump campaign -- and more broadly -- was emerging. Joshua Green
and Issenberg
reported
a long feature on the data operation then in motion . The Trump campaign was working to suppress "idealistic white liberals,
young women, and African Americans," and they'd be doing it with targeted, "dark" Facebook ads. These ads are only visible to the
buyer, the ad recipients, and Facebook. No one who hasn't been targeted by then can see them. How was anyone supposed to know what
was going on, when the key campaign terrain was literally invisible to outside observers?
Steve Bannon was confident in the operation. "I wouldn't have come aboard, even for Trump, if I hadn't known they were building
this massive Facebook and data engine," Bannon told them. "Facebook is what propelled Breitbart to a massive audience. We
know its power."
The very roots of the electoral system had been destabilized.
Issenberg and Green called it "an odd gambit" which had "no scientific basis." Then again, Trump's whole campaign had seemed like
an odd gambit with no scientific basis. The conventional wisdom was that Trump was going to lose and lose badly. In the days before
the election, The Huffington Post 's data team had Clinton's election probability at 98.3 percent. A member of the team, Ryan
Grim, went after Nate Silver for his more conservative probability of 64.7 percent, accusing him of skewing his data for "punditry"
reasons. Grim ended his post on the topic, "If you want to put your faith in the numbers, you can relax. She's got this."
Narrator: She did not have this.
But the point isn't that a Republican beat a Democrat. The point is that the very roots of the electoral system -- the news
people see, the events they think happened, the information they digest -- had been destabilized.
In the middle of the summer of the election, the former Facebook ad-targeting product manager, Antonio García Martínez, released
an autobiography called Chaos Monkeys . He called
his colleagues "chaos monkeys," messing with industry after industry in their company-creating fervor. "The question for society,"
he wrote, "is whether it can survive these entrepreneurial chaos monkeys intact, and at what human cost." This is the real epitaph
of the election.
The information systems that people use to process news have been rerouted through Facebook, and in the process, mostly broken
and hidden from view. It wasn't just liberal bias that kept the media from putting everything together. Much of the hundreds of millions
of dollars that was spent during the election cycle came in the form of "dark ads."
The truth is that while many reporters knew some things that were going on on Facebook, no one knew everything that
was going on on Facebook, not even Facebook. And so, during the most significant shift in the technology of politics since the television,
the first draft of history is filled with undecipherable whorls and empty pages. Meanwhile, the 2018 midterms loom.
Update: After publication, Adam Mosseri, head of News Feed, sent an email describing some of the work that Facebook is doing
in response to the problems during the election. They include new software and processes "to stop the
spread of misinformation
, click-bait
and other
problematic
content on Facebook."
"The truth is we've learned things since the election, and we take our responsibility to protect the community of people who
use Facebook seriously. As a result, we've launched a company-wide effort to improve the integrity of information on our service,"
he wrote. "It's already translated into new products, new protections, and the commitment of thousands of new people to enforce our
policies and standards... We know there is a lot more work to do, but I've never seen this company more engaged on a single challenge
since I joined almost 10 years ago."
CNN is toast. Everyone (anyone) with a brain knows this. I feel badly for the professional
reporters there that can't get out to a new location ..... they will be ruined also.
I admired Ron Paul foright policy views for a along time. and this time he also did not
disappointed his reader.
Soviet labeled anybody who dissented from communist propaganda line or did not believe in
Communist dogma as "agents of imperialism". Neocons similarly bland and-war activists and people
who question this war mongering as peddlers of "Russian propaganda". This is what often
happen with victors in wars: they acquired worst features of their defeated enemies. for example
to defeat the USSR the USA create powerful network of intelligence agencies. Which promptly
went out of civil control in 1963, much like KGB in the USSR and became state within the state. In a way now it in now now unfeasible
that the Soviet Union posthumously have won the Cold War, as it is more and more difficult to
distinguish Soviet propaganda and the US government propaganda.
So the fact that the US government allocate large sums of money for the propaganda
against another neoliberal state -- Russia, which represent regional threat to the US hegemonic
ambitions -- tells a lot about neoliberalism as a social system. Hostilities among neoliberal
states, much like hostilities between communist states are not only possible, they are the
reality.
Notable quotes:
"... So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights." ..."
"... How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- ..."
"... "I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government. ..."
"... This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda." ..."
"... That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny? ..."
Someday soon, perhaps, anyone writing the above sentence will land in some sort of gulag, as
once did East Europeans found to have appeared on a foreign broadcast questioning the
historical inevitability of the worldwide communist revolution.
In my case, I was asked to comment on a new report (see above pic) from a Czech "
think tank " exposing 2,327 American "useful idiots" who dared appear on the Russian
government-funded RT television network.
Among the "Kremlin stooges" listed in the report of the "European Values" think tank?
Alongside critics of US foreign policy like Ron Paul, the Czech "European Values" think tank
listed Sen. Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, US Rep. Adam Schiff, former acting CIA
director Michael Morrell, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and hundreds more prominent
Americans who have been notably hostile to Russia and its government.
I said: "Wow! this conspiracy is even deeper than we thought! Even the virulently
anti-Russian neocons and Russia-hating CIA bigwigs are in fact Putin's poodles!"
It's funny but it's not. This is when the neo-McCarthyism lately in fashion across the
ideological divide descends into the absurd. This is when the mask slips from the witch trials,
when the naked emperor can no longer expect to not be noticed.
So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are
well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who
appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to
the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders
include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European
Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the
Prague-based "League of Human Rights."
Since when did "European values" come to be defined as government-funded lists of political
"enemies" who dare question US foreign policy on television networks despised by neocons and
Washington interventionists? How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in
the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the
Štátna bezpečnosť -- the communist secret police -- that took
exactly the same view of those who deviated from the Soviet party line as does the modern Czech
"European Values" think tank.
Anyone questioning our one trillion dollar global military empire is automatically
considered to be in the pay of hostile foreign governments. How patriotic is that?
"I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the
marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US
citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their
own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government.
This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign
policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and
then Congress
appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda."
That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our
objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How
anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of
tyranny?
The noose is tightening around us. Yet we must continue to fight for what we believe in! We
must continue to fight for the prosperity that comes from a peaceful foreign policy. Your
generous support for the Ron Paul Institute helps us continue to be your voice in the fight
for free expression and a peaceful foreign policy.
"... "You can't handle the truth" – was the famous line from the movie "A few good men". Many people believe that this is the main purpose of propaganda – to tell people something that they can "handle" – which usually is a sugar coated lie. ..."
"... The real purpose of propaganda in the US actually is slightly different. The reason why the US government prefers to tell their subjects lies – i.e. propaganda is not because the people can't handle the truth, it's because the US government wouldn't be able to handle its citizens if they dared to tell them the truth. ..."
"... I don't know, tbh I can't really think of any other country whose political culture is as bizarrely warped as that of the US. I personally don't really approve of Russia's actions in Ukraine (though I can understand the reasons for them), and certainly there is quite a bit of jingoistic sentiment in Russia as well – but at least its goals are limited, and its underlying perception of reality (Russia confronted by a hostile West) isn't totally irrational. Many Americans have this weird view of their country as a global redeemer nation, a force for good against a world of darkness ("the last best hope of humanity" etc.). And then there's the bizarre paranoia constantly cultivated in American culture (both in popular culture like television series, but also in serious political statements) there's always some foreign evil-doer supposedly plotting against virtuous America. I find this immensely irritating given how the US has one of the most secure geopolitical positions on earth and suffered minimal trauma (compared to all other combatants) even during the catastrophes of the world wars. According to that logic the US apparently can't ever be secure unless there is permanent American global hegemony. Which of course will inevitably lead to conflict. ..."
"You can't handle the truth" – was the famous line from the movie "A few good men".
Many people believe that this is the main purpose of propaganda – to tell people
something that they can "handle" – which usually is a sugar coated lie.
The real purpose of propaganda in the US actually is slightly different. The reason why
the US government prefers to tell their subjects lies – i.e. propaganda is not because
the people can't handle the truth, it's because the US government wouldn't be able to handle
its citizens if they dared to tell them the truth.
Thus the purpose of propaganda in the US is to make their population more manageable. I
think that there is also a cultural difference between US and Russia in how they see the
purpose of propaganda.
The Americans see propaganda as useful tool, which when applied skillfully on the domestic
population removes the need to oppress them – which they would have to do to their
population if they tell them the truth and don't like the reaction of the population after
they've been told the truth.
This is called "democracy" – avoid telling them the truth and remove the need to
oppress them, which you will have to do if you tell your people a truth that they can't
"handle".
The Russians have different approach – which is deeply rooted in their history and
culture. The Russian government is less uncomfortable with their population knowing the
truth, because if the Russian people don't like the truth, and react to that, the Russian
government is more inclined to resort to some kind of oppression on their population –
if they think it's in the interest of the Russian state.
Me personally – I like the Russian approach better, I hate lies even if they are
told in the name of "democracy". It's better to tell the truth and face the music than be
deceitful.
Clearly important truths, for anyone wanting to understand both the recent past and the
present that developed out of it:
As for the Soviet propaganda in the West, it did have a measurable effect (just look at
the influence of various Communist Parties in Europe during the Cold War), but never enough
to beat the base appeal to hedonism and consumerism promoted by the best and most effective
branch of the western propaganda apparatus: Hollywood.
and:
Third, outrageous, over the top and disgusting as some of the clown shown on Russian TV
are, they do not misrepresent the reality of the AngloZionist Empire. Yes, sure, true
Russophobes are a tiny minority in the West at least where the people are concerned
(especially in southern Europe and the US), but practically the regimes in power in the
West controlled by Russophobes or by their puppets. As for the western Ziomedia, it is
wall-to-wall russophobic to such a degree that I would call it unambiguously racist.
For one thing, the European elites are very very slowly, by tiny steps, waking up to the
reality that their abject and total subservience to the US has put them in an extremely
uncomfortable situation.
This is one reason why, as I have noted before, the current drive by many of the
usual suspects and
the rest of the war lobbies in the US to overturn the Iran deal is not necessarily something
to be feared. Indeed for those recognising the problems of US interventionism as among the
most urgent facing the world, it's probably a win-win situation. Fail, and the
US/Israeli/Saudi warmongers have suffered a defeat. Succeed, and they have probably set
themselves up for an even more costly defeat.
The Iran deal is widely popular in Europe, even amongst business and other elites, as
having halted the necessity for complying with and paying lip-service to the transparently
irrational and/or dishonest US nonsense about Iran, and the economically costly and
intellectually insupportable sanctions used by the US to wage economic war on that country in
the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
If the deal is breached by the US regime, the said regime will massively lose credibility
worldwide. There will then be a struggle wherein the US tries to coerce its European and
British client states to return to waging economic war against Iran. That risks an open
refusal, which will seriously damage US control and quite possibly bring it to an end. Russia
and China have already started to develop economic and financial structures beyond the reach
of Washington. The door will be open for European businesses and governments to walk through
it, to the new world beyond.
If it doesn't itself trigger such final breaks, the process of imposing Washington's will
will create huge resentment and set the scene for such breaks in the near future.
The average US American's experience with Russians in the past forty years has come from
Rambo films and Red Dawn (the first one). Long gone are the days when films like The Russians
are Coming exposed Americans to Russians as human beings rather than as killing machines of
an evil state. When Putin or Lavrov appear on American TV, which is not very often, it is
only in very tightly scripted sound bites that fit the narrative blathering from the talking
head telling the viewer what to think about the Russians and their "misdeeds." Perhaps the
only friend the Russians have in American media these days is Rush Limbaugh mull that over.
You can get RT on a few cable providers in the US. In my hometown, you have to pay for the
"Russian Package" to get it, though I found RT America once on basic cable in Dallas. I doubt
many Americans even know RT exists, much less seek it out. I get the European version via
U.K. FTA satellite, and wonder how long it will be before it is knocked off the air by
Ofcom.
If I want the truth about the US and U.K., I generally can count on getting it, albeit a
bit spun, from RT. If I want the truth about Russia, I generally have to ask one of my
Russian friends, though RT, to its credit, does occasionally take a pole at the best. If I
want to hear what Putin and Lavrov are actually saying, I rarely get that in any Western
Media, but RT will let them go on without significant editorial.
What I find amusing is that during the Cold War, American media elites were falling all
over one another to kiss Soviet A ** , but even though many of these same elites accuse Putin
of being a closeted commie, they portray him as evil personified; I guess he isn't Communist
enough for them.
Yes, sure, true russophobes are a tiny minority in the West at least where the people
are concerned (especially in southern Europe and the US )
I don't know, does that really sound plausible to you given the "Russia stole our
election" hysteria in the US?
More generally, I think people outside of the US need to get beyond the idea that the problem
with America is just its government, the military-industrial complex, influential lobbies
etc., and that the average American is totally blameless. An awful lot of Americans do
support aggressive interventionism abroad, and this includes many, many Trump supporters (one
need only look at the readers' comments on a Breitbart piece about North Korea or the Iran
deal these people's ideas of national greatness have militarism and armed interventions
– "showing who's boss, who's Number one" – as key ingredients). I don't think the
kind of anti-interventionists commenting here at Unz review are that representative on the
whole.
I don't know, does that really sound plausible to you given the "Russia stole our
election" hysteria in the US?
I think Saker is probably not including the general mass of ignorant propaganda victims as
"true Russophobes".
US popular opinion on Russia seems pretty mixed, albeit there are certainly plenty of
gormless victims of the wall to wall Russophobic propaganda (that's – in its recent
guise – mostly partisan anti-Trump in motivation, in truth) in the US. Here's a recent
poll (July);
But on the broader issue of relations with Russia, Americans don't appear to be in a
bellicose mood. Asked whether it's better for the U.S. to build relationships with Russia
or treat Russia as a threat, 59 percent said they want to build relationships, compared to
31 percent who want to treat Russia as a threat.
Registered Democrats were more interested in treating Russia as a threat than
Republicans, but 46 percent of them preferred building relationships, 2 percent more than
those who favored taking a more aggressive stance. Republicans were far more interested in
building relationships, with 67 percent in support.
The poll also asked Americans whether Trump's goal of improving relations with Russia
was good or bad for the U.S. While a five percent plurality favored the goal, there was
again a sharp partisan divide. 70 percent of Democrats said Trump's goal of improving
relations with Russia was bad for the U.S., and 75 percent of Republicans consider it
good.
More generally, I think people outside of the US need to get beyond the idea that the
problem with America is just its government, the military-industrial complex, influential
lobbies etc., and that the average American is totally blameless. An awful lot of Americans
do support aggressive interventionism abroad, and this includes many, many Trump supporters
(one need only look at the readers' comments on a Breitbart piece about North Korea or the
Iran deal these people's ideas of national greatness have militarism and armed
interventions – "showing who's boss, who's Number one" – as key ingredients). I
don't think the kind of anti-interventionists commenting here at Unz review are that
representative on the whole.
Yes, I agree with this, for sure.
It's true that ordinary Americans are deluged in interventionist and militarist propaganda
from the cradle to the grave, and that is perhaps some explanation if not excuse, but the
fact does remain that Americans re-elected Clinton, Bush II and Obama (though admittedly they
were hardly provided with decent alternatives, but that again shows how they are prepared to
vote for warmongers in primaries), and elect and re-elect warmongering interventionist scum
like John McCain to Congress time after time after time.
There is clearly a problem in American culture and their political structure that makes
them particularly open to manipulation in this area (which is not to say the same isn't true
of other countries, mind you).
> There is no Russian equivalent of the Pokemon story
Half true.
When Pokemon Go was announced, it was widely speculated that this technology may be used
to both hoard unexpecting game addicts into some places (like, moving nazi and antifa crowds
together, where their firght would be imminent; or nazi and aggressive ethnic minority; or
competing sport teams fans, etc) or background surveillance and spying (by placing pokemons
in the places, game operator wants to see in photo).
This was quite a hot topic, and i think those potential dangers are real. Just looking how
pseudo-private companies like Facebook engage in swept political censorship makes one ask
"how Pokemon company is different?".
There indeed was no allegation that US Gov't actually utilizes this already, but there
definitely was a lot of debate about laying frameworks and public habits to start doing
it.
Not only Russia but many other states and companies limited Pokemon Go at their premises.
Now, what we see is CNN merely combining the real fears about Po-Go embedded capabilities
(which, i repeat, were shared by many Russians) with the typical "Putin is under your bed
because all the patriots say so" fundamentalists claim.
You have also account for Russia being here an underdog. Russia's information outlets are much weaker than USA's and globalists' ones.
Russia has only RT and Sputnik against CNN/Fox/WaPo/MSNBC/PB/BBC/DW/AFP and what not
Russia just can not engage in symmetric warfare and win by overwhelming force, Russia only
has overwhelming weakness here.
So, Russia has to take truth into allies, not because it likes it that much more, but
because it does not have a chance to fight symmetrically, lies with lies and fires with
fires.
which is not to say the same isn't true of other countries, mind you
I don't know, tbh I can't really think of any other country whose political culture is as
bizarrely warped as that of the US. I personally don't really approve of Russia's actions in
Ukraine (though I can understand the reasons for them), and certainly there is quite a bit of
jingoistic sentiment in Russia as well – but at least its goals are limited, and its
underlying perception of reality (Russia confronted by a hostile West) isn't totally
irrational. Many Americans have this weird view of their country as a global redeemer nation,
a force for good against a world of darkness ("the last best hope of humanity" etc.). And
then there's the bizarre paranoia constantly cultivated in American culture (both in popular
culture like television series, but also in serious political statements) there's always some
foreign evil-doer supposedly plotting against virtuous America. I find this immensely
irritating given how the US has one of the most secure geopolitical positions on earth and
suffered minimal trauma (compared to all other combatants) even during the catastrophes of
the world wars. According to that logic the US apparently can't ever be secure unless there
is permanent American global hegemony. Which of course will inevitably lead to conflict.
Another great example of this is the entire Inosmi phenomenon, which translates Western
MSM texts into Russian. As one my acquaintances pointed out, it was a
"machine that turned naive, simple-minded, West-loving normies into hardcore
ultranationalists."
Truth is the best weapon. By trying to close Soviet union to western news Soviet leadership
made things worse. Soviet people than refused to believe even truth about the West believing
everything transmitted by those voices. And that despite USSR being in most areas in far
better shape than modern Russia. Current Russian propaganda and international policy is head
and shoulders above what was passing for those back then managing to achieve excellent
results for little expense. Way to go.
Much of Europe is presently jailing its citizenry over reactionary tweets and facebook posts.
I wouldn't think it accurate to describe them as unwilling to use oppression. In point of
fact, I think they're far more willing to directly undermine political reactionaries than the
Americans. The American Establishment seems content to stick with propaganda, bureaucratic
scheming, and judicial subterfuge.
I have access to almost all of the sources that you mentioned and a few more. All have
their faults but some are so bad that I cannot watch them. RT is definitely one of the
best.
Only today I watched RT showing Hillary Clinton being interviewed with RT simultaneously
showing screenshots from other media exposing and refuting Clinton's blatant lies. The same
technique is used with others such as government (US and EU) spokespersons and officials. It
is very effective, in my opinion.
Average Finnish experience about Russia is sadly still from era of Leonid Breznev, cheap
vodka and real socialist bar girls of late 1970′s and 1980′s. However hundreds of
thousands of people who have visited in Sankt Petersburg and Vyborg during the last 10 years
have noticed huge gap between western propaganda and real progress and development in real
life Russia.
It's something of a top-down situation. After all, America is where the art of PR was
refined and is a large industry, pushing everything from consumer goodies to whatever
cultural/political ideas are being sponsored at the moment. American is a big island and most
in it grow up in something of a bubble. They are tone-deaf in understanding other countries.
Middle-class people I know with decent educational track records seem competent at carrying
out the functions of their job but transform into embarrassing babbling fools when giving
their opinions on anything foreign. Another thing to keep in mind is that half of the
population is mentally average or below average and so what they think about anything beyond
their range of experience is pretty much worthless. Of the various commenters giving their
opinion on different websites about the Iran nuclear deal how many have actually read it?
Mostly they know zero about it. That's pretty much it, Americans know very little so when
dealing with them one has to act as one does with a simple-minded neighbor and humor them:
yes, you're the fairest one of them all!
"Middle-class people I know with decent educational track records seem competent at carrying
out the functions of their job but transform into embarrassing babbling fools when giving
their opinions on anything foreign."
In fairness to the American proles, their country is equivalent in approximate size the
European continent. Few proles know anything of politics outside their continental bubble on
either side of the Atlantic. Jingoism on either continent is equivalent and opposite from my
experience as a third party to both. Americans prefer their jingoism to be patriotic and
feign ignorance about Europe as unimportant. Europeans prefer their jingoism to be
passive-aggressive and feign understanding about American politics that they do not have.
Israelis tend to split the difference by taking a great deal of interest in both and claiming
their largely uninformed opinions are unimportant.
To conclude, from the analysis of 1 program, that Russia's whole political communication
strategy is super professional and way more sophisticated than "the West's" seems a clear
overstretch. The conclusion may be true, but it does not follow from the evidence presented.
In fact, the program's general recipe (use of opponent's egregious examples, a bit of
humor, giving air time to 'extreme' spokespersons and basic knowledge of audience nature) is
what Sailer does.
Putin does have going for him, however, the fact that he is governing with Russia's best
interests at heart. Or can credibly hold that position. For propaganda purposes, half the
battle (legitimacy and support of the governed) is won right there.
Another good chunk can be
won by claiming the defensive: " we are attacked by anti-Russian forces". The use of a common
threat (real or perceived) to rally the people is well known in politics, whether campaigning
or governing. What does not strike me as Putinesque is to underestimate the adversary, as the
author does.
Russia Today was a worthy channel that put the Russian point of view and posted positive
stories about Russia. Decades of positive stories are what Russia needs. But it is boring
work to do.
RT has become a ridiculous parody that barely comments on Russia (perhaps another channel
is needed). It is designed to attract conspiracy theorists and obsessives. It uses editing
tricks at two levels. Some obvious heady handed edit to distract analytical attention from a
deeper level. That's very good production to be sure.
RT is anti US. THERE IS NO STATION OUT THERE PUTTING A POSITIVE VIEW OF RUSSIA. THIS IS A
HUGE LONG TERM ERROR.
I admired Ron Paul foright policy views for a along time. and this time he also did not
disappointed his reader.
Soviet labeled anybody who dissented from communist propaganda line or did not believe in
Communist dogma as "agents of imperialism". Neocons similarly bland and-war activists and people
who question this war mongering as peddlers of "Russian propaganda". This is what often
happen with victors in wars: they acquired worst features of their defeated enemies. for example
to defeat the USSR the USA create powerful network of intelligence agencies. Which promptly
went out of civil control in 1963, much like KGB in the USSR and became state within the state. In a way now it in now now unfeasible
that the Soviet Union posthumously have won the Cold War, as it is more and more difficult to
distinguish Soviet propaganda and the US government propaganda.
So the fact that the US government allocate large sums of money for the propaganda
against another neoliberal state -- Russia, which represent regional threat to the US hegemonic
ambitions -- tells a lot about neoliberalism as a social system. Hostilities among neoliberal
states, much like hostilities between communist states are not only possible, they are the
reality.
Notable quotes:
"... So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights." ..."
"... How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- ..."
"... "I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government. ..."
"... This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda." ..."
"... That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny? ..."
Someday soon, perhaps, anyone writing the above sentence will land in some sort of gulag, as
once did East Europeans found to have appeared on a foreign broadcast questioning the
historical inevitability of the worldwide communist revolution.
In my case, I was asked to comment on a new report (see above pic) from a Czech "
think tank " exposing 2,327 American "useful idiots" who dared appear on the Russian
government-funded RT television network.
Among the "Kremlin stooges" listed in the report of the "European Values" think tank?
Alongside critics of US foreign policy like Ron Paul, the Czech "European Values" think tank
listed Sen. Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, US Rep. Adam Schiff, former acting CIA
director Michael Morrell, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and hundreds more prominent
Americans who have been notably hostile to Russia and its government.
I said: "Wow! this conspiracy is even deeper than we thought! Even the virulently
anti-Russian neocons and Russia-hating CIA bigwigs are in fact Putin's poodles!"
It's funny but it's not. This is when the neo-McCarthyism lately in fashion across the
ideological divide descends into the absurd. This is when the mask slips from the witch trials,
when the naked emperor can no longer expect to not be noticed.
So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are
well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who
appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to
the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders
include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European
Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the
Prague-based "League of Human Rights."
Since when did "European values" come to be defined as government-funded lists of political
"enemies" who dare question US foreign policy on television networks despised by neocons and
Washington interventionists? How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in
the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the
Štátna bezpečnosť -- the communist secret police -- that took
exactly the same view of those who deviated from the Soviet party line as does the modern Czech
"European Values" think tank.
Anyone questioning our one trillion dollar global military empire is automatically
considered to be in the pay of hostile foreign governments. How patriotic is that?
"I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the
marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US
citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their
own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government.
This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign
policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and
then Congress
appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda."
That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our
objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How
anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of
tyranny?
The noose is tightening around us. Yet we must continue to fight for what we believe in! We
must continue to fight for the prosperity that comes from a peaceful foreign policy. Your
generous support for the Ron Paul Institute helps us continue to be your voice in the fight
for free expression and a peaceful foreign policy.
"... With the U.S. government offering tens of millions of dollars to combat Russian "propaganda and disinformation," it's perhaps not surprising that we see "researchers" such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have "basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer." ..."
"... I've been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet has always been "a sewer" -- in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly personal insults, click-bait tabloid "news," and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of Twitter's 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing through the Internet. ..."
"... Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions, debates, etc. Based on what's known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that "the actual electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500." ..."
"... In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, "I have 40 years of experience in politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate." ..."
"... Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the Russia-linked "fake news" theme , ran a relatively responsible article about a leading "fake news" Web site that the Times tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or not. ..."
"... The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found no Russian connection. ..."
"... But the even larger Internet problem is that many "reputable" news sites, such as AOL, lure readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised. ..."
"... This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian "meddling" even if these "suspected links to Russia" – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be true. ..."
"... And, there is the issue of who decides what's true. PolitiFact continues to defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies "have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election." ..."
"... That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this topic. ..."
"... Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an "assessment" blaming the Russians while acknowledging a lack of actual evidence . ..."
"... In other words, the Jan. 6 "assessment" was comparable to the "stovepiped" intelligence that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration. In "stovepiped" intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the groupthink. ..."
Exclusive: As the Russia-gate hysteria spirals down from the implausible to the absurd,
almost every bad thing is blamed on the Russians, even how they turned the previously pristine
Internet into a "sewer," reports Robert Parry.
With the U.S. government offering tens of
millions of dollars to combat Russian "propaganda and disinformation," it's perhaps not
surprising that we see "researchers" such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital
Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have
"basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer."
I've been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet
has always been "a sewer" -- in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly
personal insults, click-bait tabloid "news," and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think
of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook
(compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of
Twitter's 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing
through the Internet.
Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans and pretty much every other segment of the world's
population didn't need Russian help to turn the Internet into an informational "sewer." But, of
course, fairness and proportionality have no place in today's Russia-gate frenzy.
After all, your "non-governmental organization" or your scholarly "think tank" is not likely
to get a piece of
the $160 million that the U.S. government authorized last December to counter primarily
Russian "propaganda and disinformation" if you explain that the Russians are at most
responsible for a tiny trickle of "sewage" compared to the vast rivers of "sewage" coming from
many other sources.
If you put the Russia-gate controversy in context, you also are not likely to have your
"research"
cited by The Washington Post as Albright did on Thursday because he supposedly found some
links at the home-décor/fashion site Pinterest to a few articles that derived from a few
of the 470 Facebook accounts and pages that Facebook suspects of having a link to Russia and
shut them down. (To put that 470 number into perspective, Facebook has about two billion
monthly users.)
Albright's full quote about the Russians allegedly exploiting various social media platforms
on the Internet was: "They've gone to every possible medium and basically turned it into a
sewer."
But let's look at the facts. According to Facebook, the suspected "Russian-linked" accounts
purchased $100,000 in ads from 2015 to 2017 (compared to Facebook's annual revenue of about $27
billion), with only 44 percent of those ads appearing before the 2016 election and many having
little or nothing to do with politics, which is curious if the Kremlin's goal was to help elect
Donald Trump and defeat Hillary Clinton.
Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of
thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential
campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions,
debates, etc. Based on what's known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that "the actual
electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500."
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, "I have 40 years of experience in
politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a
carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver
meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate."
Puppies and Pokemon
And, then there is the curious content. According to The New York Times, one of these
"Russian-linked" Facebook groups was dedicated to
photos of "adorable puppies." Of course, the Times tried hard to detect some sinister
motive behind the "puppies" page.
Similarly, CNN went wild over its own
"discovery" that one of the "Russian-linked" pages offered Amazon gift cards to people who
found "Pokémon Go" sites near scenes where police shot unarmed black men -- if you would
name the Pokémon after the victims.
"It's unclear what the people behind the contest hoped to accomplish, though it may have
been to remind people living near places where these incidents had taken place of what had
happened and to upset or anger them," CNN mused, adding:
"CNN has not found any evidence that any Pokémon Go users attempted to enter the
contest, or whether any of the Amazon Gift Cards that were promised were ever awarded -- or,
indeed, whether the people who designed the contest ever had any intention of awarding the
prizes."
So, these dastardly Russians are exploiting "adorable puppies" and want to "remind people"
about unarmed victims of police violence, clearly a masterful strategy to undermine American
democracy or – according to the original Russia-gate narrative – to elect Donald
Trump.
A New York Times article
on Wednesday acknowledged another inconvenient truth that unintentionally added more
perspective to the Russia-gate hysteria.
It turns out that some of the mainstream media's favorite "fact-checking" organizations are
home to Google ads that look like news items and lead readers to phony sites dressed up to
resemble People, Vogue or other legitimate content providers.
"None of the stories were true," the Times reported. "Yet as recently as late last week,
they were being promoted with prominent ads served by Google on PolitiFact and Snopes,
fact-checking sites created precisely to dispel such falsehoods."
There is obvious irony in PolitiFact and Snopes profiting off "fake news" by taking money
for these Google ads. But this reality also underscores the larger reality that fabricated news
articles – whether peddling lies about Melania Trump or a hot new celebrity or outlandish
Russian plots – are driven principally by the profit motive.
The Truth About Fake News
Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last
November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the
Russia-linked "fake news" theme , ran
a relatively responsible article about a leading "fake news" Web site that the Times
tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student
using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or
not.
The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push
stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing
anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found
no Russian connection.
The Times article on Wednesday revealed the additional problem of Google ads placed on
mainstream Internet sites leading readers to bogus news sites to get clicks and thus
advertising dollars. And, it turns out that PolitiFact and Snopes were at least unwittingly
profiting off these entrepreneurial ventures by running their ads. Again, there was no claim
here of Russian "links." It was all about good ole American greed.
But the even larger Internet problem is that many "reputable" news sites, such as AOL, lure
readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a
story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised.
This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story
plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian "meddling" even if these "suspected links to
Russia" – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be
true.
But there are no lucrative grants going to "researchers" who would put the trickle of
alleged Russian "sewage" into the context of the vast flow of Internet "sewage" that is even
flowing through the esteemed "fact-checking" sites of PolitiFact and Snopes.
There are also higher newspaper sales and better TV ratings if the mainstream media keeps
turning up new angles on Russia-gate, even as some of the old ones fall away as inconsequential
or meaningless (such as the Senate Intelligence Committee dismissing earlier controversies over
Sen. Jeff Sessions's brief meeting with the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower Hotel and minor
changes in the Republican platform).
Saying 'False' Is 'True'
And, there is the issue of who decides what's true. PolitiFact continues to
defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in
referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S.
intelligence agencies "have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks,
come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our
election."
That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence
agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments
of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this
topic.
Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence
community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as
"hand-picked" analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency,
National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an "assessment"
blaming the Russians while acknowledging
a lack of actual evidence .
In other words, the Jan. 6 "assessment" was comparable to the "stovepiped" intelligence
that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration. In
"stovepiped" intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments
without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the
groupthink.
So, in many ways, Clinton's statement was the opposite of true both when she said it in 2016
and later in 2017 when she repeated
it in direct reference to the Jan. 6 assessment. If PolitiFact really cared about facts, it
would have corrected its earlier claim that Clinton was telling the truth, but the
fact-checking organization wouldn't budge -- even after The New York Times and The Associated
Press ran corrections.
In this context, PolitiFact showed its contempt even for conclusive evidence –
testimony from former DNI Clapper (corroborated by former CIA Director John Brennan) that the
17-agency claim was false. Instead, PolitiFact was determined to protect Clinton's false
statement from being described for what it was: false.
Of course, maybe PolitiFact is suffering from the arrogance of its elite status as an
arbiter of truth with its position on Google's First Draft coalition, a collection of
mainstream news outlets and fact-checkers which gets to decide what information is true and
what is not true -- for algorithms that then will exclude or downplay what's deemed
"false."
So, if PolitiFact says something is true – even if it's false – it becomes
"true." Thus, it's perhaps not entirely ironic that PolitiFact would collect money from Google
ads placed on its site by advertisers of fake news.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
David G , October 18, 2017 at 5:57 pm
I bet the Russians are responsible for all the naked lady internet pictures as well. Damn
you, Vladimir Vladimirovich, for polluting our purity.
TS , October 19, 2017 at 5:43 am
Two-thirds of a century ago, Arthur C. Clarke, who besides being a famous SF author,
conceived the concept of the communications satellite, published a short story in which the
Chinese use satellite broadcasting to flood the USA with porn in order spread moral
degeneracy. Wadya think?
Mr. Mueller! Mr. Mueller! Investigate who the owners of YouPorn are!
It's all a Chinese plot, not a Russian one!
Broompilot , October 19, 2017 at 1:55 pm
I second the motion!
Antiwar7 , October 19, 2017 at 7:48 pm
"Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and
only pure-grain alcohol?"
richard vajs , October 20, 2017 at 7:50 am
And Vladimir keeps tempting me with offers of money that he found abandoned in Nigerian
banks and mysteriously bequeathed to me.
This sounds eerily similar to newspeak described by George Orwell "1984" in
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 7:20 pm
The failure of Russia bashers to rank all nations on FB ads and accounts, proves that they
know they are lying. Random Russians (about 2% of the world population) may have spent 100K
on mostly apolitical ads on FB (about 0.0004%) and may have 470 accounts on FB (about
0.000025%). So Russians have far fewer FB ads and accounts per capita than the average
nation. Probably most developed nations have a higher per capita usage of FB, and many
individuals and companies may have a higher total usage of FB.
The fact that 160 million is spent to dig up phony evidence of Russian influence (totaling
about 0.13% of the investigation cost), proves that such "researchers" are paid liars; they
are the ones who should be prosecuted for subversion of democracy for personal gain.
The fact that all views may be found on internet does not make it a "sewer" because one
can view only what is useful. The Dems and Repubs regard the People as a sewer, because they
believe that power=virtue=money no matter how unethically they get it, to rationalize
oligarchy. They keep the most abusive and implausible ads out of mass media only because no
advertiser wants them, but of course they don't want the truth either.
JWalters , October 18, 2017 at 9:03 pm
Add MSNBC to the sources of sewage on the internet. I checked out MSNBC today, and they
are full-throttle on any kind of Russia-phobia. For those who read somewhat widely, it is
obvious they are not even trying to present a balanced picture of the actual evidence. It is
completely one-sided, and includes the trashiest trash of that one side. Their absolute lack
of integrity matches Fox on its worst days.
As someone who formerly watched MSNBC regularly, I am sickened at the obvious capituation
to the criminal Zionists who own the network. Have these people no decency? Apparently not.
Historians will judge them harshly.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 11:28 am
JWalters –
Yes. I completely agree with you. I am beginning to wonder if these people who are
spitting out this trashiest trash at MSNBC from their mouths every day for over a year now
are really sane people. I believe that along with politicians like Adam Schiff, these talk
show hosts have slid into complete madness. The way it is going now, I am afraid that If
these people are not removed, there is a danger of the whole country sliding into some form
of madness.
anonymous , October 20, 2017 at 2:12 pm
"Historians will judge them harshly."
The western civilisation galloped to worldly success on the twin horses of Greed and
Psychopathy. This also provided them the opportunity to write history as they wished.
Are historians judging them harshly now? They are themselves whores to whichever society
they belong to.
Anna , October 19, 2017 at 5:32 pm
Jonathan Albright, the Research Director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism,
[email protected] . https://towcenter.org/about/who-we-are/
Mr. Albright is preparing for himself a feathered nest among other presstitutes swarming the
many ziocons' "think tanks," like the viciously russophobic (and unprofessional) Atlantic
Council that employs the ignoramus Eliot Higgins (a former salesman of ladies' underwear and
college dropout) and Dmitry Alperovitch of CrowdStrike fame, a Russophobe and threat to the
US national security
One can be sure that Jonathan Albright knows already all the answers (similar to Judy Miller)
and he is not interested in any proven expertise like the one provided by the Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
.
Can anyone out there please supply me with a couple of Russian hit pieces that crippled
Hillary´s campaigne. Just askin, because I have never seen one.
Michael K Rohde , October 18, 2017 at 8:29 pm
You obviously haven't looked hard enough. I just finished the book "Shattered" and she had
no problem blaming the Russians when the emails of Podesta came out in the summer. It took
her a day or 2 to figure out that she couldn't blame the Arabs so the Russians were next up.
How could you have missed it?
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 9:38 pm
He is likely asking for ads from Russia that actually could have served as "hit pieces"
against Clinton, versus her accusations.
I fear we must set aside our sarcasm and understand that this entire Russian narrative has
the ultimate goal of silencing any oppositional news sources to the corporate media. When we
hear that Facebook is seeking to hire people with national security clearances, which is made
to sound as if it's a good, responsible reaction to the "Russian ads" and is cheered on by
people who should know better, we need to get our tongues out of our cheeks and stay
alert.
A good friend, who is an activist battling the fracking industry in Colorado and blogging
about it, was urging people this week to sign petitions demanding more censorship on Facebook
to "prevent Russian propaganda." When I pointed out that, based on the Jan. 6 "report," which
condemned RT America for "criticizing the fracking industry" as proof it was a propaganda
organ, her blog is Russian propaganda. Did that change her mind? Nope. Her response was in
the category of "Better safe."
So, it appears Russia is not replacing "Muslim terrorists" as the "great danger" our
beloved and benevolent government must ask us to hand over our rights to combat. And people
who can't seem to get it through their heads the government is NOT their friend are marching
in lock-step to agree because it never occurs to them they, too, are a target.
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm
Yes, the purpose of Russia bashing is to distract from the revelations of DNC corruption
by oligarchy (top ten Clinton donors all zionists), attack leakers as opponents of oligarchy,
and attack Russia in hope of benefits to the zionists in the Mideast.
Perhaps you meant to say that "Russia is [not] replacing "Muslim terrorists" as the 'great
danger' our beloved and benevolent government must ask us to hand over our rights to combat."
Or perhaps you meant that the Russia-gate gambit is not working.
Abe , October 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm
American psychologist Gustave Gilbert interviewed high-ranking Nazi leaders during the
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In 1947, Gilbert published part of his diary,
consisting of observations taken during interviews, interrogations, "eavesdropping" and
conversations with German prisoners, under the title Nuremberg Diary.
Hermann Goering, one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party, was founder of the
Gestapo and Head of the Luftwaffe.
From an 18 April 1946 interview with Gilbert in Goering's jail cell:
Hermann Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back
to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor
in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter
through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare
wars."
Hermann Goering: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 12:44 am
Abe –
Good post. Yes, from all the wars initiated during the last half century what Hermann
Goring said is very true of U.S. The opposition to the Vietnam War later on was largely
because of the draft.
Bertrand Russell in his autobiography describes in length how they prepared the U.K.
public with outrageously false propaganda for War – World War I – against Germany
in 1914. Bertrand Russell was vehemently against the War with Germany and spent some time in
Jail for his activities to oppose the war.
Brad Owen , October 19, 2017 at 3:58 am
Based on what I have read about him, in his own words,on EIR, he was probably opposed to
war with Germany because he was already looking ahead to a revival of the "Imperial Rome"
situation we have in the Trans-Atlantic Community today, with its near-global Empire
(enforced by America), working on breaking up the last holdout:the Eurasian Quarter with
Russia, China, India, Iran, etc.
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:21 am
Yes Brad, Bertrand Russell did love England and was very proud of English Civilization and
it's contributions to the World. Considering his very aristocratic background, his
contributions to mathematics and Philosophy are laudable. And he was very much involved in
World peace and nuclear disarmament movements.
(Goering quote) ahh yes, sometimes it takes a cynical scoundrel to tell the truth!
T.Walsh , October 20, 2017 at 11:09 am
the major war criminals' trial ended in 1946, with the execution of the 10 major war
criminals taking place on October 16, 1946.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 8:48 pm
Elizabeth for the mere fact you are on this site may possibly be your reason for your
escape from the MSM as it is a propaganda tool, to be used by the Shadow Government to guide
your thought processes. (See YouTube Kevin Shipp for explanation for Shadow Government and
Deep State) other than that I think it safe to say we are living in an Orwellian predicted
state of mass communications, and for sure we are now living in a police state to accompany
our censored news. Joe
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:02 pm
Here is something I feel may ring your bell when it comes to our maintaining a free press.
Read this .
"From the PR perspective, releasing one anti-Russia story after another helps cement a
narrative far better than an all-at-once approach to controlling the news cycle. The public
is now getting maximum effect from what I believe is a singular and cohesive effort to lay
the groundwork for global legislation to eradicate any dissent and particular dissent that is
pro-Russia or pro-Putin. The way the news cycle works, a campaign is best leveled across two
weeks, a month, or more, so that the desired audience is thoroughly indoctrinated with an
idea or a product. In this case, the product is an Orwellian eradication of freedom of speech
across the swath of the world's most used social media platforms. This is a direct result of
traditional media and the deep state having failed to defeat independents across these
platforms. People unwilling to bow to the CNN, BBC and the controlled media message, more or
less beat the globalist scheme online. So, the only choice and chance for the anti-Russia
message to succeed is with the complete takeover of ALL channels. As further proof of a
collective effort, listen to this Bloomberg interview the other day with Microsoft CEO Brad
Smith on the same "legislation" issues. Smith's rhetoric, syntax, and the flow of his
narrative mirror almost precisely the other social CEOs, the US legislators, and especially
the UK Government dialogue. All these technocrats feign concern over privacy protection and
free speech/free press issues, but their real agenda is the main story."
Here is the link for the rest of the essay to Phil Butler's important news story ..
When you read this keep in mind that the Russians weren't doing any backroom illegal
deals, because the Russians thought that they were dealing on the upside with the Obama White
House State Department. Where you may question this, is where our Obama State Department side
stepped the law to make money for those couple of Americans who fronted this deal. This is
the epitome of hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Disclaimer; please Clinton and Trump supporters try and attempt to see this scandal for
what it is. This fudging of the law to make a path for questionable donations is not a party
platform issue. It is an issue of integrity and honesty. Yes Trump is the worst, but after
you dig into the above link I provided, please don't come back at me screaming partisan
politics. This scandal doesn't deserve a two sided political debate, as much as it deserves
our attention, and what we do all should do about it.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 2:56 pm
Joe Tedesky –
Reading about this Russian Bribery case in buying interest in "Uranium One" reminds me
that Russians came a century or two late into this Capitalist Game. And they must be novices
and rather crude in this business of bribing. This Russia bribery case is just a puddle in
this vast Sea of Corruption to sell weapons, fighter jets, commercial airplanes, and other
things by U.S., U.K., French, Swedes or other Western Nations to the Third World countries
like India, Egypt, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria etc. To make a sale of three or four
billion dollars they would bribe the ministers and other officials in those countries
probably with a 100 million dollars easily. Those of us who belong to the two worlds know it
much better. The Indian Newspapers used to be always full of it, whenever I visited.
And the bribe money stays in the Western banks with which those ministers and officials
sons and daughters buy extensive properties in these countries. In fact, these kind of issues
are the topic of conversation at these Ethnic parties of rather prosperous people to which we
do get invited once in a year or so – which minister or official bought what property
and where with this kind or other type of corruption money. There used to be stories about
Egyptian Presidents Sadat and Mubarak's sons playing around in U.S. having bought extensive
properties with the bribe money. For Indian Ministers and Officials U.S., Canada, Australia,
U.K., and New Zealand are the preferred destinations to buy the properties.
And as we know with the corruption money, rich Russians are buying all these homes and
other properties in Spain, U.S., U.K. and other Western Countries. It seems like Putin and
his team have stopped most of big time corruption but it is very hard to stop the other
corruption in this globalized free market economy, especially in countries where corruption
is the norm.
Same is true of these IMF loans to those Third World Countries. Most of the money ends up
in these Western Countries. The working class of those countries end up in paying back the
high interest loans.
This is the World we are trying to defend with these endless wars and Russia-Gate.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 11:20 pm
Dave I concur that even the Russians are not beyond corruption, but we are not talking
about the bad habits of the Russians, no we are talking about U.S. officials possibly
breaking the law. I'll bet Dave if I had taken you on a vandalizing spree when we were young
bad ass little hoodlums, and we got caught, that your father wouldn't have come after me, as
much as he would come after you, as he would have given you a well deserved good spanking for
your bad actions. So with that frame of mind I am keeping my focus with this Clinton escapade
right here at home.
I like that you did point out to how the Russians maybe new to this capitalistic new world
they suddenly find themselves in, but I would not doubt that even an old Soviet Commissar
would have reached under the table for a kickback of somekind to enrich himself, if the
occasion had arisen to do so. You know this Dave, that bribery has no political philosophy,
nor does it have a democratic or communist ideology to prevent the corrupted from being
corrupt.
I am not getting my hopes up that justice will be served with this FBI investigation into
Hillary and Bill's uranium finagling. Although I'm surmising this whole thing will get turned
around as a Sessions Trump attack upon the Clintons, and with that this episode of selling
off American assets for personal wealth benefits, will instead fade away from our news cycles
altogether. Just like the torture stuff went missing, and where did that go?
Dave I always look forward to hearing from you, because I think that you and I often have
many a good conversation. Joe
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:07 am
Yes Joe. I agree with you. The reason I wrote my comments was to make a point that Russian
businessmen are not the only one who are in the bribery business, the businessmen of other
Western Nations are doing the same thing. Yesterday on the Fox News the "Uranium One" bribery
case was the main News. Shawn Hannity was twisting his words to make it look like that it is
Putin who did it, and that it is Putin who gave all this 140 million as bribery to Clinton
Foundation. Actually , I think the 140 millions was given to the Clinton Foundation by the
trustees of the Company in Canada. And Russian officials probably greased the hands of a few
of them too.
Of course Clintons are directly involved in this case. Considering how Hillary Clinton has
been perpetuating this Russia-Gate hysteria, I hope some truth comes out to show that she may
be the real center of this Russia-Gate affair. But way the things in Washington are now,
probably they are going to whitewash the Hillary Clinton's role in this bribery scandal.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:55 pm
While my one comment i wanted for you to read is being moderated, and it is an important
comment, read how the Israeli's handle unwanted news broadcasting. When you read this think
of the Kristallnacht episode, and then wonder why the Israeli's would do such a terrible
thing similar to what they had encountered under Hitler's reign.
Be sure to see my comment I left above, which is being moderated. In the meantime go to
NEO New Eastern Outlook and read Phil Butler's shocking story, 'Globalist Counterpunch: Going
for the Media Knockout'.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 3:41 am
Joe Tedesky – the Zionists had been working (long before Hitler) on getting the Jews
into Palestine. Read up on the Balfour Declaration. Hitler was helping them get out to
Palestine. During World War II, one of the top German officials (can't remember which one
right now) went to Palestine to have discussions with the Zionists. The Zionists basically
said to him: "Look, you're sending us lazy Jews. These guys aren't interested in
construction. Can't you raise more hell so that the harder-working Jews will want to leave
Germany and come to Palestine?"
I think if we ever find out the truth about what happened, we will be shocked.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:11 am
Edmund de Rothschild who was a big financier of Zionism in 1934 on the subject of
Palestine had said, "the struggle to put an end to the Wandering Jew, could not have as its
result, the creation of the Wandering Arab."
I personally can't see the legality of the 'Balfour Declaration', but before Zionist
trolls attack me, I must admit I'm no legal scholar.
I'll need to research that episode you speak of about the Germans meeting the Zionist.
It's not an easy part of the Zionist history to study. Unless, you backwardsevolution can
provide some references that would help to learn more about this fuzzy history.
Good to see you posting, for awhile your absence gave me concern that you are doing okay.
Joe
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 8:38 am
Thanks for the links Joe. Both great articles.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:14 am
Your welcome Skip I'll apologize for my posting all these links, but I kind of went nuts
getting into the subject we are all talking about here, and more. Joe
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 11:21 pm
Although this article by the Saker talks about the U.S. being prepared for war against
Iran it speaks to the bigger problem of who is America's puppet master.
Joe start with a book called The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 11:25 pm
I put it on my next book to read. Thanks Tannerhouser appreciate your recommendation.
Joe
dfc , October 18, 2017 at 8:55 pm
Elizabeth: Tell your good friend that once they get rid of the Russian propaganda
on Facebook they will coming after those that oppose the Fracking Industry next:
How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
Sorry, but how naive or deeply in the bubble can one be? lol :(
Beverly Voelkelt , October 19, 2017 at 2:50 am
I agree Elizabeth. The ultimate objective is censorship and control, using the pretext of
keeping America safe from external meddling just like they enacted the Patroit Act to protect
us from the terrists they created.
Daniel , October 19, 2017 at 5:04 am
Thank you Elizabeth. Shutting down alternative voices is clearly the end game here.
David G , October 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm
I'm not crazy about Robert Parry's phrase, "the mistaken judgments of President George W.
Bush's administration".
The lying, murdering bastards were lying. It's their parents that made the mistake.
But I'll let it slide.
Tayo , October 18, 2017 at 6:29 pm
I've said this before and I'll say it again: I suggest Mueller focuses on Tinder too. I'm
betting there's something on there. Russians have been known to use honey pot plots.
D.H. Fabian , October 18, 2017 at 6:40 pm
Ah, but who is better at it -- Russia or the US? (And dare we even consider the power of
China to infiltrate political powers and the media?)
anon , October 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm
So do Martians and every other national, religious, and ethnic group on the planet, with
the US out in front. You will not trick more careful thinkers by attacking the target du
jour.
D.H. Fabian , October 18, 2017 at 6:38 pm
Yes, and over the past week or two, it appears that work is being redirected into holding
the vast military behemoth (?), Israel, accountable for our own political/policy choices.
Either way, the US is clearly in its post-reality era.
anon , October 18, 2017 at 7:49 pm
zio-alert
Abe , October 18, 2017 at 10:06 pm
The naked gun of post-reality Hasbara propaganda:
When Israeli influence on US foreign policy choices may be discussed, Hasbara troll "D.H.
Fabian" pops up to insist:
And what do you want to discuss Abe? That there is undue influence from Israel on the US
government? Maybe, but you could say the same thing about the pharmaceuticals, the MIC, big
oil and the bankers, just to begin the list.
If you and others wish to focus in on a single culprit (defined as anyone fighting for
their own self interests), fine. But there are opposing views that believe the picture is
bigger than the one you would like to paint.
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 1:26 am
WC, I don't want to speak for Abe, but I am wondering about your use of the word "maybe".
Since the last count of US politicians was 13 Senators, and 27 House Reps who are dual
citizens of Israel, does that not imply a conflict of interest just in those stats alone?
Israel doesn't allow dual citizenship in their political system as it is a security risk, so
why do we? I will wait for your reply.
WC , October 19, 2017 at 4:23 am
Curious.
I can't speak for the legalities that led to allowing dual citizenship in the House and
Senate, nor why Israel doesn't allow dual citizenship in their political system. Like a lot
of laws it is probably serving someone's best interests. ;)
As for the word "maybe" and how it relates to your overall question. Just because there
are dual citizen reps in government, does that automatically say they all vote in the
interests of Israel exclusively? And even if that were the case what makes them any different
from the rep sold out to the MIC, big oil, pharmaceuticals, bankers, etc., or combination of?
We'd then need to do a study of all of the sold-out politicians and chart the percentage of
each to the various interests they sold out to. At what percentage does Israel come into the
big picture?
No one is denying Israel has a certain influence on the US government, but given all of
the vested interests involved, the US also has a big stake in what happens in the region. I
also don't know what the overall game plan is, not just for the middle east but all of the
sordid shit going on everywhere. If old George is right about "The Big Club", I'm assuming
some group or combination of groups have some master plan for us all, so I am not ready to
label any group, country or entity good or bad at this stage of the game. If this somehow
leaves out the moral question, I am not idealistic enough to believe morality and
Geo-politics often work hand in hand. :)
Brad Owen , October 19, 2017 at 4:41 am
WCs point is valid and correct. The picture is MUCH bigger than a tiny desert country of a
few million Semites ruling the World. The actual picture is the outgrowth of the several,
world-wide, European Empires having united into one, gigantic "Roman Empire" (under
Synarchist directorship) and CAPTURED America, post WWII, to be its enforcer, working to
break the last holdout: the Eurasian Quarter including Iran, into a truly global Empire.
Israel was a strategy of the British Empire to preclude any revival of a Muslim Empire,
threatening its MENA holdings. The enemy is still the British Empire of the 1%er oligarchs in
City-of-London and Wall Street. The fact that NOBODY pays attention to this situation, and
obsesses over Israel, guarantees the success of the Plan.
anon , October 19, 2017 at 7:29 am
No, the problem of Mideast policy and oligarchy control of mass media is entirely due to
zionist influence, including all top ten donors to Clinton 2016. Ukraine and the entire
problem of surrounding and opposing Russia is due primarily to zionist influence, due to
their intervention in the Mideast, although the MIC is happy to join the corruption for war
anywhere. The others on your list "pharmaceuticals, big oil and the bankers" are involved in
other problems.
WC seeks to divert discussion from zionist influence by changing the subject.
anon , October 19, 2017 at 7:33 am
Brad, you will have a hard time explaining why US wars in the Mideast and surrounding
Russia are always for the benefit of Israel, if you think that ancient Venetians and British
aristocracy are running the show. Looks like a diversionary attack to me.
Abe , October 20, 2017 at 2:05 am
The naked solo of "D.H. Fabian" has surged into a Hasbara chorus. Where to begin.
Let's start with "Curious", who definitely does not speak for me.
The "dual citizens" canard is a stellar example of Inverted Hasbara (false flag
"anti-Israel", "anti-Zionist", frequently "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Semitic") propaganda that
gets ramped up whenever needed, but particularly Israel rains bombs on the neighborhood.
Like Conventional Hasbara (overtly pro-Israel or pro-Zionist) propaganda, the primary
purpose of Inverted Hasbara false flag propaganda is to divert attention from Israeli
military and government actions, and to provide cover for Israel Lobby activities
The Inverted Hasbara canard inserted by "Curious" came into prominence after the
Israel-initiated war Lebanon in 2006. Israel's shaky military performance, flooding of south
Lebanon cluster munitions, use of white phosphorus in civilian areas brought censure. Further
Israeli attacks on Gaza brought increasing pressure on the neocon-infested Bush
administration for its backing of Israel.
A Facebook post titled, "List of Politicians with Israeli Dual Citizenship," started
circulating. The post mentioned "U.S. government appointees who hold powerful positions and
who are dual American-Israeli citizens."
With the change of US administration in 2008, new versions of the post appeared with
headlines such as "Israeli Dual Citizens in the U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration."
Common versions included 22 officials currently or previously with the Obama administration,
27 House members and 13 senators.
The posts were false for a variety of reasons, not least of which was the
misrepresentation of Israeli nationality law. Israel does allow its citizens to hold dual (or
multiple) citizenship. A dual national is considered an Israeli citizen for all purposes, and
is entitled to enter Israel without a visa, stay in Israel according to his own desire,
engage in any profession and work with any employer according to Israeli law. An exception is
that under an additional law added to the Basic Law: the Knesset (Article 16A) according to
which Knesset members cannot pledge allegiance unless their foreign citizenship has been
revoked, if possible, under the laws of that country.
The Law of Return grants all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel and almost automatic
Israeli citizenship upon arrival in Israel. In the 1970s the Law of Return was expanded to
grant the same rights to the spouse of a Jew, the children of a Jew and their spouses, and
the grandchildren of a Jew and their spouses, provided that the Jew did not practice a
religion other than Judaism willingly. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that Jews
or the descendants of Jews that actively practice a religion other than Judaism are not
entitled to immigrate to Israel as they would no longer be considered Jews under the Law of
Return, irrespective of their status under halacha (Jewish religious law).
Israeli law distinguishes between the Law of Return, which allows for Jews and their
descendants to immigrate to Israel, and Israel's nationality law, which formally grants
Israeli citizenship. In other words, the Law of Return does not itself determine Israeli
citizenship; it merely allows for Jews and their eligible descendants to permanently live in
Israel. Israel does, however, grant citizenship to those who immigrated under the Law of
Return if the applicant so desires.
A non-Israeli Jew or an eligible descendant of a non-Israeli Jew needs to request approval
to immigrate to Israel, a request which can be denied for a variety of reasons including (but
not limited to) possession of a criminal record, currently infected with a contagious
disease, or otherwise viewed as a threat to Israeli society. Within three months of arriving
in Israel under the Law of Return, immigrants automatically receive Israeli citizenship
unless they explicitly request not to.
In short, knowingly or not, "Curious" is spouting Inverted Hasbara propaganda.
Conventional Hasbara (pro-Israel, pro-Zionist) propagandists constantly attempt to portray
Israeli military threats against its neighbors, Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian
territory, Zionist claims of an "unconditional land grant covenant" for Israel, or the
manipulations of the Israel Lobby, as somehow all based on "the way the world really
works".
"WC" has repeatedly promoted a loony "realism" in the CN comments, claiming for example
that "The Jews aren't doing anything different than the rest have done since the beginning of
time."
The Conventional Hasbara troll refrain is that whatever Israel does "ain't no big
thing".
"D.H. Fabian", "WC" and others are not Hasbara trolls because we somehow "disagree". They
are Hasbara trolls because they promote propaganda for Israel.
Fellow travellers round out the Hasbara chorus.
Commenter anon discourses in absolutes such as "entirely due to zionist influence" and
"always for the benefit of Israel".
Commenter Brad Owen just can't understand why everyone "obsesses" over that "tiny desert
country" when "the Plan" outlined by LaRouche is sooo much more interesting.
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 11:55 am
Abe – An excellent analysis – very penetrating. Yes, I understand it very
clearly.
I am one of those who does not have the background in this area. However, reading the
largely British view oriented newspapers since I was fourteen , in a different land where at
that time during 1950's and early 60's, all viewpoints were discussed including the communist
Russian/Soviet side, and the Communist Chinese side too, one develops a balanced outlook on
the World events.
Reading your comments on Israel's citizenship laws, is very eye opening for me. Israel is
a very Racist State, which is kind of the opposite of what Jewish Writers write books in this
country about America being the melting pot. Some of us have already melted here. I sometimes
wonder, Jewish writers are writing all these books, but why don't they melt! Are they special
chosen people?
WC , October 20, 2017 at 4:59 pm
Let me first dispel the notion that I am trying to change the subject, as "anon" would
like to imply. What I am after is a proper perspective as opposed to something blown out of
proportion.
When it comes to the subject of Israel, Jews and Zionism, Abe would appear to be well
versed on the subject. He certainly cleared up "Curious"s question on dual citizenship!
With Abe and others on this site, Zionism is the big daddy culprit in the world today. I,
on the other hand, see it as simply one part of a bigger picture, which I am still trying to
get my head around, but I am quite certain it goes far beyond just a regional issue. In
reading what Abe has to say on this subject over the past few months, he may very well be
right about Zionist influence and a take no prisoners-type of resolve in pursuing their aims
(whatever that may be). But none of this has yet to convince me they are entirely wrong
either.
Which brings us to the subject of morality. Take a second look at what Abe has chosen to
cherry pick from what he sees as the "Hasbara chorus" – all pointing to "trolls" who
(he thinks) are in support of an all powerful and heartless sect. This is what is known as
being overly dramatic and speaks volumes about what Abe (and others on this site) view as the
most objectionable of all – the moral wrongs being committed. For the sake of
clarification "morality" is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right
and wrong or good and bad behavior". Most of us who are not suffering from a mental disorder
can agree on what constitutes right and wrong at its purist level, but thrown into a world
filled with crime, corruption, greed, graft, hate, lust, sociopaths and psychopaths vying for
power, sectarian violence, a collapsing economy, inner city decay, and all of the vested
special interests jockeying to save their piece of the pie, what is right and wrong becomes
far more convoluted and mired in mud. Simply throwing perfect world idealism at the problem
will not fix it. In fact, it will get you as far as the miles of crucified Christians that
lined the road to Rome. Which is a hell of a way to prove you are so right in a world filled
with so much wrong.
Since the day I "slithered in" here, I have asked the same question over and over –
what are your REAL world solutions to REAL world problems? So far, the chorus of the Church
Of The Perfect World has offered up nothing. :)
Abe , October 20, 2017 at 6:07 pm
Making the same statements over and over again, "WC" is clearly "after" a Hasbara "proper
perspective" on Israel.
For example, in the CN comments on How Syria's Victory Reshapes Mideast (September 30,
2017), "WC" advanced three key Hasbara propaganda talking points concerning the illegal
50-year military occupation of Palestinian territory seized by Israel during the 1967
War:
– Spurious claims about "what realistically (not idealistically) can be done"
– Insistence that "Israel is not going to go back to the 1948 borders"
– Claims that the US "depends on a strong Israeli presence"
A leading canard of Hasbara propaganda and the Israeli right wing Neo-Zionist settlement
movement is the notion of an "unconditional land grant covenant" entitlement for Israel.
Land ownership was far more widespread than depicted in the fictions of Israeli
propaganda. In reality, the Israeli government knowingly confiscated privately owned
Palestinian land and construct a network of outposts and settlements.
Israel's many illegal activities in occupied Palestinian territory encompass Neo-Zionist
settlements, so-called "outposts" and declared "state land".
The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of
settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (which provides
humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone).
The 1967 "border" of Israel refers to the Green Line or 1949 Armistice demarcation line set
out in the Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria after the
1948 Arab–Israeli War.
The Green Line was intended as a demarcation line rather than a permanent border. The 1949
Armistice Agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent
borders. The Egyptian–Israeli agreement, for example, stated that "the Armistice
Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,
and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the
Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."
Similar provisions are contained in the Armistice Agreements with Jordan and Syria. The
Agreement with Lebanon contained no such provisions, and was treated as the international
border between Israel and Lebanon, stipulating only that forces would be withdrawn to the
Israel–Lebanon border.
United Nations General Assembly Resolutions and statements by many international bodies
refer to the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" of Israel and neighboring
countries.
According to international humanitarian law, the establishment of Israeli communities
inside the occupied Palestinian territories – settlements and outposts alike – is
forbidden. Despite this prohibition, Israel began building settlements in the West Bank
almost immediately following its occupation of the area in 1967.
Defenders of Israel's settlement policies, like David Friedman, the current United States
Ambassador to Israel, argue that the controversy over Israeli settlements in occupied
Palestinian territory is overblown.
The Israeli government and Israel Lobby advocates like Ambassador Friedman claim the
built-up area of settlements comprises only around 2% of the West Bank.
This Hasbara "2%" argument is at best ignorant, and at worst deliberately
disingenuous.
The "2%" figure is misleading because it refers restrictively to the amount of land
Israeli settlers have built on, but does not account for the multiple ways these settlements
create a massive, paralytic footprint in the illegally occupied Palestinian territory of the
West Bank.
Since 1967, Israel has taken control of around 50% of the land of the West Bank. And
almost all of that land has been given to the settlers or used for their benefit. Israel has
given almost 10% of the West Bank to settlers – by including it in the "municipal area"
of settlements. And it has given almost 34% of the West Bank to settlers – by placing
it under the jurisdiction of the Settlement "Regional Councils."
In addition, Israel has taken hundreds of kilometers of the West Bank to build
infrastructure to serve the settlements, including a network of roads that crisscross the
entire West Bank, dividing Palestinian cities and towns from each other, and imposing various
barriers to Palestinian movement and access, all for the benefit of the settlements.
Israel has used various means to do this, included by declaring much of the West Bank to
be "state land," taking over additional land for security purposes, and making it nearly
impossible for Palestinians to register claims of ownership to their own land.
The Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly used the term "belligerent occupation" to
describe Israel's rule over the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that
the question of a previous sovereign claim to the West Bank and Gaza is irrelevant to whether
international laws relating to occupied territories should apply there.
Rather, the proper question – according to Israel's highest court – is one of
effective military control. In the words of the Supreme Court decision, "as long as the
military force exercises control over the territory, the laws of war will apply to it." (see:
HCJ 785/87, Afo v. Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank).
The Palestinian territories were conquered by Israeli armed forces in the 1967 war.
Whether Israel claims that the war was forced upon it is irrelevant. The Palestinian
territory has been controlled and governed by the Israeli military ever since.
Who claimed the territories before they were occupied is immaterial. What is material is
that before 1967, Israel did not claim the territories.
Ariel Sharon, one of the principal architects of Israel's settlement building policy in
the West Bank and Gaza, recognized this reality. On May 26, 2003, then Israeli Prime Minister
Sharon told fellow Likud Party members: "You may not like the word, but what's happening is
occupation [using the Hebrew word "kibush," which is only used to mean "occupation"]. Holding
3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is a bad thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and
for the Israeli economy."
Whether one believes that these territories are legally occupied or not does not change
the basic facts: Israel is ruling over a population of millions of Palestinians who are not
Israeli citizens. Demographic projections indicate that Jews will soon be a minority in the
land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
Real world solutions:
An end to the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
An end to apartheid government and the beginning of real democracy in Israel.
What can be done now?
United States government sanctions against Israel for its 50-year military occupation of
Palestine, its apartheid social regime, and its arsenal of nuclear weapons.
The United States can require Israel to withdraw its forces to the 1967 line, and honor
the right of return to Palestinians who fled their homeland as a result of Israel's multiple
ethnic cleansing operations.
In addition, the United States can demand that immediately surrender its destabilizing
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons arsenal or face severe U.S. action.
Hasbara trolls will keep trying to change the subject, continue muttering about "opposing
views" and some "bigger picture" picture", and repeatedly insist that an Israel armed with
weapons of mass destruction routinely attacking its neighbors "ain't no big thing".
Tannenhouser , October 20, 2017 at 10:30 am
Most of the ones in control of "pharmaceuticals, the MIC, big oil and the bankers" are
Israel firsters as well. Round and round we go eh?
This is probably as good a place as any to point out that it isn't just Russophobia at
work; Congress is hard at work to protect Israel's abominable human rights record from public
criticism as well. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act is squarely aimed at criminalizing advocates
of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement and has 50 co-sponsors in the
Senate. See
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22israel+anti-boycott+act%22%5D%7D&r=2
wapo says Hamas disarm because us and israel want them to.israel won't disarm
though.Boy.
Curious , October 18, 2017 at 6:44 pm
Thank you Mr Parry for actually taking the time to read the NYT or WaPo for your readers,
so we don't have to. There is only so much disinformation one can cram into our 'cranium soft
drives' regarding journalists with no ethics nor moral rudders.
It reminds me of watching Jon Stewarts Daily Show to check out the perverse drivel on Fox
News since to watch Fox myself would have damaged me beyond repair. Many of my friends are
already Humpty-Dumptied by the volume of fragmented info leeching into their bloodstreams by
140 character news.
Thank you for your fortitude in trying to debunk the news and 'outing' those editors who feel
they are insulated from critical analysis.
dahoit , October 19, 2017 at 12:36 pm
jon stewart?WTF?
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 8:56 pm
Well dahoit,
Just chalk it up to a historical reference as that is around the time I stopped watching TV,
having worked in the biz for some 30 years. I don't miss it either. Jon gave us a lot of
humor and a lot of clever, surreptitious info, and the way they captured the talking points
of the politicians by the use of their fast cuts was remarkable. There was a lot of political
content in a show meant to just be humorous. Sorry you feel otherwise.
fudmier , October 18, 2017 at 6:59 pm
EITHER OR, INC. (EOI) a secret subsidiary of Deep Sewer Election Manipulators, Inc
(DSEMI), a fraudulent make believe Russia company, that changes election outcomes, in foreign
countries, to conform the leadership of the foreign country with Russia foreign policy,
studied the most recent USA candidates and concluded Russia could not have found persons more
suited to Russian foreign policy than the candidates the USA had selected for its American
governed, to vote on. The case is not yet closed, EOI is still trying to decide if there is
or was a difference between the candidates..
Charles Misfeldt , October 18, 2017 at 7:44 pm
Our election process is so completely corrupted I doubt that a few thousand dollars of
Facebook ads that no one pays any attention to could sway the vote, I am much more concerned
about bribery, Israel, American Zionists, racists, corporations, evangelicals, dominionists,
white nationalists, anarchist's, conservatives, war profiteers, gerrymanders, vote purges,
vote repressors, voting machine hackers, seems like Russian's are pretty far down the
list.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 8:52 pm
Now you talking, let's get to the real stuff. Good one Charles. Joe
Peter Loeb , October 19, 2017 at 6:08 am
I don't have "FACEBOOK". Or any other "social media (whatever that may be.)
I don't "tweet" and the technology which we were once told would save
the world, has left me behind. I don't text. I have no smart phone
or cell.
I no longer have a TV of any description. Or cable with millions of things
you don't want to see anyway.
Only my mind is left. For some more years.
(J.M. Keynes: " in the long run we will all be dead."
Perhaps one has to have "social media" to be born in
this generation. Do you need it to exit?
Please accept my thoughts with my "asocial" [media]
appologies.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
My "tweet"/message is only my fear that the NY Yankees
will be in the World Series where I can hate them with complete
impunity. (I was created a fan of the Washington Senators,
morphed into a Brooklyn Dodgers fan so the usually failing
Boston Red Sox fits me well. Being for that so-called "dodgers"
team on the west coast is a forced marriage at best.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:27 am
Peter screw Facebook and all the rest of that High Tech Big Brother Inc industry, and the
garbage they are promoting.
Also Peter do you have a little Walter Francis O'Malley voodoo doll to stick pins in it? I
also haven't followed baseball since Roberto Clemente died.
We kids use to skip school to go watch Clemente play. In fact in 1957 a young ball player
who the Pirates had acquired in somekind of trade with the Brooklyn Dodgers chased my seven
year old little butt out of right field when I wandered all confused onto the field. That
young rookie who chased my loss little being off the field, was none other than the great
number 21 Roberto Clemente.
Actually the only thing you left out Peter was the Braves moving to Atlanta. Take care
Peter, and let's play more ball in the daylight, and let's make it more affordable game to
watch again. Play ball & BDS. Joe
Thomas Phillips , October 19, 2017 at 12:30 pm
I'm envious now Joe. Roberto Clemente was one of my favorite baseball players. My no. 1
favorite, though, was Willie Mays. And speaking of the Braves moving to Atlanta, my father
took my brother and I there the first year the team was in Atlanta. The Giants were there for
a series with the Braves, and I got to see Mays play (my first and only time). I would have
loved to have been able to skip school and watch Clemente play.
On the subject of concern here, The Hill has a couple of stories on the zerohedge.com
story you referenced above. From what I read, it appears to me that if this is still an open
case with the FBI, Ms. Clinton (and Obama?) could possibly face criminal charges in this
matter. We can only hope. To Peter – I do have an old 1992 console TV, but no cable; so
I have no television to speak of. I have a VHS and DVD player though and watch old movies and
such on the old TV.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 2:42 pm
Thomas how cool. My buddies and I would purchase the left field bleacher seats for I think
fifty cents or maybe it was a dollar. Then around the third inning we would boogie on over
into the right field stands overlooking the great Roberto, and yell 'hey Roberto'. From right
field we kids would eye up the empty box seats off of third base. Somewhere about the sixth
or seventh inning we would sneakily slide into those empty box seats along third base side,
where you could see into the Pirate dugout along first. Now the Pirate dugout is along third.
The box seat ushers would back then justbsimply tell us kids to be good, and that they got a
pat on the back from management for filling up those empty box seats, because the television
cameras would pick that up. The best part was, we little hooky players did all of this on our
school lunch money.
About that FBI thing with Hillary I'm hoping this doesn't get written off as just another
Trump attack, and that this doesn't turn into another entertaining Benghazi hearing for
Hillary to elevate her status among her identity groupies. Joe
mark , October 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm
All this nonsense will soon die an evidence-free natural death, but rather than admit to
the lies the MSM will divert the Deplorables with some convenient scandal like the Weinstein
affair.
The effect of all this will be to hammer the final nails in the coffin of the political
establishment and its servile MSM. This process began with the Iraqi WMD lies, and now 6% of
the population believes what it sees in the MSM.
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 8:47 am
mark-
I wish you were right, but with all the money being thrown around, and scumbag Mueller in
the mix, how this will end is anybody's guess. I'm also curious where you got the 6% figure.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Great take Mr Parry
Smoke and mirrors to distract we the sheeple of this dying paradigm. Fascism alive and well
in the land of the free. The sheeple r now entering the critical stage, they have hit 20
percent. Dangerous times for the western masters of the universe. Get ready for more false
flags to keep the sheeple blinded from reality. The recent events globally with regards to
Iran, Syria and the DPRK are all their for distractions add the Russians ate my homework and
viola distraction heaven. But like I said more and more people in the US and the west are
turning off 1/5 to be exact and that spells trouble for the masters. They want war at all
costs 600 percent debt is not a sustainable economic system . IMF warning just the other day
that all it will take is one major European bank to crash and viola. So dangerous and
interesting times we r living. Is it by design in order to get their way.?I would say yes to
that.
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm
Good notes. Incidentally you may intend the French "voila" rather than the musical
instrument "viola."
Skip Scott , October 20, 2017 at 3:37 pm
Voila, viola. Didn't Curly of the three stooges do a bit on that?
Michael K Rohde , October 18, 2017 at 8:27 pm
Should I say it? Shocker. NYT and HIllary are a potent team. Add on Google and CNN and you
have a formidable propaganda organization that is going to influence millions of American.
Plus Face Book and you have most of America covered without a dissenting voice. I used to be
one of their customers, reading and believing everything they put out until Judith Miller was
exposed with W and Scooter. I confess to a jaundiced eye since then. Unfortunately there
isn't a whole lot out there if you like to read good writers of relevant material. We have a
problem, Houston.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm
If it is possible to consider Russia helped throw the 2016 presidential election with 100k
spent over a three year period, then why not suspect and investigate the American MSM, who
gave Donald Trump 4.9 billion dollars worth of free media coverage? Surely you all may recall
the wall to wall commercial free cable network coverage Trump used to receive during the way
too long of a presidential campaign? Now we are being led to believe that a few haphazard
placed Russian adbuys on FB stool the election from 'it's my turn now boys' Hillary. Here I
must admit that as much as I would love to have a woman President, I would choose almost any
qualified women other than Hillary. But yeah, this Russia-gate nonsense is a creation of the
Shadow Government, who wants so badly to see Putin get thrown out of office, that they would
risk starting WWIII doing it.
Larry Gates , October 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm
A single person started all this nonsense: Hillary Clinton.
No need for America to be influenced to turn the internet into a sewer, America is doing
just fine on that with no help at all. The Russians are just mocking us over there, which is
perfectly understandable. In fact, from what I read, Russians are actually more religious and
concerned about immorality than Americans.
This whole thing is a joke, we know it, it's an attempt to control people, and I for one
am pretty sick of it and don't mind telling anyone just that. Let them sputter, stomp their
feet, or whatever. Keep it up, United States, and you'll be playing in the schoolyard all by
yourself!
Was the article below in corporate media? Link below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -
Thousands of govt docs found on laptop of sex offender married to top Clinton adviser
Published time: 18 Oct, 2017 16:45Edited time: 18 Oct, 2017 18:37 https://www.rt.com/usa/407120-fbi-found-3k-docs-weiner/
It's amazing how the "mainstream media" has pushed this Russian collusion nonsense. What's
more amazing is how every time an article is published my these outlets claiming some new
evidence of Russian collusion, within 24 hours there's evidence to the contrary. I think the
whole Pokemon and Facebook claims are the lowest point in this Russian collusion nonsense.
The worst part is we won't see it end anytime soon
Sam F , October 19, 2017 at 7:38 am
Good points, Sam. There are many named "Sam" so please distinguish your pen name from
mine, perhaps with an initial. Thanks!
Drew Hunkins , October 19, 2017 at 12:46 am
Absolutely crucial and outstanding piece by Mr. Parry. His well thought out dissection of
Politifact is invigorating.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 12:52 am
Peter Schweizer, author of "Clinton Cash", has been talking about the biggest Russian
bribe of all, the one no one wants to talk about – Uranium One. This deal may have been
the reason why $145 million ended up in Clinton Foundation coffers, all while Hillary Clinton
was Secretary of State.
Here is Peter Schweizer today on Tucker Carlson's program talking about it:
Her emails showed that HRC's internal polling proved her greatest vulnerability with her
supporters was when they were told the details of her uranium deal.
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 9:03 am
Thanks for the link. Great interview. The real Russia-gate!
Your site has a lot of useful information for myself. I visit regularly. Hope to have more
quality items.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 1:33 am
Joe – I never had interest in conspiracy type stories and narratives like that.
However, after reading the zerohedge article in the link in your post, I am beginning to
seriously doubt the Seth Rich murder investigation findings by the Washington DC police
– I had some misgivings before about it too. I think there was not any significant
involvement by FBI in the case. And the Justice department under Loretta Lynch did not pursue
the investigation.
Knowing all kind of stories in the news about Clintons friend Vince Foster's death during
1990's , and many other episodes in Bill and Hillary Clinton's political life, I wonder about
the power and reach of this couple. And now this article and no investigation of this bribery
and corruption scandal during Obama's presidency. It all smells fishy.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 1:58 am
Dave not only as what you had mentioned, but the Seth Rich story seems to have become
taboo in our news. I realize what the Rich family requested, but when did ever a request from
the family ever get honored by the big media ever before? I'm not suggesting anything more,
than why is the Seth Rich murder appearing to be off limits, and further more with Seth's
death being in question and implicated to the Wikileaks 'Hillary Exposures' being Seth one of
those 'leakers', then take responsibility DNC and ask the same questions, or at least answer
the questions asked. I hope that made sense, because somehow it made sense to me.
The suggestion of any alternative to the establish narrative gets tossed to the wind. I
think this drip, drip, flood, of Russia collusion into the gears of American Government is a
way of America's Establishment, who is now in charge, way of going out with a bang. The world
is starting to realize it doesn't need the U.S., and the U.S. is doing everything in it's
power to help further that multi-polar world's growing realization that it doesn't.
Okay Dave. Joe
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 2:57 am
Joe, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has the power to initiate investigations into these
cases. However, it seems to me that the Ruling Elite/Deep State does not want to wash the
dirty linen in front of the whole World. It would be very embarrassing; it will show the true
picture of this whole sewage/swamp it is. Jeff Sessions or others in high places, have no
independence at all, even if they want to pursue their own course – which they rarely
do.
It seems like that all these investigations are a kind of smoke screen to hide the real
issues. During 1950's or 60's , people in this country mostly trusted the leaders and elected
officials. And majority of the leaders, whatever their policies or sides they took on issues,
had some integrity, depth, solidity and dignity about them. But it seems to me that these
days politicians do not have any of it. The same is true of the Media. This constant mindless
Russia-Gate hysteria being perpetuated by the elected leaders, Media, and pundits without any
thought or decorum is not worthy of a civilized country. Also, it is not good for the Country
or the World.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:34 am
Yes Dave the quality of accountability and responsibility in DC is sorely lacking of
concern to be honest, and do the right thing by its citizens. This is another reason why it's
good to talk these things over with you, and many of the others who post comments here.
Joe
Joe,Dave, glad you bring it up Russiagate seems to be providing a full eclipse of any
investigation into the Seth Rich murder and just whatever happened to his laptop?
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 10:45 am
I think Bob the Rich investigation got filed under 'conspiracy theory do not touch' file.
Joe
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 1:39 am
Hours ago:
"Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley asked the attorney of a former FBI informant
Wednesday to allow her client to testify before his committee regarding the FBI's
investigation regarding kickbacks and bribery by the Russian state controlled nuclear company
that was approved to purchase twenty percent of United States uranium supply in 2010, Circa
has learned.
In a formal letter, Grassley, an Iowa Republican, asked Victoria Toensing, the lawyer
representing the former FBI informant, to allow her client, who says he worked as a voluntary
informant for the FBI, to be allowed to testify about the "crucial" eyewitness testimony he
provided to the FBI regarding members of the Russian subsidiary and other connected players
from 2009 until the FBI's prosecution of the defendants in 2014. [ ]
FBI officials told Circa the investigation could have prevented the sale of Uranium One,
which controlled 20 percent of U.S. uranium supply under U.S. law. The deal which required
approval by CFIUS, an inter-agency committee who reviews transactions that leads to a change
of control of a U.S. business to a foreign person or entity that may have an impact on the
national security of the United States. At the time of the Uranium One deal the panel was
chaired by then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and included then-Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and then-Attorney General Eric Holder."
This FBI informant was apparently gagged from speaking to Congress by either Loretta Lynch
or Eric Holder (I've heard both names). Why would they have done this?
Sven , October 19, 2017 at 1:44 am
Very well written article
Lee Francis , October 19, 2017 at 2:41 am
The whole Russia-Gate brouhaha has become a monumental bore. How anyone with a modicum of
intelligence and moral integrity can believe this garbage is beyond me. I salute Mr Parry for
his fortitude in clearing the Augean stables of this filth; it reminds of the old Bonnie
Raitt song, to wit – 'It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it." personally I can't
be bothered reading it anymore.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 2:51 am
Stefan Molyneux does a great job in this 25-minute video where he outlines the absolute
corruption going on in the Banana Republic of Americastan on both the left and right.
He ends up by saying that all of the same actors (Rosenstein, McCabe, Mueller, Comey,
Lynch, Clinton) who were part of covering up Hillary's unsecured servers and Uranium One are
the very same people who are involved with going after Trump and his supposed collusion with
Russia. Same people. And the media seem to find no end of things to say about the latter,
while virtually ignoring the former.
Yes, Media ignores the other scandal while beating up 24/7 on Russian inference/collusion
in the Presidential Election. It is the same with the Foreign News. There was this more than
10,000 strong torchlit Neo-Nazi March in Kiev last Saturday. The pictures in the Sputnik News
of these neo-Nazis in the march were very threatening. I think that most of the Russians have
probably left West Ukraine. There was not even a mention of this March in the Los Angeles
Times.
However, a week before Alexander Navalny had this protest – 500 figure as given the
Western media – in Moscow. The picture was splashed across the entire page of Los
Angeles Times with a half page article, mostly beating up on Putin.
I rarely watch TV shows. However, this Tuesday, because of the some work going on our
house, I was home most of the day. My wife was watching TV starting in the afternoon well
into the evening – MSNBC, CNN, PBS newshour; Wolg Blitzer, Lawrence O'Donnell, Don
Lemon, Rachel Maddow, and others with all these so called experts invited to the shows. Just
about most of it was about beating up on Trump and Russia as if it is the only news in the
Country and in the World to report. It was really pathetic to hear all these nonsensical lies
and garbage coming out the mouths of these talk show hosts and experts. It is becoming Banana
Republic of Americanistan as you wrote.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 4:04 am
Hi, Dave P. Yeah, I swear they have things on the shelf that are ready-to-go stories
whenever there's a lull in the Trump/Russia collusion nonsense. This last week they pulled
Harvey Weinstein off the shelf and crucified the guy (not that he shouldn't have been). If
this Uranium One deal gets legs, watch for some huge false flag to coincidentally appear to
take our minds off of it.
The biggest thing separating a "first world" country from a "third world" country is the
rule of law. Without it, you might as well hoist up a flag with a big yellow banana on it and
call it a day. Bananastan has a nice ring to it.
Cheers, Dave.
Lee Francis , October 19, 2017 at 8:10 am
"There was this more than 10,000 strong torchlit Neo-Nazi March in Kiev last Saturday." It
never happened, well according to the Washington Post (aka Pravda on the Potomac) or New York
Times (aka The Manhattan Beobachter) who, like the rest of the establishment media lie by
omission. Other things that didn't happen – the Odessa fire where 42 anti-Maidan
demonstrators were incinerated by the Banderist mob who actually applauded as the Union
Building went up like a torch with those unfortunate people not only trapped inside with the
entrances barricaded, but those who jumped out of windows to escape the flames (a bit like
9/11 in New York) were clubbed to death as they lie injured on the ground. The film is on
youtube if you can bear to watch it, I could only bear to watch it once. According to the
website of Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh, it was "another bright day in our national
history." A Svoboda parliamentary deputy added, "Bravo, Odessa . Let the Devils burn in
hell." These people are our allies, along of course with Jihadis in the middle east.
In his the British playwright Harold Pinter's last valediction nailed the propaganda
methodology of the western media with the phrase, 'even while it was happening it wasn't
happening.'
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:31 am
Lee Francis –
yes. The words : 'even while it was happening it wasn't happening.' It is from his Nobel
lecture. I read the text of Nobel Lecture by Harold Pinter at that time – very
passionate lecture. Pinter had terminal throat cancer, he could not go to Sweden. I think he
sent his video of the Nobel lecture to be played.
It will be interesting to see how the so-called left leaning media like MSNBC and CNN spin
the Uranium One/Obama-Clinton State Department story. The right, especially Hannity on Fox,
are on it, also Tucker Carlson who is moderate mostly. When these pundits say "Russia", they
seem to imply "Putin" but that may not be the case. And they always want to imply the US is
beyond corrupt business deals, which is a joke. It's about time the Clinton case is cracked,
but with corruption rampant, who knows?
JeffS , October 19, 2017 at 9:34 am
The targeting of Pokemon Go users was especially nefarious because aren't about half of
those people below voting age? But when they finally are old enough to vote we can say that
they were influenced by Russia! And this is always reported in a serious tone and with a
straight face. I find the aftermath of the 2016 election to be 'Hillary'ous. The obviously
phony from the get-go Russia story was invented out of whole cloth to allow stunned Democrat
voters to engage in some sort extended online group therapy session. After a year many are
still working through the various stages of the grieving process, and some may actually reach
the final stage -- Acceptance (of the 2016 Election results)
mike k , October 19, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Good one!
Jamila Malluf , October 19, 2017 at 12:36 pm
Excellent Report! Consortium needs a video outlet somebody to give these reports. There
are many places other than YouTube you could use and I could become one of your Amateur video
editor :)
mike k , October 19, 2017 at 1:10 pm
The Rulers fear the internet.
Liam , October 19, 2017 at 3:01 pm
#MeToo – A Course In Deductive Reasoning: Separating Fact From Fiction Through The
Child Exploitation Of 8 Year Old Bana Alabed
I was glad to see that when H Clinton was in England, the RT ads all around were making
fun of the blame game. Someone needs to lighten up and stop the ludicrous nonsensical
year-long concentration on blaming Russia for the deep defects in almost all aspects of US
presence in our world. Observe Pres. Putin and nearly every other real leader getting on with
negotiations, agreements, constructive trade deals, ignoring the sinking ship led by the
Trumpet and the Republican Party, while the Dems slide down with them.
Realist , October 19, 2017 at 7:20 pm
I think the "Powers that be" in America actually believed it when Karl Rove announced to
the world that the U.S. government had the godlike power to create any reality of its own
choosing, the facts be damned, and the entire world would come to accept it and live by it,
like it or not. They've been incessantly trying to pound this square peg of a governing
philosophy into holes of a wide spectrum of geometric shapes ever since, believing that mere
proclamation made it so. Russia, China, Iran and any other country that does business with
this troika are evil. Moreover, any country that does not kowtow to Israel, or objects to its
extermination campaign against the Palestinian people, is evil. Even simply pursuing an
independent foreign policy not approved by Washington, as Iraq, Libya and Syria felt entitled
to do, is evil. Why? Because we say so. That should suffice for a reason. Disagree with us at
your peril. We have slaughtered millions of "evil-doers" in Middle Eastern Islamic states who
dared to disagree, and we have economically strapped our own "allies" in Europe to put the
screws to Russia. The key to escape from this predicament is how much more blowback, in terms
of displaced peoples, violated human rights, abridged sovereignty and shattered economies, is
Europe willing to tolerate in the wake of Washington's megalomaniacal dictates before it
stands up to the bully and stops supporting the madness. When does Macron, Merkel and May
(assuming they are the leaders whom others will follow in Europe) say "enough" and start
making demands on Washington, and not just on Washington's declared "enemies?"
And, if the internet has indeed become the world's "cloaca maxima," I'd say first look to
its inventors, founders, chief administrators and major users of the service, all of which
reside in the United States. In terms of volume, Russia is but a small-time user of the
service. If the object is to re-create a society such as described in the novel "1984," it is
certainly possible to censor the damned thing to the point where its just a tool of tyranny.
The "distinguished" men and corporations basically running the internet planetwide have
already conferred such authority to the Chinese government. Anything they don't want their
people to see is filtered out, compliments of Microsoft, Google, Facebook and the other heavy
hitters. Just looking at trends, rhetoric and the fact that the infrastructure is mostly
privately-owned, I can see the same thing coming to the West, unless the users demand
otherwise, vociferously and en masse.
Tannenhouser , October 20, 2017 at 4:19 pm
Trump is running point on the distraction op currently being run, to distract from the
actual crimes committed by the Blue section of the ruling political party. So far he played
his part brilliantly, knowingly or unknowingly, matters not.
Readers of Consortium News come from around the world, from very small towns with
populations in the few 1,000's to major cities with populations in the millions, and
everything size category in between. In each of those categories of population size, the
power is controlled by those possessing the greatest wealth inside that particular
population, whether small town, medium, semi-large or major city. One can describe each
category of population center as pyramidal in power structure, with those at the top of the
pyramid the wealthiest few who "pull the strings" of societies, and, as relates to war and
peace, the people who literally fire the first shots.
Identify those at the top of the world category pyramid, call them out for their war
crimes, and then humanity has a fighting chance for peace.
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 7:56 pm
For WC,
Thank you for your answer to my question. The 'reply' tab is gone on the thread so I will
reply here.
I believe I was trying to figure out the difference between "lawmakers" and the corporate
entities you mentioned. Obviously the lawmakers are heavily influenced by the money and the
lobbyists from the large corps which muddies the waters and makes it even more difficult to
find clarity between politicians and the big money players. When the US sends our military
into sovereign countries against international law, it's fair to ask whether it is at the
behest of corporate interests, or even Israels' geopolitical agenda, especially in the Middle
East.
The large corps you mentioned don't have the legal authority to send our military to foreign
lands and perform duties that have nothing to do with US defense (or do they?) and that is
why I try to understand the distinction between 40 dual citizens of Israel within the
'lawmakers' of our country and large corporations. When Israels 'allowance' from US tax
payers goes remarkably up in value, one has to wonder how and why that occurs when our own
country is suffering. That's all I wonder about. I won't distract any more from Mr. Parrys'
article.
GM , October 19, 2017 at 9:31 pm
If I recall correctly, Politifact is owned by the majority owners of the St Petersburg
times, which family is a major big Clinton donor.
Kevin Beck , October 20, 2017 at 9:01 am
I am curious whether Russia is really able to employ all these "marketing geniuses" to
affect elections throughout the world. If so, then America's greatest ad agencies need to
look to Moscow for new recruits, instead of within our business schools.
Maybe Politifact declares it? stance is based on an alternative fact?
But greetings from Finland. In here is in full swing a MSM war against so called fake
media, never mind the fact that many are the stories in fake media that have turned out to be
the truth -- or that we are supposed to be a civilized country with free speech.
Our government with the support of the MSM is using a term hatespeech to silence all
tongues telling a different tale; some convictions have been given even though our law does
not recognise hatespeech as a crime. The police nor the courts can not define exactly what
hatespeech is -- so it is what they want it to be.
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Notable quotes:
"... casus belli ..."
"... To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history. ..."
"... That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate. ..."
"... The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. ..."
"... I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah. ..."
"... I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby). ..."
"... Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been. ..."
"... Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though! ..."
"... And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. ..."
"... All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War. ..."
"... The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down. ..."
"... The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated. ..."
"... WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. ..."
"... You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.' ..."
"... The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man. ..."
"... That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too. ..."
"... Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .) ..."
One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews
in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded
cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the
U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because
of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is
a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that
studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates
casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists.
It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation
of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous
war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate
a catastrophic war with Iran.
To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted
the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book
They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions
of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish
power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God
and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.
There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends.
The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The
Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group
in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu
receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the
U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups
and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora
of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support
flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention
that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel
is a liability to the United States and always has been.
And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly
towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with
Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American
Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part
to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace
that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and
validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community
apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.
That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government
to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action.
Several high level Jewish officials, including
Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had
questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security
clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman
Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and
Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer"
or
guardian in the U.S. Senate.
A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism
that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates,
to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers
and reputations.
Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an
undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with
the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of
the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe.
The four-part documentary
released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly
filmed meetings and discussions.
The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within
the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported
by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone
as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly
in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one
point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what
Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.
The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government
officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office
or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign
Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.
Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful
regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom.
When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who
reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign
and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who
might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal"
to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of
a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of
Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish
groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked
with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific
charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.
On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation
had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous
hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications
to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove
that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias"
prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and
had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She
said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any
Jewish person involved in public life."
The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that
may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a
second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British
intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which
is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish
organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,
Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version
will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented
"With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America
works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign
interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in
America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that
debate."
Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back
in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage
Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence
Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel,
he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so.
The charges against the two men were, unfortunately,
eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose
classified information."
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt
Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out
in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical
of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a
cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral
cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to
the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.
When the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living
like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid
of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.
But if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were
to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?
My admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded
after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're
now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.
Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence
of its patron, Ron!
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are
regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming
that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes
in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed
so far.
" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).
That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all
that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked
disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She
used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger.
I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.
I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and
without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization",
"development", blah-blah.
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I
anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective
rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda
apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with
sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability
to arrest its fall.
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation
-- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been
holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).
Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader
should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only
showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush
Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.
And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal
of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement
of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less
carried out in the open.
London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European
leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the
Muslim world, only more so.
The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is
removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier.
Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.
All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and
all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't
know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's
'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.
Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so
that they can further their specious arguments.
"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously
as the British did"
Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings
in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government,
did.
The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government
"apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British
media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response
was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of
these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.
But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are
an anti-Semite and a hater.
The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal
and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian
influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at
every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation
of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the
high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.
And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.
Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran
:
Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's
compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the
bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle
East war?
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the
point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical
parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the
Zionists have cover the US & west generally.
So how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury
and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought
to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is
only there to harass little people like you and me.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch
with sorrow as this great nation crumbles
We are long past that point.
I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core
from its inception.
For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the
ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their
predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist"
are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.
Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.
The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon
which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.
*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show
even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in
the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans
will finally wake up.
"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy
of any Jewish person involved in public life."
I have news for that twister of words.
In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That
is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.
In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than
the rest of us.
It's called accountability.
BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft
of nuclear triggers from the US?
"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin
Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S.
in the 80s and 90s."
When you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system
in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief
of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank
death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times
and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces
helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when
some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like
Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference.
We seem to end up in the same places the US does.
I had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last
week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.
Apparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.
Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately
rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.
Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"
(Sigh)
History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive
Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.
At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on
the table" & ready for a war with Iran.
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two
side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.
WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture
is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing
heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than
Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British
Isles natives were not WASPs.
WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs.
You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'
By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had
a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish.
It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.
The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people
who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.
Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the
pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group
of Semites.
And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom
and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also
squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy
WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.
The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby,
but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence
of Western man.
It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to
sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed,
you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused
of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the
Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.
Thus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US
election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.
Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony
by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components
of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting
plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection,
could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the
White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments
is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is
quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the
American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough
of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent
against war either .)
"... The program would include additional reviews and requests in the account recovery process to prevent fraudulent access by hackers who try to gain access by pretending they have been locked out. ..."
Alphabet's Google Inc said on Tuesday that it would roll out an advanced protection program
in order to provide stronger security for some users such as government officials and
journalists who are at a higher risk of being targeted by hackers.
The internet giant said that users of the program would have their account security
continuously updated to deal with emerging threats.
The company said it would initially provide three defenses against security threats, which
include blocking fraudulent account access and protection against phishing.
The program would include additional reviews and requests in the account recovery process to
prevent fraudulent access by hackers who try to gain access by pretending they have been locked
out.
The immediate costs of decertification for the USl include the loss of the trust of allies,
increased tensions with Iran, and much greater skepticism from all other governments. It also
create additional difficulties the next time America wants to negotiate a major international
agreement as some countries will view the USA as a rogue nation which is unable to keep its word.
If decertification leads to the U.S. breaching its obligations under the nuclear deal, as seems
likely, that the costs will increase even more, and so will the chances of war with Iran.
It might well be that Trump made a step increasing the probability of his removal from the
current position by cabinet members.
Looks like Trump focus on appeasing a bunch of foreigners in the form of the Israel and Saudi
lobbies.
President Trump started his long-anticipated anti-Iran speech by complaining about the 1979
hostage situation. What followed was an increasingly fantastical and absurd accounting of
Iran's history, before finally announcing he is decertifying the nuclear deal for "violations,"
and announcing new sanctions.
The allegations against Iran went from things that happened a generation ago to treating
things like the specious "Iranian plot" to attack a DC restaurant as not only the government's
fault, but absolute established fact. Beyond that, he blamed Iran for the ISIS wars in Iraq and
Syria, repeatedly accused them of supporting al-Qaeda, and claimed Iran was supporting the 9/11
attackers.
The allegations were so far-fetched by the end, that even President Trump appeared cognizant
that many won't be taken seriously. Later in his speech, he insisted that the claims were
"factual."
When addressing "violations" of the P5+1 nuclear deal, Trump similarly played fast and loose
with the facts, citing heavy water claims that are really more the international community's
violation than Iran's (Iran was guaranteed an international market for the water, but after
Congress got mad the US has refused to buy any more, meaning Iran's totally non-dangerous stock
grew), and accusing them of "intimidating" inspectors, insinuating that was the reason there
aren't investigations at Iranian military sites.
In reality, Iranian military sites are only subject to investigation in the case of a
substantiated suspicion of nuclear activities, and there simply are none. The IAEA has in
recent days clarified multiple times that they don't need or want to visit any military sites
right now. The only allegations about the sites are from the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which has been
the source of repeated false accusations in the past.
And while this was supposed to be a speech about the nuclear deal, Trump closed it off with
comments that very much sound like his goal is regime change, saying Iran's people want to be
able to interact with their neighbors (despite Iran being on very good terms with most of its
neighbors already), and suggesting that whatever he's going to do will lead to "peace and
stability" across the Middle East.
"... "We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists, even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress." ..."
"... She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known, but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10 million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times. ..."
"... Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she said. ..."
"... "In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting." ..."
This power hungry woman are just plain vanilla incompetent: "The Russian campaign was
leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and a loss of
faith in democracy, she said."
Democrats had urged her to be silent after
her defeat to Trump but she was not going to go away, said Clinton. She vowed to play her part
in an attempt to win back Democratic seats in the forthcoming midterm elections. She admitted
she "just collapsed with real grief and disappointment" after her election defeat.
Clinton, who is touring the country to promote What Happened – her memoir reflecting
on the election defeat, told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "Looking at the Brexit vote now, it was a
precursor to some extent of what happened to us in the United States."
She decried the amount of fabricated information voters were given: "You know, the big lie
is a very potent tool and we've somewhat kept it at bay in western democracies, partly because
of the freedom of the press. There has to be some basic level of fact and evidence in all parts
of our society."
She urged Britain to be cautious about striking a trade deal with Trump, saying he did not
believe in free trade.
In other comments during the Cheltenham literary festival, she accused the Kremlin of waging
an information war throughout the 2016 US election process. The tactics "were a clear and
present danger to western democracy and it is right out of the Putin playbook", she said.
"We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted
attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division
in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists,
even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress."
She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known,
but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from
Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10
million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times.
Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was
a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such
cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still
playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she
said.
"In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are
in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism
and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting."
The Russian campaign was leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary
and Poland, and a loss of faith in democracy, she said.
In an interview with the ABC's Four Corners program, to air on
Monday night, Clinton alleges that Assange cooperated with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin , to
disrupt the US election and damage her campaign for president.
"WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian
intelligence," Clinton
told the ABC's Sarah Ferguson .
Describing Putin as a "dictator", Clinton said the damaging email leaks that crippled her
2016 candidacy were part of a coordinated operation against her, directed by the Russian
government.
Our intelligence community and other observers of Russia and Putin have said he held a grudge
against me because as secretary of state, I stood up against some of his actions, his
authoritarianism," Clinton told the ABC.
"But it's much bigger than that. He wants to destabilise democracy, he wants to undermine
America, he wants to go after the Atlantic alliance, and we consider Australia an extension of
that."
WikiLeaks received
thousands of hacked emails from accounts connected to the Democratic campaign allegedly stolen
by Russian operatives. The emails were released during a four-month period in the lead-up to
the US election.
Emails from the Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, were leaked on the same day –
7 October 2016 – the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland
security released a statement concluding the Russian government had been attempting to
interfere in the election.
Clinton told the ABC she believed the email leak was coordinated to disrupt the influence of
the Access Hollywood tape.
"WikiLeaks, which in the world in which we find ourselves promised hidden information,
promised some kind of secret that might be of influence, was a very clever, diabolical response
to the Hollywood Access tape," she said. "And I've no doubt in my mind that there was some
communication if not coordination to drop those the first time in response to the Hollywood
Access tape."
"I think he is part nihilist, part anarchist, part exhibitionist, part opportunist, who is
either actually on the payroll of the Kremlin or in some way supporting their propaganda
objectives, because of his resentment toward the United States, toward Europe," she said.
"He's like a lot of the voices that we're hearing now, which are expressing appreciation for
the macho authoritarianism of a Putin. And they claim to be acting in furtherance of
transparency, except they never go after the Kremlin or people on that side of the political
ledger."
Assange has denied the emails came from the Russian government or any other "state
parties".
In response to Clinton's comments, Assange said on Twitter there was "something wrong with
Hillary Clinton".
"It is not just her constant lying," he wrote. "It is not just that she throws off menacing
glares and seethes thwarted entitlement.
"Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen."
Julian Assange 🔹 (@JulianAssange)
There's something wrong with Hillary Clinton. It is not just her constant lying. It is not
just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Watch closely.
Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen. https://t.co/JNw2dkXgdu
500 People shot in Las Vegas and 500 People missing in California fires at the same time all
seems pretty bland compared to Stephanie Leigh Ruhle American combat journalist, and her highly
captivating conspiracy theories that those Russian Thugs could possibly have had some how colluded
with that Man Trump to defeat the First Woman US President in history Hillary.
This is not the death of the media, just the US media. RT is fantastic and does not make me
yell violent obscenities at the TV like the CFR programming.
I watch RTon the internet every day and used to watch it on TV before Time warner dropped it,
and I found it very reliable and objective. I recall when one of the top journalists there abby
Martin severely criticized and denounced the Russian government for accepting Crimea back into
Russia, yet she was not fired even though she often criticized that action.
Many programs had
American journalists. And news involving Russia, while generally non-critical, usually was confined
to presenting the Russian view on something, which is a legitimate thing to do if you are informing
people.
I never heard anyone on RT who spread rumors or made unfounded accusations like I hear
on MSNBC every day. and no one on RT denied that they were founded by the Russian government,
they did not hide this from their listeners. Americans I believe are the most propagandized people
on the earth because they believe the news they get is factually reported by an independent "free"
press.
My fellow Americans while they brag about their independence nevertheless are easily stampeded
into becoming a lynch mob.
Modern propaganda was invented in the US by Edward Bernays. It was copied by the Nazi's Joseph
Goebbels who had every book Bernays ever wrote in his library.
It just occurred to me that the perfect Halloween decoration this year would be a Russian flag.
That is, unless someone comes out with a Zombie Putin, or Dracula Putin...
One of the most potent worries about the coming Trump presidency is concern about free
speech. Trump's willingness to tolerate or even encourage violence against nonviolent critics
of his agenda and personnel choices is alarming. The Washington Post recently carried a
chilling cautionary tale about the fate of a young woman who challenged Trump's record on
women's issues. Parallels with banana republic dictators tacitly encouraging or at least
tolerating paramilitary forces seem not far- fetched. Though it is easy for the Washington
Post to call attention to and criticize Trump's incitement to violence, the Post now
practices its own more subtle efforts to police speech.
Behind the façade of a concern about fake news, the Post featured an article
by Craig Timberg that cited -- without challenge -- an anonymous website, PropOrNot, listing
numerous other sites purported to be purveyors of fake news. As Max Blumenthal
reported for AlterNet , "the anonymous website argued that all of the named sites
should be investigated by the federal government and potentially prosecuted under the Espionage
Act as Russian spies. They were accused for wittingly or unwittingly spreading Russian
propaganda."
This story especially caught my attention because one of the fingered websites -- Naked
Capitalism -- has long been one of my favorite sources. In addition to meticulous coverage
of finance, the site provides in depth analysis of both mainstream economics and contemporary
and historic alternatives. All those upon whom economics 101 is being inflicted should consult
entries by Philip Mirowski and Philip Pilkingotn. You will never think the same about simple
supply and demand. Designating this site as a purveyor of fake -- even Russian supplied-- news
while providing no evidence for the claim is surely libelous. Charges of Russian interference
in our election -- thus far without any specific evidence beyond agency assertions -- should be
investigated but ought not to become an occasion to harass domestic critics of US policy.
In any case, as numerous contributors to some of these libeled sites point out, the
Post 's action is the digital equivalent of a McCarthyite blacklist. The Washington
Post, which has "apologized" only by saying that it takes no responsibility for the factual
accuracy of the claims made in Timberg's piece, is owned by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, who
also does contractual work for the CIA
At the same time as this was happening, Congressional Democrats were getting involved in the
blame Russia game. Norman Solomon reports:
A week ago, when the House approved by a 390-30 margin and sent to the Senate the
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 2017, Schiff praised "important provisions aimed at
countering Russia's destabilizing efforts -- including those targeting our elections." One of
those "important provisions,"
Section 501 , sets up in the executive branch "an interagency committee to counter active
measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence.
While lacking public accountability, the committee is mandated to ferret out such
ambiguous phenomena as Russian "media manipulation" and "disinformation." Along the way, the
committee could target an array of activists, political opponents or irksome journalists. In
any event, its power to fulfill "such other duties as the president may designate" would be
ready-made for abuse.
What seems to be a common thread among many of the blacklisted groups is antagonism toward
those critics of neoliberalism or of Obama/Clinton foreign policy who are seen as derailing the
Clinton campaign. Solomon rightly makes a Cold War analogy, citing Democratic President
Truman's issuing a loyalty act in order to toss a bone to the emerging Cold Warriors only to
have it blow up into the full fledged fury of McCarthyism. I would, however, add another
historical angle. As such International Relations scholars as David Campbell and James
DerDerian have argued, the rhetoric of foreign affairs serves to discipline and support
domestic identity as much as to fend off actual military threat. The Cold War was born as much
of domestic anxiety as of Soviet military threat. The end of World War II saw contentious
efforts by unions and liberals to establish a full employment politics coupled with a wave of
strikes almost unprecedented in our history. Even key national security documents at the height
of the Cold War indicated more worry about the political appeal of communism than its military
might. That a cadre of Democratic centrists would strive to establish a top-secret surveillance
committee targeting Russian links to dissident movements is an effort to escape blame for a
failed campaign. Seen in broader perspective, however, it is also an effort to validate a badly
wounded neoliberal agenda by tying left opponents of that agenda to a reviled foreign
power.
Fake news is a real problem as is the violence it can incite. At the very least such
violence should be identified and its perpetrators punished. Libel laws should be enforced with
regard to innocents targeted by such mega giants as Bezos and his journalistic toy. The
problems of fake news are not going to be resolved by establishing a private corporate cop or
censor for the internet nor by establishing one more secretive watchdog. The Washington Post
and the CIA are both propagators of fake news. This is one more argument for both net
neutrality and a more robust anti-trust enforcement. The best answer to fake news is a more
diverse media. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License John
Buell lives in Southwest Harbor, Maine and writes on labor and environmental issues. His
most recent book, published by Palgrave in August 2011, is "Politics, Religion, and Culture in an
Anxious Age" . He may be reached at [email protected] .
I thought the same way as John in January 2017. We both were definitely wrong. As were
many people who voted for Trump in a hope to block ascendance of neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton
to power. Now it is unclear whether Hillary Clinton would be so disastrous in foreign policy
as Trump or slightly less so.
The period when Trump was at least formally ant-war is firmly in the past now and probably
ended with inauguration. In April Trump folded to neocons and destroyed his
anti-war credentials with
Tomahawk salvo in Syria. Instead of fighting "the Washington swap" as he promised to his voters,
he became a part of the swamp. In August Trump himself emerged as a bona-fide warmonger stoking the
tension with North Korea. And in October he decertified Iran deal.
Notable quotes:
"... The implications of this move are, arguably, breathtaking. Trump treated Putin as his ally, not as a hated adversary. And he treated Obama and the bipartisan foreign policy elite of Washington as his adversaries, not his allies -- a move that makes perfect sense if Trump's desire is to rein in the War Party's New Cold War and to strive for a New Détente with Russia. ..."
"... If the main enemy is those who are stoking the New Cold War and risking worse, then Trump has placed himself squarely against these war hawks. And stop to consider for a moment who these folks are. Besides President Obama and Hillary Clinton, they represent a full-blown armchair army: neocons, liberal interventionists, the mainstream media, various Soros-funded "non-governmental organizations," virtually all the important think tanks, the leadership of both major parties, and the CIA and the other U.S. intelligence agencies. This array of Official Washington's power elite has been working 24/7 at demonizing Putin and stoking tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. Trump took on all of them on with his tweet! ..."
"... As Trump looks for new allies in pursuit of a New Détente and a relaxation of U.S.-Russian tensions, Putin is foremost among them. Thus, in the struggle for peace, Trump has drawn new lines, and they cross national borders. Not since Ronald Reagan embraced Mikhail Gorbachev or Richard Nixon went to China have we seen a development like this. In this new battle to reduce tensions between nuclear powers, Trump has shown considerable courage, taking on a wide range of attackers. ..."
When President Obama expelled Russian diplomats over the hysterical and unproven accusation
of Russia "hacking the election," Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to be drawn into a
petty squabble, saying he would delay any response until Donald Trump assumed office. Instead
Putin invited American diplomats and their families in Moscow to join the official holiday
celebrations in the Kremlin.
Then came the shock that shook Official Washington: President-elect Trump, in the form of a
tweet heard round the world, wrote: "Great move on delay (by V. Putin) -- I always knew he
was very smart!"
And just to be sure that everyone saw it, Trump "pinned" the tweet which means it is the
first thing seen by viewers of his account. This was a first use of "pinning" for Trump. And to
be doubly sure, he posted it on Instagram as well. This was no spontaneous midnight outburst
but a very deliberate action taken on Friday noon, Dec. 30, the day after Obama had issued his
retaliation order.
The implications of this move are, arguably, breathtaking. Trump treated Putin as his
ally, not as a hated adversary. And he treated Obama and the bipartisan foreign policy elite of
Washington as his adversaries, not his allies -- a move that makes perfect sense if
Trump's desire is to rein in the War Party's New Cold War and to strive for a New
Détente with Russia.
If the main enemy is those who are stoking the New Cold War and risking worse, then
Trump has placed himself squarely against these war hawks. And stop to consider for a moment
who these folks are. Besides President Obama and Hillary Clinton, they represent a full-blown
armchair army: neocons, liberal interventionists, the mainstream media, various Soros-funded
"non-governmental organizations," virtually all the important think tanks, the leadership of
both major parties, and the CIA and the other U.S. intelligence agencies. This array of
Official Washington's power elite has been working 24/7 at demonizing Putin and stoking
tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. Trump took on all of them on with his tweet!
Putin as Ally Against the War Party
As Trump looks for new allies in pursuit of a New Détente and a relaxation of
U.S.-Russian tensions, Putin is foremost among them. Thus, in the struggle for peace, Trump has
drawn new lines, and they cross national borders. Not since Ronald Reagan embraced Mikhail
Gorbachev or Richard Nixon went to China have we seen a development like this. In this new
battle to reduce tensions between nuclear powers, Trump has shown considerable courage, taking
on a wide range of attackers.
Later that afternoon, Maya Kosoff writing for Vanity Fair
put out an article
entitled "Twitter Melts Down over 'Treason' After Trump Praises Putin." The first batch of such
tweets came from "journalists and other foreign policy experts," the next from Evan McMullin,
the former CIA officer who tried to draw off Republican votes from Trump in the general
election, who tweeted: "To be clear, @realDonaldTrump is siding with America's greatest
adversary even as it attacks our democracy. Never grow desensitized to this."
Finally came the predictable rash of tweets calling Trump's words "treasonous" or
"seditious." In response, Team Trump refused to issue a "clarification," saying instead that
Trump's words spoke for themselves.
As stunning as Trump's tweet was in many ways, it was in other ways entirely predictable.
Despite the mainstream media's scorn and Hillary Clinton's mocking him as Putin's "puppet,"
Trump has held firm to his promise that he will seek peace with Russia and look for areas of
cooperation such as fighting terrorism.
So, even when Trump's Russia comments appeared to cost him politically, he stuck with them,
suggesting that he believes that this détente is important. The rule of thumb is that if
a politician says something that will win votes, you do not know whether it is conviction or
opportunism. But if a politician says something that should lose her or him votes, then you can
bet it is heartfelt.
Trump was bashed over his resistance to the New Cold War both during the Republican
primaries when many GOP leaders were extremely hawkish on Russia and during the general
election when the Clinton campaign sought to paint him as some sort of Manchurian Candidate.
Even his vice presidential candidate Mike Pence staked out a more hawkish position than
Trump.
Trump stood by his more dovish attitude though it presented few electoral advantages and
many negatives. By that test, he appears to be sincere. So, his latest opening to Putin was
entirely predictable.
A Choice of Peace or War
What is troubling, however, is that some Americans who favor peace hate Trump so much that
they recoil from speaking out in his defense over his "treasonous" tweet though they may
privately agree with it. Some progressives are uncomfortable with the mainstream's descent into
crude McCarthyism but don't want to say anything favorable about Trump.
After all, a vote for President is either thumbs up or thumbs down -- nothing in
between -- though voters may like or dislike some policy prescriptions of one candidate
and other positions of another candidate. And progressives could list many reasons to not vote
for Trump.
But a presidential administration is multi-issued -- not all or none. One can disagree
with a president on some issues and agree on others. For instance, many progressives are
outraged over Trump's harsh immigration policies but agree with him on scrapping the TPP trade
deal.
In other words, there is no reason why those who claim to be for peace should not back Trump
on his more peaceful approach toward Putin and Russia, even if they disdain his tough talk
about fighting terrorism. That is the reality of politics.
What I've discovered is that many progressives -- as well as many on the Right --
who oppose endless war and disdain empire will tell you in whispers that they do support
Trump's attempt at Détente 2.0, though they doubt he will succeed. In the meantime, they
are keeping their heads down and staying quiet.
But clearly Trump's success depends on how much support he gets -- as weighed against
how much grief he gets. By lacking the courage to defend Trump's "treasonous tweet," those who
want to rein in the warmongers may be missing a rare opportunity. If those who agree with Trump
on this issue stay silent, it may be a lost opportunity as well.
John V. Walsh, an anti-war activist, can be reached at [email protected]
"... Seventy years ago this week -- on March 21, 1947, to be exact -- President Truman issued an executive order that caught some of his most die-hard supporters by surprise. ..."
"... The order, wrote Robert Justin Goldstein in Prologue ..."
"... their summons sent waves of fear coursing through the industry, enough to paralyze even liberal supporters such as Humphrey Bogart, and certainly more conservative ones such as Gary Cooper. ..."
"... By the end of the hearings, 10 of the witnesses had been cited for contempt of court, and soon some of the top movie executives issued what became known as the Waldorf Statement, a two-page press release vowing that "We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our employ, and we will not re-employ any of the ten until such time as he is acquitted or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a Communist." ..."
"... The Hollywood Ten would serve time in prison and emerge to find themselves banished from the studios, forced to scrimp and scrape and use "fronts" just to survive. More than a decade would pass before they were able to work freely again. ..."
"... I've often wondered whether McCarthyism could ever find a foothold in Hollywood or America again. I didn't think so, until now. That possibility was always present in the minds of the blacklisted, some of whom I came to know when I arrived in Los Angeles in the 1980s, among them Martin Ritt, the director of such pictures as Hud, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold and Norma Rae. ..."
"... Marty was blacklisted for several years and later made a movie about the experience, 1976's comedy-drama The Front ..."
"... Edge of the City ..."
"... Tom, Dick and Harry ..."
"... More than careers were hurt: friendships were sundered, relationships broken, families destroyed, lives ruined. Even those who weren't victims of the blacklist lived in constant fear that they might become victims, too. ..."
"... Because fear is the most contagious of diseases. It spreads with a will of its own, infecting innocent and guilty alike, poisoning the oppressor as well as the oppressed. Those who instill fear are often afraid. And the more they inflict fear on others, the more likely they are to feel it themselves. ..."
It's
been 70 years since President Truman ordered his loyalty tests. Now Hollywood has a loyalty
test of its own.
Seventy years ago this week -- on March 21, 1947, to be exact -- President Truman issued an
executive order that caught some of his most die-hard supporters by surprise.
The order, wrote Robert Justin Goldstein in Prologue magazine, "required that all
federal civil service employees be screened for 'loyalty.' [It] specified that one criterion
would be a finding of 'membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association' with any
organization determined by the attorney general to be 'totalitarian, Fascist, Communist or
subversive' or advocating or approving the forceful denial of constitutional rights to other
persons or seeking 'to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional
means.'"
Two and a half years before Sen. Joseph McCarthy raised his ugly head and alleged massive
Communist infiltration of the government, the "red scare" was underway. It would have a
devastating impact on Hollywood.
Months after Truman's order, several dozen members of the film industry were summoned to
appear as witnesses before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Nineteen of them, known
as the "Unfriendly Nineteen" -- a term coined by the then-red-baiting Hollywood
Reporter -- were left-wingers, hostile to the committee. Billy Wilder mordantly quipped
that "only two of them have talent. The rest are just unfriendly." But their summons sent waves
of fear coursing through the industry, enough to paralyze even liberal supporters such as
Humphrey Bogart, and certainly more conservative ones such as Gary Cooper.
By the end of the hearings, 10 of the witnesses had been cited for contempt of court,
and soon some of the top movie executives issued what became known as the Waldorf Statement, a
two-page press release vowing that "We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation
those in our employ, and we will not re-employ any of the ten until such time as he is
acquitted or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a
Communist."
The Hollywood Ten would serve time in prison and emerge to find themselves banished from
the studios, forced to scrimp and scrape and use "fronts" just to survive. More than a decade
would pass before they were able to work freely again.
***
I've often wondered whether McCarthyism could ever find a foothold in Hollywood or
America again. I didn't think so, until now. That possibility was always present in the minds
of the blacklisted, some of whom I came to know when I arrived in Los Angeles in the 1980s,
among them Martin Ritt, the director of such pictures as Hud, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold
and Norma Rae.
Marty was blacklisted for several years and later made a movie about the experience,
1976's comedy-drama The Front , starring Woody Allen and Zero Mostel. He was a man of
enormous integrity, who was blackballed without explanation, though he insisted he had never
been a member of the Communist Party. Overnight, his work dried up and he was forced to return
to his roots in the theater -- along with the racetrack, where he made his real money. He
could have named names to get himself off the hook, but he didn't, in contrast to his close
friend Elia Kazan, whose betrayal stung him to the quick.
Ritt was relatively lucky; he was allowed back into the Hollywood fold sooner than most,
when he got to direct the low-budget feature Edge of the City (1957), the first of the
20-plus films he would make over the following three decades. Others were less fortunate. Paul
Jarrico, a writer whom I also was privileged to meet and who'd been Oscar-nominated in his
mid-20s for Tom, Dick and Harry (1941), fled to Paris, his career never to bounce back
to the heights it had reached before.
More than careers were hurt: friendships were sundered, relationships broken, families
destroyed, lives ruined. Even those who weren't victims of the blacklist lived in constant fear
that they might become victims, too.
Because fear is the most contagious of diseases. It spreads with a will of its own,
infecting innocent and guilty alike, poisoning the oppressor as well as the oppressed. Those
who instill fear are often afraid. And the more they inflict fear on others, the more likely
they are to feel it themselves.
"... in actuality the US Government was concerned that Hollywood was no longer as blindly supportive of government policy as it had been only a few years earlier at the height of WW2. In particular, J. Edgar Hoover had long held the opinion that the entertainment industry should be the propaganda arm for the government in peace time as well as war. ..."
"... However, as WW2 had ended, the defense establishment had lobbied for the creation of a "Cold" war against the Soviet Union, a war not actually to be fought, but constantly to be prepared for at huge cost to the taxpayers. This cost was the visible manifestation of the "Military Industrial Complex" President Eisenhower referred to in his farewell address, and many in Hollywood openly wondered just why so much more money had to be thrown into the war machine during a time of peace, and more to the point, just why we were supposed to be so afraid of the communists. ..."
"... In later years, FBI informants became permanent fixtures at movie studios, and spied for the FBI. ..."
"... While Senator Joseph McCarthy grabbed headlines with his shouts of "Communist", Hoover set about his self-appointed task of purging Hollywood of any he viewed as "disloyal" to the United States, which meant anyone unwilling to make the movies they were told to make, when and how they were told to make them. ..."
"... Stars such as Larry Parks were destroyed because they refused to "name names" of other actors who were party members. Actor Philip Loeb committed suicide. Edward G. Robinson, never a communist, was put on a "grey list," and spent the rest of his life making B movies (except for his final role opposite Charlton Heston in "Soylent Green"). Sam Jaffe, formerly a well-known actor and Oscar winner in 1950 was registered on the black list because he refused to cooperate with the committee. He spent the next 6 years working as a math teacher and living at his sister's until he was able to return to films in 1957. ..."
"... Of course, what was really involved was money. War is good for business. Business had been great during WW2 and the newly created "Cold War" was just a way to keep business good. The Military Industrial Complex NEEDED Hollywood to demonize the Soviets. Otherwise, too many people were going to ask why we were being told to be so afraid of them, and few in the government had a really convincing answer for that question. So, in order to perpetuate the Cold War, those in Hollywood who might sympathize with the designated villains had to be removed; their ruined lives a small price to pay for unending access to the taxpayers' wallets. ..."
"... But the Soviet Union has gone out of business. The word "communist" doesn't carry the same psychological impact it used to, so the war hawk smear squad has come up with a new one, "Anti-Semite." Like "Communist", "Anti-Semite" is used to ruin the lives of people who have not actually done anything wrong other than to challenge the war profiteers. It is a new word for an old trick, and I am amazed that they are still playing the same old game, but I guess the FBI can always find some dumb-assed idiot to fall for it and do their dirty work of wrecking a career for them. ..."
"... Charles Lindbergh the famous aviator commented in a speech in Des Moines in 1941... ..."
"... Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak. ..."
"... If there is a difference today it is that the American people are better educated. No longer dependent on the state schools, or controlled media, the public understands the tactics used to silence those who speak out. As a result, those who speak out are more and more not only accorded the sympathetic ear that their message deserves, but the effects of the smearing are far less ruinous than in times past. ..."
"... While people like Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard (and to step out of entertainment, former President Jimmy Carter) will be remembered and honored for their courage, history will lump the smear artists together with Stalin's "Useful idiots", little more than no-talent opportunists for whom ratting out someone was the fastest path to advancement. ..."
Back in the year 1947, the House Select Committee began an investigation into the Motion
Picture Industry. Ostensibly the goal was to ferret out communists working in the film
industry. But in actuality the US Government was concerned that Hollywood was no longer as
blindly supportive of government policy as it had been only a few years earlier at the height
of WW2. In particular, J. Edgar Hoover had long held the opinion that the entertainment
industry should be the propaganda arm for the government in peace time as well as war.
However, as WW2 had ended, the defense establishment had lobbied for the creation of a
"Cold" war against the Soviet Union, a war not actually to be fought, but constantly to be
prepared for at huge cost to the taxpayers. This cost was the visible manifestation of the
"Military Industrial Complex" President Eisenhower referred to in his farewell address, and
many in Hollywood openly wondered just why so much more money had to be thrown into the war
machine during a time of peace, and more to the point, just why we were supposed to be so
afraid of the communists.
Hoover's desire to remake Hollywood into a gigantic propaganda machine had started at the
end of WW1 when Hoover tried to persuade Charlie Chaplin to cease making films that portrayed
authority figures as oafish buffoons. Chaplin refused, laughed at Hoover. Years later, as head
of the FBI, Hoover was instrumental in having Charlie Chaplin's citizenship revoked in
retaliation.
Hoover's mania with Hollywood was a seldom reported but constant factor in show business.
The 1959 film, "The FBI Story" starring Air Force General Jimmy Stewart was reportedly directed
by Mervyn LeRoy, but in actuality J. Edgar Hoover was personally supervising the film (and
briefly appears in it, shown only from the back) to make certain the "correct" image of the FBI
was shown.
In later years, FBI informants became permanent fixtures at movie studios, and spied for the
FBI. When Disney Studios made "That Darned Cat", a pre-production copy of the screenplay
"somehow" made its way to the FBI, which promptly sent Disney a memo expressing concern at how
the FBI was to be portrayed.
Likewise, when Paramount Pictures produced, "Skidoo", starring Jackie Gleason, it featured a
single scene in which Gleason's character is seen fleeing a building marked, "FBI" carrying a
file cabinet on his back. That one single scene prompted the following four page memo.
Along with "nudging" the film studios to portray certain things certain ways, the FBI did
not hesitate to wreck the careers of those people it felt posed a dangerous threat to the
government's public image. During the height of the FBI's COINTELPRO program, the FBI destroyed
the career of actress Jean Seberg
Jean Seberg was considered a threat to the US Government because of her public support for
civil rights at a time when the Civil Rights movement was starting to point out the racial bias
in the draft system that placed a disproportionate percentage of black kids on the front lines
of Vietnam. Seberg was also a supporter of the Black Panthers in their pre-militant days when
their agenda was breakfasts for the ghetto kids, local control of school curriculum, and ending
the draft.
Jean Seberg, a well known
actress in the 60s, became pregnant and the FBI sent out letters to the gossip columnists
identifying the baby's father as a Black Panther, in order to cheapen Seberg's image. Keep in
mind that the 60s was an era in which sexual relations between blacks and whites was still
considered taboo by most Americans.
The scans below are of the official FBI letter from Los Angeles to Washington D.C. asking
permission for the scam.
"Bureau permission is requested to publicize the pregnancy of Jean Seberg, well-known
movie actress by (name deleted) Black Panther (BPP) (deleted) by advising Hollywood
"Gossip-Columnists" in the Los Angeles area of the situation. It is felt that the possible
publication of Seberg's plight could cause her embarrassment and serve to cheapen her image
with the general public.
" 'It is proposed that the following letter from a fictitious person be sent to local
columnists:
"I was just thinking about you and remembered I still owe you a favor. So ---- I was in
Paris last week and ran into Jean Seberg, who was heavy with baby. I thought she and Romaine
[sic] had gotten together again, but she confided the child belonged to (deleted) of the
Black Panthers, one (deleted). The dear girl is getting around!
" 'Anyway, I thought you might get a scoop on the others. Be good and I'll see you
soon.
'Love,
" 'Sol.,
"Usual precautions would be taken by the Los Angeles Division to preclude
identification of the Bureau as the source of the letter if approval is granted."
Permission to use the fake letter was granted, but with the suggestion that the smear be
delayed until Jean Seberg's pregnancy was in a very obvious condition.
The story was picked up by Newsweek and the international press. The shock of the story was
so severe that Jean Seberg suffered a miscarriage. The funeral for the child was held with an
open casket, so that the lie stood revealed in its most tragic form. Jean Seberg, her baby dead
and her career shattered by this outright lie, attempted suicide several times, finally
succeeding in a French Hotel.
(The name which was redacted from the memo during the FOIA process is thought by many to
have been Raymond Hewit, a Black Panther leader. His "outright lie" was far more direct. The
FBI typed up a letter on official FBI stationary identifying Hewit as an informant and planted
it where other Black Panthers would find it in the hopes that Hewit would then be killed.)
Following Seberg's death, the Los Angeles Times, the key instrument of her torment, issued a
statement by the FBI.
"The days when the FBI used derogatory information to combat advocates of unpopular causes
have long since passed. We are out of that business forever."
The Senate committee that looked into COINTELPRO disagreed, however.
"Cointelpro activities may continue today under the rubric of 'investigation.'
Finally, no single celebrity filled the government with more fear than did ex-Beatle John
Lennon. Lennon's popularity, and hence his ability to influence popular opinion, coupled with
his strong anti-war stance, made him a real threat in the event the United States decided it
had to go to war. For this reason, Lennon was one of the most watched celebrities, and
according to Lennon's youngest son, the victim of a government assassination plot.
Having documented the FBI's willingness to destroy anyone they feel represents a threat to
the government, let us return to the days of the House Select Committee on UnAmerican
Activities.
While Senator Joseph McCarthy grabbed headlines with his shouts of "Communist", Hoover set
about his self-appointed task of purging Hollywood of any he viewed as "disloyal" to the United
States, which meant anyone unwilling to make the movies they were told to make, when and how
they were told to make them. Senator McCarthy's screed of "Communist" provided Hoover with a
bludgeon he could and did use with impunity on Hollywood's creative talents. Careers were
ruined. Some 400 people, mostly innocent of any actual wrongdoing, were destroyed. Some, like
Jean Seberg would later do, committed suicide. Ten men (the famous Hollywood Ten), Alvah
Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Ring Lardner jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz,
Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott, Dalton Trumbo, and eminent director Edward Dmytryk were jailed for
contempt of Congress.
Others punished for refusing to cooperate included Larry Adler, Stella Adler, Leonard
Bernstein, Marc Blitzstein, Joseph Bromberg, Charlie Chaplin, Aaron Copland, Hanns Eisler, Carl
Foreman, John Garfield, Howard Da Silva, Dashiell Hammett, E. Y. Harburg, Lillian Hellman, Burl
Ives, Arthur Miller, Dorothy Parker, Philip Loeb, Joseph Losey, Anne Revere, Pete Seeger, Gale
Sondergaard, Louis Untermeyer, Josh White, Clifford Odets, Michael Wilson, Paul Jarrico, Jeff
Corey, John Randolph, Canada Lee, Orson Welles, Paul Green, Sidney Kingsley, Paul Robeson,
Richard Wright and Abraham Polonsky. Lee Grant was registered on the black list because she
refused to give evidence against her husband Arnold Manoff.
Stars such as Larry Parks were destroyed because they refused to "name names" of other
actors who were party members. Actor Philip Loeb committed suicide. Edward G. Robinson, never a
communist, was put on a "grey list," and spent the rest of his life making B movies (except for
his final role opposite Charlton Heston in "Soylent Green"). Sam Jaffe, formerly a well-known
actor and Oscar winner in 1950 was registered on the black list because he refused to cooperate
with the committee. He spent the next 6 years working as a math teacher and living at his
sister's until he was able to return to films in 1957.
Of course, what was really involved was money. War is good for business. Business had been
great during WW2 and the newly created "Cold War" was just a way to keep business good. The
Military Industrial Complex NEEDED Hollywood to demonize the Soviets. Otherwise, too many
people were going to ask why we were being told to be so afraid of them, and few in the
government had a really convincing answer for that question. So, in order to perpetuate the
Cold War, those in Hollywood who might sympathize with the designated villains had to be
removed; their ruined lives a small price to pay for unending access to the taxpayers'
wallets.
But that was then and this is now.
Once again vast sums of money are being spent on a war, this time a hot one and getting
hotter. Once again parties with a vested interest are out to smear and destroy anyone who dares
ask if the wars are worth the sacrifice of our young people (not to mention the money), indeed
if there really is any point at all to the wars aside from justifying the flow of money to
defense contractors.
But the Soviet Union has gone out of business. The word "communist" doesn't carry the same
psychological impact it used to, so the war hawk smear squad has come up with a new one,
"Anti-Semite." Like "Communist", "Anti-Semite" is used to ruin the lives of people who have not
actually done anything wrong other than to challenge the war profiteers. It is a new word for
an old trick, and I am amazed that they are still playing the same old game, but I guess the
FBI can always find some dumb-assed idiot to fall for it and do their dirty work of wrecking a
career for them.
Of course, it really isn't that new a word. Oddly enough, Charles Lindbergh the famous
aviator commented in a speech in Des Moines in 1941...
Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all
semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried
anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed
intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown
ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the
United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many
others dared no longer speak.
Today we are seeing once again the heavy hand of the war profiteers trying to reshape the
film industry into a tool to propagandize the public into a high war-fever such that they will
gladly trade their own blood for gold to line the pockets of the defense establishment. And
those individuals who have the courage to speak out are attacked, and once again they are
smeared to silence them. In the 1940s it was "Communist", today it is "Anti-Semite", but aside
from the particular label used, the methods, goals, and morality are little changed from the
days of Joseph McCarthy.
If there is a difference today it is that the American people are better educated. No longer
dependent on the state schools, or controlled media, the public understands the tactics used to
silence those who speak out. As a result, those who speak out are more and more not only
accorded the sympathetic ear that their message deserves, but the effects of the smearing are
far less ruinous than in times past.
Thus, when we see people like Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard speak out and
survive, or when people like Tom Shadyac (or myself) voluntarily walk away from Hollywood
because speaking the truth matters more to them, it sends a message that it is now permissible,
indeed imperative to speak out. This is not to say that there are not risks. Rosie O'Donnell
lost her spot on "The View", but the majority of Americans understand exactly why, and
understand that Rosie sacrificed a great deal trying to get the truth out. Rosie is and will be
remembered as a hero for truth long after her co-hosts on "The View" are properly
forgotten.
In contrast, of course, we look back at those who aided the "Commie" witch-hunts of the
1940s with deserved contempt. No doubt many aided Hoover purely to rid themselves of
competition, and then tried to lull themselves to sleep with the idea that in some way they had
actually done something good for the nation by wrecking their neighbors' careers. I have no
doubt strong liquor played a role in this grossest of self-deception. But if the informants and
smear artists of the 1940s are remembered in a poor light, that should serve as a reminder to
the informants and smear artists of today. It does not matter what you do with the rest of your
life, aiding the new version of McCarthyism is how history will remember you. While people like
Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard (and to step out of
entertainment, former President Jimmy Carter) will be remembered and honored for their courage,
history will lump the smear artists together with Stalin's "Useful idiots", little more than
no-talent opportunists for whom ratting out someone was the fastest path to advancement.
They say that history repeats itself, and indeed that is the major thing wrong with history.
We are seeing history repeat itself again. We have been down this path before, in the 1940s.
Whether the word is "Communist" or "Anti-Semite", Hollywood is making the same mistake all over
again. And Hollywood will have to live with that image in the coming decades.
Those two "propaganda solders" from Yale release outright lies about "stealing information
from 90,000 voting
records in the state of Illinois alone. " as it this is a fact. Looks like those
students learned quickly from their Yale "color revolution" teachers ;-)
The USA perfected election interference technique in dozen of color revolution
in xUSSR republics and other areas of the globe. Actually the first color revolution was organized
in 1974.
Now DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats of Clinton wing of the party) and elements of intelligence agencies and MS who support them simply can not
quit... Now quitting involved potential significant PR damage... McCarthyism has its own internal
dynamics. The danger for DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats of Clinton wing of the party) now is that
if Russian were investigated why Israelis and Saudies (along with other Gulf monarchies) were
not.
In the past few weeks, we have learned that the Russian government
reached more than 10 million Americans with a misinformation campaign on Facebook, and that
hackers
targeted 21 state election systems , stealing information from 90,000 voting
records in the state of Illinois alone. These are just the latest of many revelations about
Russia's unprecedented interference in the election.
It is cold comfort that we have no evidence so far that Moscow actually manipulated vote
tallies to change the election's outcome.
But what if it emerges that Russian operatives were successful on that front as well?
Setting Trump aside, what if a foreign government succeeds in the future in electing an
American president through active vote manipulation?
The Constitution offers no clear way to remedy such a disaster.
Any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia raises its own set of important
issues -- now being assiduously investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller. But the
disturbing scenario in which hackers manipulate election results, conceivably rendering the
true vote tally unrecoverable, would pose a unique threat to a foundational principle of our
democracy: rule by the consent of the governed. We would in no sense have a government "by the
people."
Although such a constitutional crisis now seems all too plausible, we have yet to seriously
consider provisions that might protect our democracy -- measures that could allow us to reverse
such a result.
... ... ...
Vinay Nayak and Samuel Breidbart are students at Yale Law School.
When people stop to trust MSM, rumor mill emerges as a substitute. Neoliberal MSM lost people
trust. Now what ?
Notable quotes:
"... But social media manipulation did not begin or end with the election. As early as 2011, the US government hired a public relations firm to develop a " persona management tool " that would develop and control fake profiles on social media for political purposes. ..."
"... The British parent company of Cambridge Analytica, Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL), has been a client of the government for years, working with the Department of Defense, and The Washington Post ..."
"... There is also growing awareness of hundreds of thousands of so-called "sleeper" bots: Accounts that have tweeted only once or twice for Trump, and which now sit silently, waiting for a trigger -- a key political moment -- to spread disinformation and drown out opposing views. ..."
Now the focus is less on Trump's extensive personal social media following and more on the roles
that Facebook and Twitter may have played in alleged Russian interference in the election. Congress
is calling on Facebook and Twitter to
disclose details about how they may have been used by Russia-linked entities to try to influence
the election in favor of Trump.
But despite the much-publicized case in the U.S., the pervasiveness of these political strategies
on social media, from the distribution of disinformation to organized attacks on opponents, the tactics
remain largely unknown to the public, as invisible as they are invasive. Citizens are exposed to
them the world over, often without ever realizing it.
Drawing on two recent reports by the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) and independent research,
Newsweek has outlined the covert ways in which states and other political actors use social
media to manipulate public opinion around the world, focusing on six illustrative examples: the U.S.,
Azerbaijan, Israel, China, Russia and the U.K.
It reveals how "Cyber-troops" -- the name given to this new political force by the OII -- are
enlisted by states, militaries and parties to secure power and undermine opponents, through a combination
of public funding, private contracts and volunteers, and how bots -- fake accounts that purport to
be real people -- can produce as many as 1,000 social media posts a day.
By generating an illusion of support for an idea or candidate in this way, bots drive up actual
support by sparking a bandwagon effect -- making something or someone seem normal and like a palatable,
common-sense option. As the director of the OII, Philip Howard,
argues : "If you use enough of them, of bots and people, and cleverly link them together, you
are what's legitimate. You are creating truth."
On social media, the consensus goes to whoever has the strongest set of resources to make it.
The U.S.: Rise of the bots
America sees a wider range of actors attempting to shape and manipulate public opinion online
than any country -- with governments, political parties, and individual organizations all involved.
In its report, the OII describes 2016's Trump vs. Hillary Clinton presidential contest as a "
watershed moment " when social media manipulation was "at an all-time high."
Many of the forces at play have been well-reported: whether the hundreds of thousands of bots
or the right-wing sites like Breitbart distributing divisive stories. In Michigan, in the days before
the election, fake news was shared
as widely as professional journalism . Meanwhile firms like Cambridge Analytica, self-described
specialists in "election management," worked for Trump to target swing voters, mainly on Facebook.
While Hillary Clinton's campaign also engaged in such tactics, with big-data and pro-Clinton bots
multiplying in number as her campaign progressed, Trump's team proved the most effective. Overall,
pro-Trump bots generated five times as much activity at
key moments of the campaign as pro-Clinton ones. These Twitter bots -- which often had zero followers
-- copied each other's messages and sent out advertisements alongside political content. They regularly
retweeted Dan Scavino, Trump's social media director.
One high-ranking Republican Party figure told OII that campaigning on social media was like "the
Wild West." "Anything goes as long as your candidate is getting the most attention," he said. And
it worked: A Harvard study concluded that overall Trump
received 15 percent more media coverage than Clinton.
Targeted advertising to specific demographics was also central to Trump's strategy. Clinton
spent two and a half times more than Trump on television adverts and had a 73% share of nationally
focused digital ads.
But Trump's team, led by Cambridge Analytica for the final months, focused on sub-groups. In one
famous example, an anti-Clinton ad that repeated her notorious speech from 1996 describing so-called
"super-predators" was shown exclusively to African-American voters on Facebook in areas where the
Republicans hoped to suppress the Democrat vote -- and again, it worked.
"It's well known that President Obama's campaign pioneered the use of microtargeting in 2012,"
a spokesperson for Cambridge Analytica tells Newsweek . "But big data and new ad tech are
now revolutionizing communications and marketing, and Cambridge Analytica is at the forefront of
this paradigm shift."
"Communication enhances democracy, not endangers it. We enable voters to have their concerns
heard, and we help political candidates communicate their policy positions."
The firm argues that its partnership with American right-wing candidates -- first Ted Cruz and
then Trump -- is purely circumstantial. "We work in politics, but we're not political," the spokesperson
said.
The company is part-owned by the family of Robert Mercer, which was one of Trump's major donors,
while Stephen K. Bannon sat on the company's board until he was appointed White House chief strategist
(he was dismissed from his post seven months later). According to Bannon's March federal financial
disclosure, he held shares worth as much as
$5 million in the company . On October 11, it was also revealed that the House Intelligence Committee
has asked the company to provide information for its ongoing probe into Russian interference.
But social media manipulation did not begin or end with the election. As early as 2011, the
US government hired a public relations firm to develop a "
persona management tool " that would develop and control fake profiles on social media for political
purposes.
The British parent company of Cambridge Analytica, Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL),
has been a client of the government for years, working with the Department of Defense, and The
Washington Post
reports that it recently secured work with the State Department.
There is also growing awareness of hundreds of thousands of so-called "sleeper" bots: Accounts
that have tweeted only once or twice for Trump, and which now sit silently, waiting for a trigger
-- a key political moment -- to spread disinformation and drown out opposing views.
Emilio Ferrara, an Assistant Research Professor at the University of Southern California
Computer Science department, even
suggests
the possibility of "a black-market for reusable political disinformation bots," ready to be utilitized
wherever they are needed, the world over. These fears appeared to be confirmed by
reports that the same bots used to back Trump were then deployed against eventual winner Emmanuel
Macron in this year's French presidential election.
It was from day 1 absurd. But they keep the story running because the goal of the
parasitic elites is to control the narrative on the news channels. They will get even more
aggressive the closer we will get to the final economic collapse. They need to overload us
with any BS they can find to completely kill our senses for what is real and what not. They
don't even care we find out about all the false flags and hoaxes because tomorrow will be a
new one. It's called information overload.
Anybody who subscript of NYT, or WaPo after this fiasco is simply paying money for state
propaganda.
Notable quotes:
"... Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee. " ..."
"... Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. ..."
"... This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts -- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. ..."
"... The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. ..."
"... How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any." ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
"... If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact. ..."
"... This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome. ..."
"... In the end, Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it. The American public will get the report, which it deserves. ..."
"... But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us. ..."
"... Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions, it is no longer important, just political theater. ..."
"... The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished. ..."
"... The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40 years. ..."
"... Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows; the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying. ..."
"... So what ? Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics: Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations', 1979, 1980, London ..."
"... Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff. ..."
"... If all we hear are endless allusions to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic level of rationality after this fiasco? ..."
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and
independent investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support
a theory that was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment.
Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference
last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be
supported by our committee. "
Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret
information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his
co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together
Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to
produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. In other words, the
intelligence was fixed to fit the policy. Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by
pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee has interviewed and the volume of work that's
been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:
Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews,
comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed
more than 100,000 documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively
spent a total of 57 hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry,
going through documents and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both
classified and unclassified material.
It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified
assumptions, then what's the point? Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see
whether Burr and Warner are justified in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy. From the
Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at
the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US
democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential
presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference
for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see,
the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors'
lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and
preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts
-- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters
of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and
psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think this gibberish should be
taken seriously.
Here's more from the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her
since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and
because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.
More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't
think. The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence
report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The
report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd
realize that it's nonsense. Also, it would have been better if the ICA's authors had
avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the
former seriously impacts the report's credibility.
To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who
contributed to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:
"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said
Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent
putting the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and,
in addition to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have
found appropriate for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr
added that the committee's review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and
they've interviewed every official in the Obama administration who had anything to do with
putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The
Nation)
That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews,
comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without
producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The
Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the
investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was
involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members
of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on
the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor,
Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The
committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now,
I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any."
Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages"
there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news?
Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all,
they've hyped every other part of this story?
Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so
they decided to scrub the story altogether?
But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of
Russia meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the
interviews, all the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come
up with nothing; no eyewitness testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no
proof of domestic espionage, no evidence of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.
So here's a question for critical minded readers:
If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016
elections, then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't
really make sense, does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't
the burden of truth fall on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man
innocent until proven guilty or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?
Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking
matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. That's why
they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened.
Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan
rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the
hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to
his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by
Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax
to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC
emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the
Committee or asked to testify via Skype?
Don't bet on it.
What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly
admitted that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor
has he even been contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a
credible witness who can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.
Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has
produced solid evidence that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a
foreign government. McGovern's work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not
hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern been invited to testify?
How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose
excellent report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the
hacking theory, as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation
titled "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly
obliterates the central claims of the ICA.
Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at
the Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence
(in the form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not
involved in the DNC email scandal.
Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and
credible witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that
has dominated the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?
Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or
evidence that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.
So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really
conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a
witch hunt?
It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide
the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the
prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an
emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and
threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one
massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now
consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO)
devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It
is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory
of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American
people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.
Where is this going? At some point in the next few years there will be a 'damning' report
that will regurgitate what has already been endlessly publicised: VIP's meet each other (the
horror!), somehow DNC emails got published, Facebook sold ads to 'Russia-linked' users, and
Pokemon Go, whatever. That will be described in sinister terms and RT will be thrown in. How
dare RT not to have the same views as CNN?
But what then? Let's even say that Trump is removed – he is at this point so
emasculated that keeping him in the White House is the most stabilising thing the
establishment could do. Is Congress going to declare a war on Russia? Or more sanctions? Are
they going to ban RT? Break diplomatic relations? None of that makes sense because any of
those moves would be more costly than beneficial, some dramatically so. Therefore nothing
will happen.
All that will remain is permanent bitterness towards Russia, and vice-versa. And much
reduced ability to do what the West has done for 75 years: heavy interference and media
campaigns inside foreign countries to influence elections. If 'meddling' is so bad, the
biggest meddlers – by far – will be less able to meddle. So how is this hysteria
helping?
Sanity in public life is a precious thing. Once abandoned, all kinds of strange things
start happening. Yeah, Pokemon GO – Putin was personally naming the characters to 'sow
division'. It sounds like something Stalin would accuse his 'cosmopolitan' enemies of doing.
This is really embarrassing.
Incorrect parsing of reality. It was not about getting Trump but it was about making Trump
administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with having Gen. Flynn fired. This
mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with Russia than at the end of Obama
administration.
If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I
can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact.
I have been convinced of the ridiculousness of the Russian-hacking/collusion
narrative/scandal since it was created in 2016.
I, too, smelled a rat and figured that it was all BS right from the get go. So much so
that I haven't followed it a bit. In fact it's so ridiculous on its face, that I have not and
probably will not, waste time reading the article even though MW is a good guy, an
unimpeachable source, a true journalist, and a fine writer.
Bless you, Mr Whitney, for having the energy to document what is no doubt a pack of lies
from the usual suspects.
I stumbled on this yesterday, and it suggests, to no one's surprise, that it's always
deja vu all over again. You'd think our "high IQ" masters would show a little
originality once in a while, and that we, "Low IQ" as we are, would finally learn that it's
all BS from the get-go.
Note the date.:
THESE books all belong to that literature of Katzenjammer which now flourishes so
amazingly in the United States t hey all embody attempts to find out what is the matter
with the Republic. I wish I could add that one or another of them solves the problem, or at
least contributes something to its illumination , but that would be going somewhat
beyond the facts.
-H.L. Mencken, Autopsy (4 Reviews), , September 1927 , pp. 123-125 –
PDF
This makes me suspect that Mike Whitney is a censorious coward on the model of Razib
Khan (thankfully expelled from unz.com) or even worse Paul Craig Roberts (who prohibits
comments entirely).
While I agree with you about the latter two, and have written them off accordingly, along
with Mercer, who I suspect "edits" (really, "purges" ) her comments too, I highly doubt that
MW falls into the same categories as those mentioned. At least MW doesn't use the word,
"insouciant" 3 or 4 times in every article!
If I am wrong and this article is simply strangely unpopular please let me know and I
will apologize.
The article isn't so much unpopular as the subject is wearying. It's the same crud all
over again,obviously false, and I suspect virtually everyone knows it. It's utterly boring
and I give MW a lot of credit for having the persistence to even face the mindless mess, let
alone think and write about it. He really is to be admired for that.
I've always thought it was a distraction as usual from other much more more important
things but utu has a better take on it.
it was about making Trump administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with
having Gen. Flynn fired. This mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with
Russia than at the end of Obama administration. [ed note:And Flynn is gone too.]
I think that's a "Bingo!" and I also think you better formulate an apology and plan on
getting on yer knees to deliver it!
PS: I'm curious as to why you think this is of much interest at all. (Aside from utu's
take.)
We don't know who this author really is but, once again, what's interesting is that so
many people are still so scared of an investigation which is supposedly producing "no
evidence" (leaving aside Trump Junior's evidence, of course). If all this was a load of
nonsense, why make such a fuss about it? If there's nothing to this, an "effort to support a
theory", however "determined" will come up with nothing. The frantic attempts to kill off
Russiagate suggest that those who are making such attempts know, or believe, that there
actually is something to it which has not yet come to light. Probably something pretty dirty
by the sound of it. What if some part of the US intelligence services took part in the
manipulation of the election, either in collusion with the Russians or posing as Russians,
and Putin can prove it? That would certainly explain the plethora of retired intelligence
agents who are so assiduously defending a foreign government. If Putin really is innocent,
the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take its natural course.
Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is
an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the
publics perception of Russia.
Really? Only "now"?! I thought it was pretty much clear from the beginning.
This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were
hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome.
In the end,
Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about
so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it.
The American public will get the report, which it deserves.
Indeed, well said. But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The
headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be
hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the
Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless
pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us.
Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued
more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still
publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions,
it is no longer important, just political theater.
The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical
weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they
wanted. Mission accomplished.
Mike – good article. The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten
flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its
blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts
out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards
accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully
buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40
years.
If it can be gotten wrong, the Borg will get it wrong; it will be gotten wrong at the worst
possible time; it will move on to get it wrong again. These are three things that you can
absolutely count on.
Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows;
the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power
they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying.
So what ?
Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics:
Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing
Expectations', 1979, 1980, London
@Mike Whitney Russia collusion does lack credibility, but you're still doing us a great
service by following the twists and turns of this beheaded snake. The details are worth
reading about, even if there isn't much to argue about regarding the conclusion. So thanks
for that.
Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and
zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of
dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff.
"If Putin really is innocent, the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take
its natural course."
Innocent of what? What is it exactly that Russia supposedly did? Let me list a few
things that are still perfectly legal in our world (that would include US, I hope):
having an opinion, even if that opinion is not the same as NY Times/CNN/US State
Dept
expressing this opinion publicly, even spending money to spread that opinion
supporting the side in an election that you prefer – even in other countries
(everybody does this all the time, Obama flew to UK to campaign against Brexit)
publishing negative stuff about those you dislike (or who dislike you), e.g. their emails,
accounts, etc
spending money to spread your views – even on 'US-owned' platforms that are otherwise
operating all over the world, e.g. Facebook has 700 million active users, they cannot all be
in US
laughing or celebrating if what you preferred won (champagne for Trump)
meeting with foreigners from a country not in a state of war with you, or – God
forbid! – meeting with their ambassador.
None of the above is either unusual or illegal. It might not look good to some people, but
it is what international life has consisted for at least 200 years. If you call that
'meddling', you just might be too naive for the world as it is.
What is the 'natural course' for the investigation? If all we hear are endless allusions
to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This
is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart
enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic
level of rationality after this fiasco?
Putin named Pokemon GO characters after BLM victims to stir up racial hatreds in US. How
does one answer that? Where would you even start dealing with people who are capable of this
level of nonsense?
"... Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook. ..."
"... No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. ..."
"... a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without ..."
"... Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'. ..."
"... A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. ..."
"... "Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories. ..."
Well all right, let's review what happened, or at least the official version of what
happened. Not Hillary Clinton's version of what happened, which Jeffrey St. Clair so
incisively skewered , but the Corporatocracy's version of what happened, which overlaps
with but is even more ridiculous than Clinton's ridiculous version. To do that, we need to
harken back to the peaceful Summer of 2016, (a/k/a the
"Summer of Fear" ), when the United States of America was still a shiny city upon a hill
whose beacon light guided freedom-loving people, the Nazis were still just a bunch of ass
clowns meeting in each other's mother's garages, and Russia was, well Russia was Russia.
Back then, as I'm sure you'll recall, Western democracy, was still primarily being menaced
by the lone
wolf terrorists, for absolutely no conceivable reason, apart from the terrorists' fanatical
desire to brutally murder all non-believers. The global Russo-Nazi Axis had not yet reared its
ugly head. President Obama, who, during his tenure, had single-handedly restored America to the
peaceful, prosperous, progressive paradise it had been before George W. Bush screwed it up, was
on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon slow
jamming home the TPP . The Wall Street banks had risen from the ashes of the 2008 financial
crisis, and were buying back all the foreclosed homes of the people they had fleeced with
subprime mortgages. American workers were enjoying the freedom and flexibility of the new gig
economy. Electioneering in the United States was underway, but it was early days. It was
already clear that Donald Trump was literally
the Second Coming of Hitler , but no one was terribly worried about him yet. The Republican
Party was in a shambles. Neither Trump nor any of the other contenders had any chance of
winning in November. Nor did Sanders, who had been defeated, fair and square, in the Democratic
primaries, mostly because of
his racist statements and crazy, quasi-Communist ideas. Basically, everything was hunky
dory. Yes, it was going to be terribly sad to have to bid farewell to Obama, who had bailed out
all those bankrupt Americans the Wall Street banks had taken to the cleaners, ended all of Bush
and Cheney's wars, closed down Guantanamo, and just generally served as a multicultural messiah
figure to affluent consumers throughout the free world, but Hope-and-Change was going to
continue. The talking heads were all in agreement Hillary Clinton was going to be President,
and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Little did we know at the time that an epidemic of Russo-Nazism had been festering just
beneath the surface of freedom-loving Western societies like some neo-fascist sebaceous cyst.
Apparently, millions of theretofore more or less normal citizens throughout the West had been
infected with a virulent strain of Russo-Nazi-engineered virus, because they simultaneously
began exhibiting the hallmark symptoms of what we now know as White Supremacist Behavioral
Disorder, or Fascist Oppositional Disorder (the folks who update the DSM are still arguing over
the official name). It started with the Brexit referendum, spread to America with the election
of Trump, and there have been a rash of outbreaks in Europe, like
the one we're currently experiencing in Germany . These fascistic symptoms have mostly
manifest as people refusing to vote as instructed, and expressing oppressive views on the
Internet, but there have also been more serious crimes, including several assaults and murders
perpetrated by white supremacists (which, of course, never happened when Obama was President,
because the Nazis hadn't been "emboldened" yet).
Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or
the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced
with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a
simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is
its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural
values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch
together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.
No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the
mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following
the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring
the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national
sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world
where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns
completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this
outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical
development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that.
This hypothetical leftist analysis might want to focus on how Capitalism is fundamentally
opposed to Despotism, and is essentially a value-decoding machine which renders everything and
everyone it touches essentially valueless interchangeable commodities whose worth is determined
by market forces, rather than by societies and cultures, or religions, or other despotic
systems (wherein values are established and enforced arbitrarily, by the despot, the church, or
the ruling party, or by a group of people who share an affinity and decide they want to live a
certain way). This is where it would get sort of tricky, because it (i.e., this hypothetical
analysis) would have to delve into the history of Capitalism, and how it evolved out of
medieval Despotism, and how it has been decoding despotic values for something like five
hundred years. This historical delving (which would probably be too long for people to read on
their phones) would demonstrate how Capitalism has been an essentially progressive force in
terms of getting us out of Despotism (which, for most folks, wasn't very much fun) by fomenting
bourgeois revolutions and imposing some semblance of democracy on societies. It would follow
Capitalism's inexorable advance all the way up to the Twentieth Century, in which its final
external ideological adversary, fake Communism, suddenly imploded, delivering us to the world
we now live in a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without
, and where any opposition to that global ideology can only be internal, or insurgent, in
nature (e.g, terrorism, extremism, and so on). Being a hypothetical leftist analysis,
it would, at this point, need to stress that, despite the fact that Capitalism helped deliver
us from Despotism, and improved the state of society generally (compared to most societies that
preceded it), we nonetheless would like to transcend it, or evolve out of it toward some type
of society where people, and everything else, including the biosphere we live in, are not
interchangeable, valueless commodities exchanged by members of a global corporatocracy who have
no essential values, or beliefs, or principles, other than the worship of money. After having
covered all that, we might want to offer more a nuanced view of the current neo-nationalist
reaction to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the rest of the
planet. Not that we would support this reaction, or in any way refrain from calling
neo-nationalism what it is (i.e., reactionary, despotic, and doomed), but this nuanced view
we'd hypothetically offer, by analyzing the larger sociopolitical and historical forces at
play, might help us to see the way forward more clearly, and who knows, maybe eventually
propose some kind of credible leftist alternative to the "global neoliberalism vs.
neo-nationalism" double bind we appear to be hopelessly stuck in at the moment.
Luckily, we don't have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such
larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy not really. That's just a fake
word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the
Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that
threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it
offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke
up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear
fanatical allegiance to. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than all that complicated stuff about
history and hegemonic ideological systems, which is probably just Russian propaganda anyway, in
which case there is absolutely no reason to read any boring year-old pieces, like this one in TheEuropeanFinancialReview , or this report by
Corporate Watch , from way back in the year 2000, about the rise of global corporate
power.
So, apologies for wasting your time with all that pseudo-Marxian gobbledygook. Let's just
pretend this never happened, and get back to more important matters, like statistically proving
that Donald Trump got elected President because of racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia,
or some other type of behavioral disorder, and pulling down Confederate statues, or kneeling
during the National Anthem, or whatever happens to be trending this week. Oh, yeah, and
debating punching Nazis, or people wearing MAGA hats. We definitely need to sort all that out
before we can move ahead with helping the Corporatocracy remove Trump from office, or at least
ensure he remains surrounded by their loyal generals, CEOs, and Goldman Sachs guys until the
next election. Whatever we do, let's not get distracted by that stuff I just distracted you
with. I know, it's tempting, but, given what's at stake, we need to maintain our laser focus on
issues related to identity politics, or else well, you know, the Nazis win.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Yesterday evening on RT a USA lady, as usual forgot the name, spoke about the USA. In a
matter of fact tone she said things like 'they (Deep State) have got him (Trump) in the
box'.
They, Deep State again, are now wondering if they will continue to try to control the
world, or if they should stop the attempt, and retreat into the USA.
Also as matter of fact she said 'the CIA has always been the instrument of Deep State, from
Kenndy to Nine Eleven'.
Another statement was 'no president ever was in control'.
How USA citizens continue to believe they live in a democracy, I cannot understand.
Yesterday the intentions of the new Dutch government were made public, alas most Dutch
also dot not see that the Netherlands since 2005 no longer is a democracy, just a province of
Brussels.
Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting
stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'.
No doubt many do want their country back, but what concerns me is that all of a sudden we
have the concept of "independence" plastered all over the place. Such concepts don't get
promoted unless the ruling elites see ways to turn those sentiments to their favor.
A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted
and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and
independence movements. (And everything else.)
"Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s),
that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the
US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run
brainwashing factories.
"Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything,
or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and
replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which
is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because
exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their
eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer
brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on
Facebook."
Very impressed with this article, never really paid attention to CJ's articles but that is
now changing!
Why he calls its lunatic. It's pretty rations. Russia now represent an obstacle for global
neoliberal empire and being the weakest link in Russia-China alliance it is only logical to
attack it first
Notable quotes:
"... Russia-hating was an American upper-class phenomenon, cultivated in the offices, cocktail parties, clubs, and mansions of the deep state, as it emerged out of World War II. It needed a new enemy to thrive; it fastened on Russia (aka the Soviet Union) as the enemy. ..."
"... McCarthyism was an American lower-class phenomenon. It focused on the loyalty or disloyalty of the upper-class deep-staters. That wasn't the same thing as Russia-hating; Wall Street bankers, Boston lawyers, homosexuals, Jews, communists, were all the enemy. As the Senator from Wisconsin characterized it himself in 1952, "McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled." He implied – without a middle-class tie; certainly not an upper-class bow-tie. ..."
"... In covering the period from 1946 to 1975, Herken's research does repeat much of the history of the Cold War which has been told elsewhere. It starts on February 22, 1946, the date of the "Long Telegram", No. 511 -- Kennan's despatch from the US Embassy in Moscow to the State Department, setting out his strategy of so-called containment and much more besides. Read it in the declassified original . Most of the war-fighting and other war crimes which the telegram set in motion under Kennan's 1948 rubrics, "organized political warfare" and "preventive direct action", are reported in Herken's book; so too are Kennan's frequent funks, failures of conviction, reversals of judgment, and pleas for help. ..."
"... "Interestingly enough, the term "Russophobia" was first used by Fyodor Tyutchev (1803 -- 1873), famous Russian poet, diplomat and politician in reference to growing Western hostilities against Russia on the "eve" of the Crimean War (1854-56) between the Russian Empire and an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia. ..."
"... Historians elaborate that the so-called "Russophobia campaign" actually started as early as the 1820s -- instigated by Britain -- following Russia's glorious victory over Napoleonic France in 1812-13. ..."
"... "British hostility towards Russia had recurred periodically ever since the late eighteenth century. In had become increasingly apparent, albeit in a gradual and evolutionary fashion, in the years after Waterloo Fear of Russia's aims in Europe and Asia surfaced as early as 1817," American historian Edward M. Spiers wrote in his book "Radical General: Sir George de Lacy Evans, 1787-1870." ..."
Joseph
Alsop (lead image, centre) and George Kennan (right) started the kind of Russia-hating in
Washington which, today, President Vladimir Putin, like the businessmen around him, think of as
a novelty that cannot last for long.
Alsop was a fake news fabricator, and such a narcissist as to give the bow-ties he wore a
bad name. Kennan was a psychopath who alternated bouts of aggression to prove himself with
bouts of depression over his cowardice. For them, Russia was a suitable target. The Washington
Post was the newspaper which gave their lunacy public asylum. This, according to a fresh
history by a university professor from California, started in 1947, long before the arrival in
Washington of the anti-communist phobia known after the name of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Russia-hating was an American upper-class phenomenon, cultivated in the offices,
cocktail parties, clubs, and mansions of the deep state, as it emerged out of World War II. It
needed a new enemy to thrive; it fastened on Russia (aka the Soviet Union) as the
enemy.
McCarthyism was an American lower-class phenomenon. It focused on the loyalty or
disloyalty of the upper-class deep-staters. That wasn't the same thing as Russia-hating; Wall
Street bankers, Boston lawyers, homosexuals, Jews, communists, were all the enemy. As the
Senator from Wisconsin characterized it himself in 1952, "McCarthyism is Americanism with its
sleeves rolled." He implied – without a middle-class tie; certainly not an upper-class
bow-tie.
Russia was not an enemy which united the two American lunacies, for they hated
each other much more than they hated the Russians. The Soviet Politburo understood this better
then than the Kremlin does now.
Gregg Herken's The Georgetown
Set , is so named because it records the activities of Alsop, Kennan and several other
State Department, Central Intelligence Agency and White House officials who lived as neighbours
in the Georgetown district of the capital city, together with Katharine (Kay) and Philip
Graham, proprietor managers of the Washington Post. The district – once a chartered city
of Maryland and river port, which was absorbed into the federal District of Columbia in 1871 --
was expensive, relatively speaking then; more so now. The richest of the set, including Alsop,
had town houses in Georgetown, and rural retreats in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Connecticut.
They were a set because because, as Herken said succinctly to an interviewer , "they got
together every Sunday for supper and, basically, they ran the country from those meetings." As
the book elaborates, they thought they were running the world. With a longer time lapse in
which to view the evidence, they were also losing it.
Newspapers exposed in the book for collaborating in all the deceits, failures and war crimes
of the history have reacted by calling
Herken's effort a "provincial corner". The New Yorker opined that the Russia-hating
and Russia war-making which Herken retells are dead and gone. "The guests at the Sunday
soirées no doubt felt that they were in the cockpit of history. But the United States is
a democracy, not a Wasp Ascendancy There was once an atmosphere of willingness that made a
system of bribes and information exchanges seem, to the people involved, simply a way of
working together for a common cause in a climate of public opinion that, unfortunately,
required secrecy. No one got rich from the arrangement. People just lost track of what was
inside their bubble and what was outside, as people tend to do. Vietnam was the reality check.
'I've Seen the Best of It' was the title Alsop gave to his memoirs. Things hadn't been the same
since, he felt. He was right about that, and we should be thankful." In the New York media
business these days it's possible to publish a selfie of pulling your own leg.
The Washington Post has deflected the indictment against itself by describing Herken's work
as "a very strange book (A) a rehash of the history of the Cold War as experienced in certain
Washington circles and (B) an almost obsessive recapitulation of the life and journalism of
Joseph Alsop." Alsop is dismissed as unworthy of a history at all because he was "utterly
repellent: arrogant, patronizing, imperious, uninterested in anyone except himself."
That's the truth about Alsop. The truth about the Washington Post is buried in this line by
the Post's books editor about the hand that fed him: "it must be very hard for people who did
not live through the '50s and '60s to understand how obsessed the American people were with the
threat from Moscow." That line appeared in
print on November 7, 2014. It was already history, that's to say, a misjudgment. How
monumentally mistaken is obvious now.
In covering the period from 1946 to 1975, Herken's research does repeat much of the
history of the Cold War which has been told elsewhere. It starts on February 22, 1946, the date
of the "Long Telegram", No. 511 -- Kennan's despatch from the US Embassy in Moscow to the State
Department, setting out his strategy of so-called containment and much more besides. Read it in
the declassified original
. Most of the war-fighting and other war crimes which the telegram set in motion under Kennan's
1948 rubrics, "organized political warfare" and "preventive direct action", are reported in
Herken's book; so too are Kennan's frequent funks, failures of conviction, reversals of
judgment, and pleas for help.
The book ends on December 30, 1974, the date of Alsop's last column. Alsop concluded with
the line: "I have never known the American people to be really badly wrong, if only they were
correctly and fully informed."
Herken shows how self-deluded and professionally delusional
that was -- not because of Alsop's character but because of his sources. Herken documents that
they ran upwards from foot-soldiers (also lubricious sailors) to presidents and cabinet
secretaries. Herken doesn't think the same of Kennan, who gets to walk off stage, aged 101,
sounding more sceptical of overthrowing Saddam Hussein than he ever was in his prime and in
power to direct schemes of what we call state terrorism today.
Left to right: Kennan died in 2005, aged 101; Alsop died in 1989 aged 78; Frank Wisner
died in 1965 aged 56. The deeper Herken gets into the private papers, the more he refers to his
subjects by their diminutives and nicknames – Joe, Oppie, Beetle, Dickie, the Crocodile,
Wig, Jack, Wiz, Soozle, Vangie, et al.
What is fresh about the sources is that Herken has had access to the private notes, letters
and diaries of the Alsop family; the Kennan diaries and letters; and the private papers of
Frank Wisner, the first director of covert operations against Russia. Wisner went mad and
killed himself, as did Graham. There's no doubt about the suicide outcome of their madness.
In the case of the mad ex-Defence Secretary James Forrestal his fatal jump from the window
of the Navy hospital in Bethesda, Maryland, in May 1949 might have been a homicidal push.
Herken concludes that Forrestal's death was "the first senior-ranking American casualty of the
Cold War." Herken thinks of their madness as anomalies. The history shows they were
normalities.
Missing from this history is any reference to official documents, now declassified; press
reporting of the time; or interviews with veterans of the same events but on other sides
– Russian and Soviet; British; German; French; Polish; Vietnamese; Chinese. This isn't so
much a fatal flaw in Herken's (right) book as the reason why his history is repeating itself
today. Call this a variation on Karl's Marx's apothegm that history starts as tragedy and
repeats itself as farce. Herken's blindness to this is as revealing as the Washington Post's
madness, not yet as suicidal as its former proprietor's, today.
So mesmerized is Herken by the moneyed backgrounds of his subjects and sources, and by the
amount of black cash from the US Government they spent on operations, he forgets to report what
they did to fill their own pockets. The claim by the New Yorker that "no one got rich from the
arrangement" – Alsop's fake news fabrications – is false, but Herken touches only
in passing on how they made (or kept) their money. Alsop's column, for example, was sold to 200
newspapers, and at one time claimed a readership of 25 million. His family inheritance is
recorded, but not its annual revenue value. Alsop's payola included silk shirts from Alfred
Kohlberg, a textile importer from China who backed Chiang Kai-shek against Mao Tse-tung, as did
Alsop. Alsop's patrons included Convair (General Dynamics), the company building the US Air
Force Atlas missile for procurement of which Alsop reported fictions about Soviet missile
strength.
In the US power which Alsop, Kennan and Wisner believed without hesitation, Herken is not
less a believer. "Anything could be achieved", Herken quotes a New York Times reporter quoting
Wisner. When the US force multiple changed, however, and US allies or agents were outgunned,
outspent, outnumbered, or outwitted, they were unable to acknowledge miscalculation,
attributing defeat instead to the superior force or guile of their adversaries, especially the
Russians.
This is madness, and there is good reason for recognizing the symptoms again. In 1958, when
Herken says Wisner's paranoid manias were becoming obvious to his friends and colleagues,
"Frank put forward a theory that the careless comment which had gotten George Kennan kicked out
of the Soviet Union was evidence the Soviets had succeeded in an area where the CIA's own
scientists had failed: mind control. Some agency hands alleged that Wisner attributed his own
increasingly bizarre behaviour to the Kremlin's sly manipulation."
From Washington in 1958, fast forward to Washington in 2017; for mind control and sly
manipulation, read Russian hacking and cyber warfare. From Wisner's and Kennan's balloon drops
of leaflets and broadcasts by Radio Free Europe, fast forward to Russia Today Television and
Russian infiltrations of Twitter, Google, the Democratic National Committee, and the Trump
organization.
It stands to reason (ahem!) that if you think what the US Government and its
journalists were doing then was mad, you are might conclude that what they is doing now is just
as mad – and not very different. When the incumbent president and his Secretary of State
publicly call for IQ tests on each other, all reason has failed. "The nation," as Alsop had
written, "had simply taken leave of all sense of proportion." That was in March 1954.
If you fast forward to now, there's one difference. Today the lunatic Russia warfighters
don't retire. They also don't fade away. Today's sleek successors to mad Wisner and mad Graham
sleep easily in their beds a-nights. For what they've done and do, they wouldn't dream of
taking shotguns to their heads.
Herken retells the story of the campaign Alsop waged against McCarthyism at the State
Department, against McCarthy himself, and the vulnerability Alsop himself presented until the
Boston lawyer Joseph Welch put an end to McCarthy on June 9, 1954 : "Have you no sense of decency,
sir, at long last?" Welch famously said. "Have you left no sense of decency?" The recurring
history reveals why, even if there are plenty of people to say the same thing today to the
Washington Post, New York Times, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the madness will continue
repeating itself.
Wisner has a son named Frank, who is a pro-Kosovo Albanian/anti-Serb/anti-Russian
fiend. Kennan later became a responsibly more calming voice on Russia. Concerning the Capitol Hill establishment -
Nonetheless, I remember that Kennan was a strong opponent against NATO expansion in the
90's, after the collapse of the USSR. I think there were good reasons to make an alliance
against the spread of communism, but after this ended in Europe, of course, NATO should have
dissolved just like the Warsaw Pact.
Wages are low in Estonia compared to Sweden. So the Swedish corporations will move some
factories to Estonia to make more money. That is the "powerhouse". The Estonians will not see
much to the money. But they get what is wages in Estonia of course.
"The Cold War, I would remind readers, started in November 1917 when the Bolsheviks took
power in Russia Undiscouraged and terrified of a socialist revolution in Russia, the
so-called Entente [Great Britain and France] tossed fat rolls of banknotes to anyone who said
he would fight the Soviets. The Entente sent its own forces to the four distant corners of
Russia to do the job themselves. This was the 'Allied' intervention which continued until the
beginning of 1921 in the west and until 1922 in Eastern Siberia," ~ Professor Michael Jabara
Carley of the University of Montreal
"Interestingly enough, the term "Russophobia" was first used by Fyodor Tyutchev (1803 --
1873), famous Russian poet, diplomat and politician in reference to growing Western
hostilities against Russia on the "eve" of the Crimean War (1854-56) between the Russian
Empire and an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia.
Historians elaborate that the so-called "Russophobia campaign" actually started as early as
the 1820s -- instigated by Britain -- following Russia's glorious victory over Napoleonic
France in 1812-13.
"British hostility towards Russia had recurred periodically ever since the late eighteenth
century. In had become increasingly apparent, albeit in a gradual and evolutionary fashion,
in the years after Waterloo Fear of Russia's aims in Europe and Asia surfaced as early as
1817," American historian Edward M. Spiers wrote in his book "Radical General: Sir George de
Lacy Evans, 1787-1870."
"Britons were especially concerned about their dominance in Central Asia and the "Russian
threat" to their hegemonic ambitions in the region. According British diplomat Sir Martin
Ewans, in the 1820s-30s London deemed that it would be "unwise" to allow the Russian Empire
to extend its influence over Caucasus, Persia and Afghanistan. "That Russophobia existed is
undeniable," Sir Ewans remarked in his book "Conflict in Afghanistan: Studies in Asymmetric
Warfare."
"Remarkably, in the 1860s, Russian ethnologist, philosopher and historian Nikolai
Danilevsky slammed the Western propaganda machine for spreading distorted information and
blatant lies about the "Russian threat" and imaginary "expansionist ambitions" of the Russian
Empire in his book "Russia and Europe."
https://sputniknews.com/pol...
Its incredible one country can sit half the planet away "not allowing" another country "to
spread its influence" to its neighbours.
When this is the case, this country´s culture is pervercy and sick.
Neocons already poisoned the well of US-Russian cooperation. They already unleashes witch hunt in
best McCarthyism traditions. What else do they want ? Why they continue to waive this dead chicken?
Notable quotes:
"... people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: ..."
"... Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story? ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. ..."
"... Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and independent
investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support a theory that
was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Committee Chairman Senator
Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said:
We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee.
Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information
in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator
Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report
that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed
with a particular political agenda. In other words, the intelligence was fixed to fit the policy.
Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee
has interviewed and the volume of work that's been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:
Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews, comprising
250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed more than 100,000
documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively spent a total of 57
hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry, going through documents
and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both classified and unclassified material.
It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified assumptions,
then what's the point?
Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see whether Burr and Warner are justified
in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy.
From the Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the
US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have
high confidence in these judgments.
This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge
is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity.
There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based
on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts– who are charged with providing
our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security– would indulge in
this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think
this gibberish should be taken seriously.
Here's more from the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her
since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because
he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.
More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't think.
The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is
it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength
seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. Also, it
would have been better if the ICA's authors had avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the
point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the former seriously impacts the report's credibility.
To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who contributed
to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:
"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said
Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent putting
the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and, in addition
to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have found appropriate
for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr added that the committee's
review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and they've interviewed every official
in the Obama administration who had anything to do with putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans
in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The Nation)
That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250
hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence
that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case
not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people
testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with
the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point
of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare
moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem:
"There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into
all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial
findings because we haven't any."
Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's
not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't
the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every
other part of this story?
Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so they
decided to scrub the story altogether?
But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of Russia
meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the interviews, all
the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come up with nothing; no eyewitness
testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no proof of domestic espionage, no evidence
of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.
So here's a question for critical minded readers:
If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016 elections,
then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't really make sense,
does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't the burden of truth fall
on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man innocent until proven guilty
or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?
Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter,
because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple.
That's why they have excluded
any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would
the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder,
Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he
also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President
Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the
Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what
actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange
been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype?
Don't bet on it.
What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly admitted
that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor has he even been
contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a credible witness who
can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.
Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has produced solid evidence
that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a foreign government. McGovern's
work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern
been invited to testify?
How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose excellent
report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the hacking theory,
as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation titled "A New Report Raises
Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly obliterates the central claims of the
ICA.
Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at the
Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence (in the
form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not involved in the
DNC email scandal.
Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and credible
witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that has dominated
the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?
Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or evidence
that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.
So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really conducting
an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a witch hunt?
It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public
with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as
a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that
has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous
and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon
to Vladivostok.
Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative
is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics
perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum
Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives.
The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.
Something about real foreign influence in Washington corridors of power ... Bankrolling
think tanks is pretty slick idea.
Notable quotes:
"... Close with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top national security officials, Otaiba has bankrolled nearly every major think tank in Washington. ..."
"... The diplomat has worked tirelessly for nearly two decades to push Washington's defense and foreign policy establishment to adopt MBZ's hawkish ideas on Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other contentious policy areas. Otaiba has been a leading voice in Washington for the war in Yemen, where the UAE operates torture warehouses and funds death squads. The conflict has left more than 10,000 dead and countless more starving and stricken with a cholera epidemic of historic proportions. ..."
Otaiba has become one of the most powerful and well-connected men in Washington,
reportedly in touch with Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and adviser, on a
weekly basis. His spending on galas, hospital wings, dinner parties, and birthday bashes has become
legendary. Close with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top national security officials, Otaiba
has
bankrolled nearly every major think tank in Washington.
The Emirati envoy's cachet stems in part from his close relationship with Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan,
who is widely considered to be the effective ruler of the UAE. The crown prince of Abu Dhabi, he
is known in the region and in Washington by his initials MBZ. Since 2000, Otaiba has reported directly
to MBZ as his head of international affairs, and then as the ambassador in Washington. "Before I
was introduced to him, the way he was described to me was the guy MBZ trusts most on foreign issues
and one of the smartest people in the UAE," said Kristofer Harrison, a former Bush administration
official who worked closely with Otaiba.
The diplomat has worked tirelessly for nearly two decades to push Washington's defense and foreign
policy establishment to adopt MBZ's hawkish ideas on Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other contentious
policy areas. Otaiba has been a leading voice in Washington for the war in Yemen, where the UAE
operates torture warehouses
and
funds death squads. The conflict has left more than 10,000 dead and countless more starving and
stricken with a cholera epidemic of historic proportions.
A fixture among Washington society, Otaiba spent much of the last decade carefully constructing
the image of an enlightened Persian Gulf diplomat -- forward-thinking on women's rights, secularism,
and embracing the modern world. On International Women's Day this year, he published an
open letter to his young daughter to drive the point home.
Otaiba's homeland, meanwhile, does not often live up to such values. The UAE has some of the most
draconian sex crime laws of any place in the world. Just last week,
a man and a woman were arrested for having a conversation in a car while being unrelated and
unmarried. This week, two defendants were spared prison time for the crime of "
indecent attire ," but fined and deported nonetheless.
Swisher wouldn't confirm or deny the identity of the American operative, but he said that with
the American political class focused on foreign intervention in the affairs of the United States,
now is an appropriate time to run the follow-up investigation. "I hear the U.S. is having problems
with foreign interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our
findings in America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits
from that debate," he said.
"... Is not all this noise about Rooskies has one and only one goal – to divert attention from the "gorilla" and her "struggle for survival" in the Middle East and in the US Congress? https://theintercept.com/2017/10/09/an-al-jazeera-reporter-went-undercover-with-the-pro-israel-lobby-in-washington/ ..."
They need Russia to be an enemy to justify their actions and the Europeans want to
use the US to threaten Russia. Its a shame this can't be generalized against all foreign
agents of influence. The US Mainstream Media is basically an arm of the Hasbara. Their guest
from think tanks are foreign agents of influence. Its not fun watching a bunch of foreigners
and their domestic owned Americans run the US Empire into the ground.
" a documentary focused on Israeli influence in the U.S., the existence of which has
previously been suspected but had yet to be made public. The four-part series, "The Lobby,"
dug into the Israeli embassy in London, as well as several other pro-Israel lobby groups,
and their campaign to "take down" British Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.
The investigation led to the resignation of a top Israeli official in London, as well as
a high-profile complaint that Al Jazeera had broken broadcasting regulations in the United
Kingdom. One of the complaints charged the investigation with anti-Semitism, but the
government board ruled that imputing such a motive to a film critical of Israel would be
akin to calling a series on gang violence racist.
Ofcom received complaints about the series from pro-Israel British activists and a
former Israel embassy employee. It dismissed all charges, which included anti-Semitism,
bias, unfair editing, and the infringement of privacy. It ruled that as per the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's guidance: "It did not consider that such a
critical analysis of the actions of a foreign state constituted anti-Semitism, particularly
as the overall focus of the programme was to examine whether the State of Israel was acting
in a manner that would be expected of other democratic nations."
"... According to SimilarWeb, it only gets a total of 2.5 million monthly visitors from the US. That's almost an Unz.com like level of visitorship even though Ron's budget and attention of social media/advertising crap is many orders of magnitude lower than Sputniks. Russian taxpayers don't deserve this. ..."
"... What was made clear by Mr. Lincoln and his Civil War was that the WASP Elites, the Yankee rich and powerful, saw the 1st Amendment as meaning all speech they supported would be actively promoted by Government while all speech they opposed would be shut down. ..."
"... It is also hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in American politics are exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step, while Russia is fair game. ..."
"... Without Russia the US Army would have no real reason to exist, ..."
"... the US Army is a large political force with many bases, half a million people, and a huge budget. ..."
"... The big corps are using their bought government to eliminate competition to their concentrated domestic media oligarchy. They can buy up all the domestic outlets, those outside have to be banned. It is ludicrous to blame foreigners for all your ills, when the vast majority of your country is itself made up of foreigners and their descendants, except for the tiny remainder of American Indians. Which identifies properly another way to identify the enemy destroying your nation: look in the mirror first. ..."
"... I think the big issue is that money runs the show. Big media, which is where many people still get their information is just rotten at the core. How to fix it? I don't know – maybe the internet (which is still relatively young) will be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses. ..."
"... "Russiagate" has been a farce from the very beginning, an attempt by that fat-ass witch to divert attention from the 30K emails–which is where the REAL scandal lies!! And where do we stand on that issue anyway? I won't hold my breath waiting. ..."
"... Propaganda? Our political class is going to protect us from Propaganda? Our bureaucracies, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, are going to protect us from Propaganda? If it doesn't jibe with what our media organs of record are putting out, they're going to stamp it Propaganda? Don't make me laugh! The Propaganda is that those clowns wouldn't call a pig a duck for a dime's worth of advantage. ..."
"... This action on the part of the Sessions DOJ is hypocritical in light of the fact that we routinely undermine governments and institutions in Ukraine and Russia via our NGO's and in any nation whose foreign policy is deemed an impediment to the goals Israel and their American vassal state. ..."
"... Every banned political speech has always been banned because it was deemed 'subversive' or 'divisive'. Or the new 20th century term 'propaganda'. This has been the case for thousands of years, the censors always say that. No censor ever just banned free expression or said that it has to be banned because it is true. The banning is also often done by admin harassment, 'foreign agent' label, cutting access, etc.. ..."
"... So the latest hysteria about banning RT/Sputnik is squarely in the mainstream of censorship. It meets all the usual criteria: foreign influence, trying to stir up discord, undermining the system (that would be 'democracy' in US). And the methods are also the usual one: registration, harassment, restriction on distribution, etc ..."
2. They are ineffective, especially Sputnik. According to SimilarWeb, it only gets a
total of 2.5 million monthly visitors from the US. That's almost an Unz.com like level of
visitorship even though Ron's budget and attention of social media/advertising crap is many
orders of magnitude lower than Sputniks. Russian taxpayers don't deserve this.
3. Gives Russia a great excuse to kick out dishonest Western journalists (about 75% of
them).
The Europeans don't want to have American military bases there.
Not true. Some Europeans may not want that, but many others are perfectly content with the
state of the affairs. As per Eastern Europe–majority of them want US military
bases.
What was made clear by Mr. Lincoln and his Civil War was that the WASP Elites, the
Yankee rich and powerful, saw the 1st Amendment as meaning all speech they supported would be
actively promoted by Government while all speech they opposed would be shut down.
That was in keeping with the culture's source: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. Puritans spouted
Free Speech all day and all of the night, and if you dared speak against Cromwell or the
Revolution, you paid dearly.
Hypocrisy about free speech is deep in the WASP DNA.
Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes. WASP culture is Germanic. Germanics have always
seen Slavs as inferior peoples they should war against perpetually, to steal their best land
and make serfs of the survivors. This obsession with screwing with Russia is simply the
contemporary manifestation of that part of the problem of unrestrained Germanic culture.
we are allowed to air views that are essentially banned on the mainstream media to include
critique of maladroit policies in places like Syria and Afghanistan and biting critiques of
the war on terror.
It is also hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in
American politics are exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step,
while Russia is fair game.
I don't trust Russia any more than you do. I have even less, much less, trust, for the UK,
Germany, France, the EU, as well as America's Democrats and Neocons.
If the Feds are going to make RT register as a foreign agent due to foreign funding, where
does it stop? On the same basis, all nationally owned news outlets must be forced to
register, e.g., BBC, Al Jezeera, etc. And what about nominally non-government owned news
entities that a home government renders financial assistance, eg, the London Times, if it
needed government loans to survive? Would it be a British foreign agent?
And what about the
New York Times, which in its perilous financial state appears to be substantially supported
by loans from a Mexican National, Carlos Slim who in turn must be assumed to work
hand-in-hand with the Mexican government, since most of his wealth comes from Mexican
government-granted franchises.
Should the New York Times be registered as a Mexican foreign
agent (its news coverage and editorials regarding immigration certainly would be evidence it
is acting in that capacity)?
OT If anyone wants to catch a nice laid back interview with Phil Geraldi they can do so
here:
A lengthy discussion about his sacking at TAC and AIPAC is had with Ryan Dawson. Both put
in nice plugs for unz.com. I was really happy to see Phil being interviewed by Ryan. I hope
they do this again sometime.
I came to Unz for Steve Sailer but Geraldi is slowly becoming my favorite author here.
Thanks for sticking with things Phil. You're doing great work.
That was in keeping with the culture's source: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. Puritans spouted
Free Speech all dan and all of the night, and if you dared speak against Cromwell or the
Revolution, you paid dearly.
Hypocrisy about free speech is deep in the WASP DNA.
Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes. WASP culture is Germanic. Germanics have always
seen Slavs as inferior peoples they should war against perpetually, to steal their best
land and make serfs of the survivors. This obsession with screwing with Russia is simply
the contemporary manifestation of that part of the problem of unrestrained Germanic
culture.
What of King Arthur? How did Britain go from Arthur to Cromwell?
What role Henry VIII, and Dutch banking/ Bank of England?
How did Russia go from Tolstoy to Trotsky?
What role Jacob Schiff and atheist Bolshevism/Communism?
How did Germany go from Wagner to Merkel( after a brief Hitler Interruptus )?
What role Rothschild, Marx/Zinoviev and Zionism?
FDR and Churchill were determined to keep organizationally strong Germany and
resource-rich Russia -- Christian Russia -- from uniting; Cromwell's England and Morgenthau's
USA wanted to control German skill and Russian resources; their heirs want the same
today.
Arthur's Britain and Wagner's Germany are natural allies of Tolstoy's Russia (and also
of Virgil's Italy and Ferdowsi's Persia, btw).
Toss over this White nonsense, it tells no story, moves no souls.
"Sputnik ..has been under investigation due to the accusations made by a fired broadcaster
named Andrew Feinberg."
The amazing thing is that Feinberg ever had the job. In this painful interview, he readily
admits to little knowledge and less interest in the particulars of Ukrainian/Crimean/Russian
history, politics and recent events. Despite this inadequacy, he's managed to use his
dismissal for self-promotion.
Talking to ex-Sputnik employee Andrew Feinberg about "Russian propaganda"
And on the flip side maybe all the Jewish/Israeli news organizations will register too,
maybe even AIPAC.
Foreign is foreign and fighting wars for foreign interests is no virtue.
It's no wonder we are able to make so many new frands and they just moving into the west
everywhere.
Spending taxpayer money in foreign countries is helping the US taxpayer. I guess moving a
quarter of the population that said foreign country can't take care of and dumping them on
the US taxpayer and their children is our gift. Then give them jobs here too.
This lovely
idea was signed initially during the Clinton admin with the UN, and put into place during the
Bush admin. Dems just hate corps except when they are their own. (Hegelian Dialectic at play
everywhere) 20 Rillion in Debt. Millennium Challenge Corporation
"MCC is a prime example of smart U.S. Government assistance in action, benefiting both
developing countries and U.S. taxpayers through:
Competitive selection: Before a country can become eligible to receive assistance, MCC's
Board examines its performance on independent and transparent policy indicators and selects
compact-eligible countries based on policy performance.
Country-led solutions: MCC requires selected countries to identify their priorities for
achieving sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction. Countries develop their MCC
proposals in broad consultation within their society. MCC teams then work in close
partnership to help countries refine a program.
Country-led implementation: MCC administers the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). When a
country is awarded a compact, it sets up its own local MCA accountable entity to manage and
oversee all aspects of implementation. Monitoring of funds is rigorous and transparent, often
through independent fiscal agents.
MCC forms partnerships with some of the world's poorest countries, but only those committed
to: good governance,
economic freedom,
and investments in their citizens."
@Wade
Interesting interview. Kind of disappointed not to see any evidence of Christianity in
Giraldi's home, or at least not in that camera shot. Maybe his naïveté in
approaching the issue, which brought on the artillary barrage, is due to his being oblivious
to the larger spiritual, civilizational, battle going on. Forest/trees.
"Accumulating knowledge is a form of avarice and lends itself to another version of the
Midas story man is so avid for knowledge that everything that he touches turns to facts;
his faith becomes theology; his love becomes lechery; his wisdom becomes science; pursuing
meaning, he ignores truth." -Malcolm Muggeridge
Without Russia the US Army would have no real reason to exist, Canada and Mexico
being benign, because we all know that the US taxpayers are on the hook to defend Europe
against the nasty powerful Russians which (mainly) defeated Germany in the last big one, and
the US Army is a large political force with many bases, half a million people, and a huge
budget.
The big corps are using their bought government to eliminate competition to their
concentrated domestic media oligarchy. They can buy up all the domestic outlets, those
outside have to be banned. It is ludicrous to blame foreigners for all your ills, when the vast majority of your
country is itself made up of foreigners and their descendants, except for the tiny remainder
of American Indians. Which identifies properly another way to identify the enemy destroying
your nation: look in the mirror first.
@Anatoly
Karlin What you hope for is not in the interest of those of us who believe in free and
unfettered discourse, which principle is one of the core reasons to believe in ideals that
are supposed to define America.
It's fine to question foreign funded media, but it's against everything we are supposed to
stand for to ban them.
As the famous jurist wrote, the answer to bad speech is more speech.
Let's debate what's said by foreigners, and their advocates, whether Russian, British,
Israeli or any other. Our own government is not famous for truthfulness to the public,
either. Let our own government answer them, if they question it, and let us determine where
the truth lies, instead of being lied to.
I watch programs on RT fairly frequently, and moreso with the arrival of the current crop
of sitcoms, mindlessly insane 'dramas', firemen and cops shows, etc. Lotsa good stuff on RT.
If you read the credits, you will find that most of the specials and magazines are not
Russian productions. It's a good place to learn that much of the rest of world journalism
bears no resemblance to the propaganda machines of the US networks.
US TV and radio production is a vast web of fabrications designed for social control, to
manipulate public opinion, and to reinforce the will of the wealthy and powerful. The US
government is corrupt throughout; the purpose of US media is to turn the public eye away from
that corruption.
@Der Mann
ohne Eigenschaften A decade or so ago, when we still had a number of US bases in Germany,
my German colleagues and neighbors used to ask why most of the GIs never left the base and
only used Dollars for most of their commerce, again mostly on base, though a few merchants
took Dollars on a rather good exchange basis that a local could arbitrage if he was paying
attention. I experienced some of that a few decades ago myself when on TDY in Europe. The US
might want bases there, but a non-trivial number of the troops can't be bothered to wander
outside the gates very often, and may as well be in Nebraska or South Dakota for all their
interest in being there.
As for the Europeans, a lot of the local merchants did want the bases there, and a lot of
the locals welcomed the Amis. There were also places where the Amis represented a big payoff
for the smallest things; you would be surprised how productive egg-layers Portuguese chickens
were after you ran over one and found yourself compensating the farmer for all the eggs it
would have laid in its life.
I'm not sure why it is but we always seem to be on the Muslims side, everywhere to the
detriment of our own societies.
"Russia may be tightening its grip on Crimea, with little resistance to date, but they
have yet to face the Crimean Tatar factor.
There are 266,000 Crimean Tatars in Crimea, over 13% of the local population. They are
Sunni Muslim, traditionally pro-Ukrainian, and much better organized than the local
Ukrainians, who make up 23% of the population."
"For more than a year, Chechens, Muslims from southwestern Russia, have been fighting on
both sides of Ukraine's struggle against Russian occupation.
The undeniably frank reason one anti-Russia militiaman recently gave The New York Times?
"We always fight the Russians."
The Chechens have had a long and tense relationship with Russia's central government,
alternatively fighting for independence and courting special favor from the rulers in Moscow.
When Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea in March 2014, it once again gave
Chechens a reason to push back against Russian overreach"
We have plenty of Muslims in Congress to represent their people. I'm sure our alphabet
agencies have plenty too. According to Wikipedia almost no one likes Russia.
"Widespread ethnic cleansing accompanied the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina
(1992–95), as large numbers of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) and Bosnian Croats were
forced to flee their homes and were expelled by Bosnian Serbs;[1] and some Bosnian Croats
also carried out similar campaign against Bosniaks and Serbs. Also, Bosnian Muslims conducted
similar acts against Croats, especially in Central Bosnia.[2]"
Fought for these in Afghanistan. Ex president made a home at the UN.
"The Afghan Northern Alliance, officially known as the United Islamic Front for the Salvation
of Afghanistan (Persian: جبهه متحد
اسلامی ملی برای
نجات
افغانستان Jabha-yi Muttahid-i
Islāmi-yi Millī barāyi Nijāt-i Afghānistān), was a military
front that came to formation in late 1996 after the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban)
took over Kabul. The United Front was assembled by key leaders of the Islamic State of
Afghanistan, particularly president Burhanuddin Rabbani and former Defense Minister Ahmad
Shah Massoud. Initially it included mostly Tajiks but by 2000, leaders of other ethnic groups
had joined the Northern Alliance. This included Abdul Rashid Dostum, Mohammad Mohaqiq, Abdul
Qadir, Asif Mohseni and others."
I like what you're bringing to the table here. I think the big issue is that money runs
the show. Big media, which is where many people still get their information is just rotten at
the core. How to fix it? I don't know – maybe the internet (which is still relatively
young) will be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses.
But that is also a big IF – since there is so much on the internet which is just
trash and lacks any sort of serious vetting. Peace.
"Russiagate" has been a farce from the very beginning, an attempt by that fat-ass witch to
divert attention from the 30K emails–which is where the REAL scandal lies!! And where
do we stand on that issue anyway? I won't hold my breath waiting.
@Talhawill be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses
Whose truth?
Plus, there is a difference between discourse and propaganda.
The 88s here are not confounded so much by not being allowed free discourse as they are
whinging about the fact that their propaganda and motivated opinion pieces are not
carried 24/7 by every available outlet.
Here's an articulate source. Until the web gets outright censored, beyond the select
eliminating and demonetizing that's happening now. See also Ryan Dawson's interview of Phil
at comment #28.
And why is that? Because your government and their MSM sycophants have brainwashed you to
think that way? It's time people like you that have this inherent distrust of Russia get a
grip and start using some critical thinking skills. I know that's really hard but give it a
try, o.k.?
@iffenwill be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses
Whose truth? Plus, there is a difference between discourse and propaganda. The 88s here are not confounded so much by not being allowed free discourse as they are
whinging about the fact that their propaganda and motivated opinion pieces are not
carried 24/7 by every available outlet.
Whose truth?
I'll just be happy to get facts at this point. Most can't be bothered to get that part
straight. The MSM dropped the baton big time. Now people all over the internet are picking it
up – the problem I see is information glut. How does one sift through the incredible
amount of information.
Sputnik and RT are targeted in order to keep the "Boogey Man" alive by the following
parties:
1) Globalist Banksters – They desperately need continued wars to distract the global
peasants from the banker-caused multi-hundred trillion $ coming derivatives time-bomb and to
keep their drug wash flow going. Also, its getting more and more difficult to keep under
wraps the Dual-Financing of the "Official" Govts and "Deep State (SSP)" Govts. "Gotta keep
those Kabbalistic Blood Sacrifices going or our Invisible Sky Daddy will be mad at us and
won't let us on the Space Ship".
2) Big Pharma Slime (Vaccines/Viruses), GMO Sickos, Trans-Humanist Psychos, and Fascist
Neo-Cons – "Just trying to get that Agenda21 Borg World going". 500 million
micro-chipped global population is the goal.
3) The MIC – "We need more wars so we can keep force feeding our over-priced pieces of
crap to our satellite colonies" and multi-trillion $ financial redirect to the SSP.
4) Israel – Russia and Iran (Persia) are the perennial enemies of the Talmudic
Terrorists for kicking the Fake Jewish Khazarians/AshkeNAZIs out of their Western Asian
homelands around 1250 AD. The psychotic and retarded (613 Talmudic Commandments, REALLY?)
Clan Circumcision has a thing for blood feuds. Did you lose another Dolphin-Class
Submarine?
5) The dying USSA Empire of Tampons and associated prostitute Politicos – Former
colonies are fleeing East faster than Barry from his wife Michael er, I meant Michelle.
Petro-Dollar going poof. USSA economy heading for the big flush regardless of the jiggered
Plunge Protection Team numbers. "Must keep distracting our willfully-gullible peasant masses
with more False Flags and Wars else they wise up and HANG US ALL".
And lastly
6) Hillawi Bin-Gazi Dykehar – Former candidate with continued delusional desires for
Puppet Pres. of the USSA and current Jihadi commandante of Al-Shiksa. Al-Shiksa was last seen
campaigning at Costco. This terrorist group is populated by fat ill-tempered donut-bumping
Psycho Wenches and Cucked Eunuchs. Their battle cry is rumored to be "We love chocolate
cake!!!" or "Damn those Weiner Tapes!!!". Sorry, my Shiksanese is not up to speed.
RT talks about mass immigration problems,
shows more inside of Israel including their nasty policies,
questions neocons and liberals.
For an English speaking forum that is rare. The comment section.. sometimes its okay, sometimes bad.
You will find conservative/traditional posters majority.
Go to BBC, CNN, etc its liberal/"progressive" dominated. In the West Neocons and Liberals dominate the media. RT obviously has an agenda, probably divide. Sometimes comments get deleted.
Propaganda? Our political class is going to protect us from Propaganda? Our bureaucracies,
the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, are going to protect us from Propaganda? If it doesn't jibe
with what our media organs of record are putting out, they're going to stamp it Propaganda?
Don't make me laugh!
The Propaganda is that those clowns wouldn't call a pig a duck for a dime's worth of
advantage.
"The Russians tried to influence our election" taken at face value and removed from the
context of 65 years of American Foreign Policy is probably the most pernicious little bit of
self serving swamp propaganda that I've ever seen. It appears to be the factoid that the
Uniparty and its legions have chosen upon which to make their last stand and to hell with the
American people.
To be quite frank I hope that the US declares RT/Sputnik foreign agents (or bans them
outright). – I hope you wrote this thoughtlessly because you were exasperated or
upset or something. You should perhaps take it back. There is no question that Russia is
better off with RT and Sputnik than w/o them. Any child understands it.
This assault on the First Amendment shows that the driving force behind the neocons is not
American. A real American would tend to value the Constitution more.
As Priss Factor mentioned, RT and Sputnik do tend to be left of center on many issues, but
they do appear to be sincere and independent leftists in contrast to the American prog
establishment which has become just a dog and pony show controlled and directed by Jewish
billionaires like Soros. RT especially is no friend of white nationalism although they have
given figures on the racialist right air time on occasion.
I do find they are more objective in foreign policy matters whereas the U.S. media ,
including, FOX, all sing from the same song sheet on foreign policy matters and only differ
slightly in degree. But they rarely seem to criticize Israel.
This action on the part of the Sessions DOJ is hypocritical in light of the fact that we
routinely undermine governments and institutions in Ukraine and Russia via our NGO's and in
any nation whose foreign policy is deemed an impediment to the goals Israel and their
American vassal state.
Every banned political speech has always been banned because it was deemed 'subversive' or
'divisive'. Or the new 20th century term 'propaganda'. This has been the case for thousands
of years, the censors always say that. No censor ever just banned free expression or said
that it has to be banned because it is true. The banning is also often done by admin
harassment, 'foreign agent' label, cutting access, etc..
So the latest hysteria about banning RT/Sputnik is squarely in the mainstream of
censorship. It meets all the usual criteria: foreign influence, trying to stir up discord,
undermining the system (that would be 'democracy' in US). And the methods are also the usual
one: registration, harassment, restriction on distribution, etc
It is a minor issue and mainly matters symbolically. But it is going to give US democracy
and freedom of speech reputation a black eye. How does recover once speech is banned because
it is causing 'division in the society'? The problem is that the ruling class simply doesn't
understand what classical liberal values are – they talk a lot, they 'lawyer' a lot,
but have no understanding of what a free society looks like.
FARA was a powerful tool against attempts to stage a color revolution in the particular
county. But it can't save decaying neolineraim. which by now probably exceeed useful shelf life.
The only thing that is keeping it afoot is there is no political force capable to provide viable
alternative. That's it. Bastard neoliberalism of Trump is essentially the acceptance of the
defeat.
The charge "Intended to discredit the United States government and its institutions" is too
broad change and if applied indiscriminately no other entity other then government controlled
press can operate in the country.
As a short term measure it definitely will be effective (although it increase popularity of
RT.uk or RT.ca) as this essentially shut down both in the USA. RT can operate much like Guardian
. But in a longer term, blacklisting RT (Sputnik is not that important) is a sign of weakness,
not strength.
But eventually the boomerang might return and not necessary for entities like "Voice of
America" (which after the collapse of the USA became a zombie for the xUSSR audiences). While
influence of Voice of America on foreign audience now is minuscule and this is mostly money
wasted due to decline of neoliberal ideology (and with it prestige and influence of the USA) ,
they can now be shut down with impunity, by any foreign government inclined to do so.
So in a way, the US actions engager crown jewels of its propaganda machine. also any such
action is a sign of weakness not strength by definition. It just signify that the tratment of
neoliberalism in RT can't be fought by directly.
And not only Voice of America but also similar, potentially more effective propaganda
entities. In effect that is the acceptable of the fact that neoliberal MSM are losing grip on the
population and require coercive measures against competitors.
Notable quotes:
"... The apparent line of inquiry that the Bureau is pursuing is that both are agencies of the Russian government and that both have been spreading disinformation ..."
"... This alleged action would make them, in the DOJ view, a propaganda arm of a foreign government rather than a news service. It also makes them subject to Department of the Treasury oversight under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. ..."
"... Feinberg, the former Sputnik White House correspondent, reportedly took with him a thumb drive containing some thousands of internal business files when he left his office. ..."
"... News organizations are normally considered to be exempt from the requirements of FARA. ..."
"... The DOJ is in effect saying that RT and Sputnik are nothing more than propaganda organs and do not qualify as journalism. I would have to disagree if one goes by the standards of contemporary journalism in the United States. ..."
"... they have been as often as not leading propaganda organs for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, pushing a particular agenda and denigrating Donald Trump. They differ little from the admittedly biased television news reporting provided by Fox News and MSNBC. ..."
"... Regarding Sputnik, Feinberg claimed inter alia ..."
Somehow everything keeps coming back around to Russia. In one of its recent initiatives, the
Justice Department (DOJ) appears to be attacking the First Amendment as part of the apparent
bipartisan program to make Vladimir Putin the fall guy for everything that goes wrong in
Washington. In the past month, the DOJ has revealed that the
FBI is investigating Russian owned news outlets Sputnik News and RT International and has
sent
letters to the latter demanding that one of its business affiliates register as a foreign
agent by October 17 th . The apparent line of inquiry that the Bureau is
pursuing is that both are agencies of the Russian government and that both have been spreading
disinformation that is intended to discredit the United States government and its
institutions.
This alleged action would make them, in the DOJ view, a propaganda arm of a foreign
government rather than a news service. It also makes them subject to Department of the Treasury
oversight under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.
Sputnik , which is owned by a Russian
government media group headed by Putin consigliere Dimitri Kiselyov, has been under
investigation due to the accusations made by a fired broadcaster named Andrew Feinberg.
Feinberg, the former Sputnik White House correspondent, reportedly took with him a thumb
drive containing some thousands of internal business files when he left his office. He has
been interviewed by the FBI, has turned over his documents, and has claimed that much of the
direction over what the network covered came from Moscow.
RT America , more television oriented
than Sputnik, operates through
two business entities : RTTV America and RTTV Studios. The Department of Justice has
refused to identify which of the businesses has been targeted by a letter calling for
registration under FARA, but it is believed to be RTTV America, which provides both operational
support of the broadcasting as well as the production facilities. Both companies are actually
owned by Russian-American businessman Alex Yazlovsky, though the funding for them presumably
comes from the Russian government.
I have noticed very little pushback in the U.S. mainstream and alternative media regarding
the Department of Justice moves, presumably because there is a broad consensus that the
Russians have been interfering in our "democracy" and have had it coming. If that assumption on
my part is correct, the silence over the issue reflects a certain naïvete while also
constituting a near perfect example of a pervasive tunnel vision that obscures the significant
collateral damage that might be forthcoming.
News organizations are normally considered to be exempt from the requirements of
FARA. The Department of Justice action against the two Russian major media outlets is
unprecedented insofar as I could determine. Even Qatar owned al-Jazeera, which was so vilified
during the early stages of the Afghan War that it had its Kabul offices
bombed by the U.S., did not have to register under FARA, was permitted to operate freely,
and was even allowed to buy a television channel license for its American operations.
The DOJ is in effect saying that RT and Sputnik are nothing more than propaganda organs
and do not qualify as journalism. I would have to disagree if one goes by the standards of
contemporary journalism in the United States. America's self-described "newspapers of
record" the New York Times and the Washington Post pretend that they have a
lock on stories that are "true." The Post has adopted the slogan "Democracy Dies in
Darkness" while the Times proclaims "The truth is more important now than ever," but
anyone who has read either paper regularly for the past year knows perfectly well that they
have been as often as not leading propaganda organs for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic
Party, pushing a particular agenda and denigrating Donald Trump. They differ little from the
admittedly biased television news reporting provided by Fox News and MSNBC.
What exactly did the Russians do? According to last January's report signed off on
by the FBI, CIA and NSA, which may have motivated the DOJ to take action, RT and Sputnik
"consistently cast President-elect Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional U.S.
media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment." Well,
they certainly got that one right and did better in their reporting of what was going on among
the American public than either the Washington Post or New York Times .
Regarding Sputnik, Feinberg
claimedinter alia that he was "pushed" to ask questions at White House press
briefings suggesting that Syria's Bashar al-Assad was not responsible for some of the chemical
attacks that had taken place. One wonders at Feinberg's reluctance as Sputnik and RT were not
the only ones expressing skepticism over the claims of Syrian involvement, which have been
widely debunked. And why is expressing a credible alternative view on an event in Syria even
regarded as propaganda damaging to the American public?
There is a difficult to distinguish line between FARA restricted "trying to influence
opinion" using what is regarded a fake news and propaganda and legitimate journalism reporting
stories where the "facts" have been challenged. Even real journalists choose to cover stories
selectively, inevitably producing a certain narrative for the viewer, listener or reader. All
news services do that to a greater or lesser extent.
I have considerable personal experience of RT in particular and, to a lesser extent, with
Sputnik. I also know many others who have been interviewed by one or both. No one who has done
so has ever been coached or urged to follow a particular line or support a specific position
insofar as I know. Nor do I know anyone who has actually been paid to appear. Most of us who
are interviewed are appreciative of the fact that we are allowed to air views that are
essentially banned on the mainstream media to include critique of maladroit policies in places
like Syria and Afghanistan and biting critiques of the war on terror.
Sputnik, in my opinion, does, however, lean heavily towards stories that are critical of the
United States and its policies, while RT has a global reach and is much more balanced in what
it covers. For sure, it too criticizes U.S. policies and is protective of the Russian
government, but it does not substantially differ from other national news services that I have
had done interviews for. I find as much uniquely generated negative reporting about the U.S.
(usually linked to violence or guns) on BBC World News, France24 and Deutsche Welle as I do on
RT International . To describe it as part of
an "influence campaign" driven by a "state-run propaganda machine" has a kernel of truth but it
is nevertheless a bit of a stretch since one could make the same claims about any government
financed news service, including Voice of America . Governments only get into
broadcasting to promote their points of view, not to inform the public.
There is a serious problem in the threats to use FARA as it could advance the ongoing
erosion of freedom of the press in the United States by establishing the precedent that a
foreign news services that is critical of the U.S. will no longer be tolerated. It is also
hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in American politics are
exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step, while Russia is fair
game.
Going after news outlets also invites retaliation
against U.S. media operating in Russia and, eventually, elsewhere. Currently Western media
reports from Russia pretty much without being censored or pressured to avoid certain stories. I
would note a recent series that appeared on CBS featuring the repulsive
Stephen Colbert spending a week in Russia which
mercilessly lampooned both the country and its government. No one arrested him or made him
stop filming. No one claimed that he was trying to undermine the Russian government or
discredit the country's institutions, even though that is precisely what he was doing.
And then there is the issue of the "threat" posed by news media outlets like RT and Sputnik.
Even combined the two services have limited access to the U.S. market, with a 2014 study
suggesting that they have only 2.8 million
actual weekly viewers . RT did not make the cut and is not included on the list of 100 most
popular television channels in the U.S. and it has far less market penetration than other
foreign news services like the BBC. It can be found on only a limited number of cable networks
in a few, mostly urban areas. It does better in Europe, but its profile in the U.S. market is
miniscule. As even bad news is good news in terms of selling a product, it probably did receive
higher ratings when the intelligence agency report slamming it came out on it in January.
Everyone probably wanted to learn what RT was all about.
So it seems to me that the United States' moves against RT and Sputnik are little more than
lashing out at a problem that is not really a problem in a bid to again promote the Russian
"threat" to explain the ongoing dysfunction that prevails in America's democratic process. One
keeps reading or hearing how the American government has "indisputable" proof of Moscow's
intentions to subvert democracy in the U.S. as well as in Europe but the actual evidence is
still elusive. Will Russiagate end with a bang or a whimper? No one seems to know.
The irony is RT news is pretty much dominated by Progs and Leftists. It's not Russian
Nationalist or Conservative. But it features the kinds of Progs who do question and challenge
Globalist Oligarchs of the West.
They need Russia to be an enemy to justify their actions and the Europeans want to use the
US to threaten Russia. Its a shame this can't be generalized against all foreign agents of
influence. The US Mainstream Media is basically an arm of the Hasbara. Their guest from think
tanks are foreign agents of influence. Its not fun watching a bunch of foreigners and their
domestic owned Americans run the US Empire into the ground.
As psychopaths lose their grip over the target, they change from cool, calm, lie-to-your
face con men to pathetic, shrieking cartoons of themselves.
The shredders were working overtime, bleach bit, hammers, cell phones wiped, people bumped
off, closing up all of the criminal gangster operations of the government before Trump got
in.
They can't get rid of him, not suing for re-counts, not getting him declared incompetent,
not stage-managed riots of Soros stooges, not a fake dossier with Russian whores peeing on
the Donald's bed, not screeching about Russia
Eventually, if our Republic is worth a shit at all, these crimes will finally be
acknowledged and the hysteria over Russia will subside.
What the Russians appear to have clearly recognized is how to take advantage of the
corrupt nature of the western 'mainstream' press, an institution which has been co-opted by
western intelligence agencies for a very long time.
The Russian method? It could not be more simple; report the actual facts in the
geopolitical contest and when this is inconvenient, practice lies by omission
Depending on the geopolitical reality of the day, for instance whether the paranoid
ego-maniac Sultan Erdogan of Turkey is behaving well or not, the stories by western
dissident journalists that will withstand a close scrutiny are run in Russian or Russia
friendly media outlets. The result? Odds are 100:1 you'll get more reliable information
from Russian state TV or Russian sponsored websites than from ABC, CBS, CNN or NBC
My take from 10 or so months ago. I don't really think much has changed except for the
'Russia hacked the election' story is clearly more false than ever; with narcissism queen
Julian Assange holding the story hostage:
Russia has been remarkably restrained in its counteractions. But retaliate fully it will.
China is getting its retaliation in first, with plans for an oil futures market, trading in
yuan, in Shanghai already near completion. The days of the Petro-dollar seem numbered. Will
American hegemony collapse with a bang or a whimper? No one seems to know.
Either way, ten years from now, " Russiagate ", a fake scandal, will be almost completely
forgotten, rather like major real scandals earlier this century like Enron. The latter seems
to have been pushed right down the memory hole.
This is further evidence that the yankee regime walks and talks like a fascist duck. Its
deep state and its media acolytes, Carlos Slim's New York Times, CIA contractor Bezos'
Washington Post, PBS, the corporate parasite broadcast system, CNN, the Clinton News Network,
NBC, home of professional lesbian deepstate lackey Rachel Maddow, CBS and ABC (along with
government owned satellite state medias like BBC, CBC and Australia's ABC are quintessential
propaganda outlets. While the Russian outlets are naturally pro-Russian, they are less openly
propagandistic than the US-controlled propaganda press, which is on the side of barbarism in
its attitudes toward the middle east and NATO issues.
I actually find the quality of guests on RT to be far superior to what the British news
channels offer, embarrassingly so really as these guests seem easy enough to find whilst the
likes of the BBC believe the ill informed opinions of journalists is only of interest. RT UK
is also a lot more politically balanced with most of the media seemingly having ditched the
old ethos that they should at least make some vague attempt at balance. RT's coverage of the
migrant crisis was in stark contrast to the British media's cheer leading. In addition in the
past few years Palestine has completely disappeared from British screens however RT still
covers the occupation as well as matters such as the USS Liberty.
Anyway this does seem like part and parcel of the attempt to increasingly suppress the
press and free speech in the West, whether that is driven by lefty ideologues, zionists, an
unthinking security apparatus or a military with no purpose.
"... Russia is for and against Trump, and is thus destroying American democracy! We have always been at war with Eurasia! Freedom is slavery! ..."
"... The dangerous projection from the US elites where anyone and anything can be turned into something "evil" through the mere suggestion of any connection to Russia is no longer shocking--but that makes it no less disturbing and insidious. ..."
"... the whole thing is quite laughable, if it wasn't taken so seriously by so many doorknobs... ..."
"... b you are right to continue to focus on this issue. The Russia hysteria is beginning to burn itself out. However the msn and the Democrats are now beginning to focus on Google, Twitter and Facebook instead. Hillary last week gave a talk at Stanford calling for those companies to censure false news reports. If her plan was put into effect one of its targets would obviously be MoA along with hundreds of other outlets on both the left and the right that challenge the usual deep state "news" promoted by the mainstream news monopolies. ..."
"... Identifying all of the ways in which it was rigged is still open to debate, but we know for sure that during the primary the DNC manipulated the schedule for "Super Tuesday" so as to pad Clinton's lead with meaningless red states which would never turn out for her in the general, that numerous states also executed suspect purges of their voter roles in precincts leaning heavily toward Bernie Sanders, and that Clinton fraudulently secured the electoral votes of some 400 so-called "super delegates" in order to create the illusion she had popular support. ..."
"... Furthermore, we know that the DNC itself promoted Trump because they wrongly believed that he would be easier to beat in the general election. If anyone really adulterated our democracy during this election, it was the DNC and, as usual, the corporate media apparatus. But as with any large-scale CYA operation, the first order of business is to distract attention away from the domestic perpetrators by hyping up an external threat and projecting all manner of crimes to this shadowy enemy. ..."
"... If one looks at the recent history of which bills pass in congress, and how close the votes lie, it is very easy to see the BIG LIE that these people represent anything other than the corporate interests that pay them the most money. ..."
"... Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Hillary was the same, and I fully expect the next bunch of politicians to show even more stark symptoms. To expect the MSM to do other than purvey the lies and obfuscate and distract is simply an illogical and fallacious expectation - an expectation that money will never allow to be met. ..."
"... This entire Russiagate thing is a distraction, canard, red herring - pick your noun for falsity. It's purpose is to obfuscate other things the corporations and governments are doing elsewhere. Caveat emptor ..."
After the ludicrous "Russian hacking" claims have died down for lack of evidence, the
attention was moved to even more ludicrous claims of "Russian ads influenced the elections".
Some readers are upset that continue to debunk the nonsense the media spreads around this. But
lies should not stand without response. If only to blame the reporters and media who push this
dreck.
As evidence is also lacking for any "Russian interference" claims the media outlets have
started to push deceiving headlines. These make claims that are not covered at all by the
content of the related pieces. The headlines are effective because less than 20% of the viewers
ever read beyond them.
Google has found no ads that "Russia", the state or nation, has bought. There is also no
evidence that the ads in question interfered in any way with the election. There is evidence
that any of the ads in questions aimed to achieve that. The opener of the piece repeats the
false headline claims. But now we have "Russian agents", not "Russia", which allegedly did
something.
Google has found evidence that Russian agents bought ads on its wide-ranging networks in an
effort to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign.
The term "Russian agents" is not defined at all. Where these "secret agents" or Public
Relation professionals in Washington DC hired by some Russian entity?
Using accounts believed to be connected to the Russian government, the agents purchased
$4,700 worth of search ads and more traditional display ads, according to a person familiar
with the company's inquiry ...
"Accounts believed to be connected to the Russian government." Believed by
whom? And how is "connected" defined? Isn't any citizen "connected" to his or her
government?
Those believed , connected accounts bought a whopping $4,700 of ads?
Googles 2016 revenue was $89,000,000,000. The total campaign expenditures in 2016 were some
$6,000,000,000. The Clinton campaign spent some $480,000 on social network ads alone. But
something "Russian" spending $4,700 was "interference"?
But wait. There is more:
Google found a separate $53,000 worth of ads with political material that were purchased from
Russian internet addresses, building addresses or with Russian currency. It is not clear
whether any of those were connected to the Russian government, and they may have been
purchased by Russian citizens, the person said.
So now we are on to something. A full $53,000 worth of ads. But ....
The messages of those ads spanned the political spectrum. One account spent $7,000 on ads to
promote a documentary called "You've Been Trumped," a film about Donald J. Trump's efforts to
build a golf course in Scotland along an environmentally sensitive coastline. Another spent
$36,000 on ads questioning whether President Barack Obama needed to resign. Yet another
bought ads to promote political merchandise for Mr. Obama.
The film is anti-Trump. Obama not resigning would have been anti-Trump. Selling Obama
merchandise may have been good business, but is certainly not pro-Trump. So at least $43,000 of
a total of $53,000 mentioned above was spent by believed , connected
"Russians" on ads that promoted anti-Trump material. How does that fit with the claims that
"Russia" wished to get Trump elected? Putin pushed the wrong button?
The allegedly "Russian" Facebook ads were just
a click-bait scheme by some people trying to make money. The allegedly "Russian" Goggle ads
were of a volume that is unlikely to have made any difference in anything. They were also
anti-Trump.
Clinton lost because people on all sides had learned to dislike her policies throughout the
years. She was unelectable. Her party was and is acting against the interest of the common
people. No claim of anything "Russian" can change those facts.
But, But, But
It is OK when the US of A ( via NED, USAID aka CIA covert ops) does it in Iran, some African
countries, South American and even in Western Europe circa the '60's, to elect puppets
Clinton won the election. Trump winning the Electoral College doesn't change that. If anybody
has been repudiated by popular vote, it is Trump. It wasn't a huge win because the Democratic
Party platform of how great the economy is is not going to win big for the good and simply
reason it's BS. And black voters weren't going to turn out for a white candidate. If winning
the election is a moral endorsement and losing is conviction of sin, then it is Clinton who
was the angel and Trump who was the devil in the judgment of the American people. Seeing
Clinton supporters as demons serving evil just means you hate the American people.
Either the Trumpists are getting exactly what they wanted, which exposes them as shameful.
Or they got blindly picked the biggest liar because, stupid. It's a lose/lose situation.
Since the Electoral College has made the election moot, what is the point of savaging Clinton
except a desperate effort to apologize for Trump?
Russia is for and against Trump, and is thus destroying American democracy! We have
always been at war with Eurasia! Freedom is slavery!
The dangerous projection from the US elites where anyone and anything can be turned
into something "evil" through the mere suggestion of any connection to Russia is no longer
shocking--but that makes it no less disturbing and insidious.
if the Dems wanted to campaign for the NEXT election rather than the LAST one, they could try
opposing Trump on an actual issue... but I don't see Clinton doing squat for Puerto Rico, EPA
standards, Black Lives, health care, Yemen, education, etc. The truth is, she and her party
don't oppose Trump on anything except who won the last election and which country to threaten
next.
I stopped listening to Amy Goodman over a year ago when I got sick of hearing nothing but
this partisan BS, though once in a while I turn it on for a few minutes, and Goodman is STILL
going on and on about Trump v Clinton! but today I got to hear Julian Assange tell her off,
so it was worth it.
b you are right to continue to focus on this issue. The Russia hysteria is beginning to
burn itself out. However the msn and the Democrats are now beginning to focus on Google,
Twitter and Facebook instead. Hillary last week gave a talk at Stanford calling for those
companies to censure false news reports. If her plan was put into effect one of its targets
would obviously be MoA along with hundreds of other outlets on both the left and the right
that challenge the usual deep state "news" promoted by the mainstream news monopolies.
Johnson #2. You obviously do not understand the US constitution. It was crafted to
distribute political power to all of the States, not to just those with the largest
populations. That was done deliberately and carefully in order to get the 13 former colonies
to agree to joining a united states. That is why we have the electoral college and why each
of the states have exactly two US senators irrespective of their population. So you want to
abolish the electoral college? Well then change the US constitution. Of course keep in mind
that the constitution has a rule for that process too -- it requires that 2/3 of the states
agree. Good luck with trying that! Well you loyal Hillary sycophants should just go back and
continue to cry in your beers like the pathetic losers that you all are.
The 2016 election, as with every federal election since at least 2000, was rigged.
Identifying all of the ways in which it was rigged is still open to debate, but we
know for sure that during the primary the DNC manipulated the schedule for "Super Tuesday" so
as to pad Clinton's lead with meaningless red states which would never turn out for her in
the general, that numerous states also executed suspect purges of their voter roles in
precincts leaning heavily toward Bernie Sanders, and that Clinton fraudulently secured the
electoral votes of some 400 so-called "super delegates" in order to create the illusion she
had popular support.
Furthermore, we know that the DNC itself promoted Trump because they wrongly believed
that he would be easier to beat in the general election. If anyone really adulterated our
democracy during this election, it was the DNC and, as usual, the corporate media apparatus.
But as with any large-scale CYA operation, the first order of business is to distract
attention away from the domestic perpetrators by hyping up an external threat and projecting
all manner of crimes to this shadowy enemy.
It's been the same tired song and dance in this country since forever, and I don't think
it'll ever change, especially not with almost universal control of the government, media,
finance, and industry by the money-printing fifth column.
If one looks at the recent history of which bills pass in congress, and how close the
votes lie, it is very easy to see the BIG LIE that these people represent anything other than
the corporate interests that pay them the most money.
The 'differences' they postulate and promulgate across media are of things
inconsequential, or of things that can never be wholly resolved with laws and regulations.
When important things arise, they are locked away in committee or alleged 'deadlock'. What
bills do pass are always, not sometimes, but always those that enrich their own pockets in
some way.
Those that believe in either cause, Democrat or Republican, are avoiding the truth staring
them in the face. They prefer the old reality we lived in where news could be controlled via
5 or 6 media outlets. They prefer The Matrix to the reality of where we exist today.
The truth is slowly oozing out, even as these parasitic creatures shovel and shove it back
under rocks and into overflowing waste bins. The result of this is apathy in extremis. This
will continue until a disaster or collapse of some part of the existing system forces people
to act for change.
Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Hillary was the same, and I fully expect the next
bunch of politicians to show even more stark symptoms. To expect the MSM to do other than
purvey the lies and obfuscate and distract is simply an illogical and fallacious expectation
- an expectation that money will never allow to be met.
This entire Russiagate thing is a distraction, canard, red herring - pick your noun
for falsity. It's purpose is to obfuscate other things the corporations and governments are
doing elsewhere. Caveat emptor
Last week saw the Senate Intelligence Committee going after Russia's influence in the "free
market places of ideas": Twitter, Facebook, etc. Senators fulminated over Twitter's failure to
appreciate the magnitude of the danger of Russia's interference in free elections. Cartoonists
lampooned Russia with caricatures of the famous Russian military parades showing the Facebook
and Twitter logos as displays in the parade along with tanks and missiles.
Suddenly the Senate was all atwitter over, well, Twitter. Who's feeding this sudden
awareness?
The recently created Alliance for Securing Democracy, housed (at least for now) at the
German Marshall Fund--USA is one of the core anti-Putin, anti-Russia operations that merits
keeping an eye on, especially as it impacts Congressional hearings, resolutions, and media.
It's an alliance of hard core neo-cons who were in the thick of promoting the 2003 Iraq war and
the "axis of evil" attacks on Iran-Iraq-North Korea during Bush 43 administration, with the
hillary-cons.
They're determined to turn up the heat against Moscow, not just in the United States, but to
spread the Cold War mania to Europe through its GMF network.
For now, the Alliance's money seems to be limited, but it is a clear move to migrate the
"Never Trump" Republicans into alliance with the Democratic Party, even further polluting and
destroying that party on the foreign policy front.
With a network of some 2 dozen operatives in the USA and Europe (including former Assistant
Secretary of Defense under Obama, Derek Chollet) the Alliance for Securing Democray blog is
churning out steady stream of articles about Russian interference in elections (including big
focus on the latest German elections) and demanding that Congress take action to further
investigate/stop Russian interference in said elections. They claim to be monitoring 600
Russian twitter accounts that they think are threatening democracy.
A significant part of the apparatus comes from the group, Foreign Policy Initiative which
went belly up in August, 2017, when it ceased operations. According to The Nation, FPI's demise
was largely due to the dropping off of funds in 2017 after the Trump election. The FPI was led
by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. These "never Trump'ers" were apparently an albatross after
the 2016 elections for some Republican and conservative deep pockets who always want to keep a
path open to the White House, no matter who they preferred.
Now Kristol has a new home on the Advisory Board of the Alliance for Securing Democracy
along with Michael Chertoff, and the anti-Putin ex-Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. Also
on the Board is Jake Sullivan, a top Hillary operative at the State Dept. Chertoff recently
landed a Wall Street Journal article on September 6 th , headlined, Congress Can
Help Prevent Election Hacking. I expect there will be a lot of Congressional action on this
front if the "Alliance for Securing Democracy" has its way.
Securing democracy? The crowd that brought us Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011?
Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald did an impressive first expose of this outfit in
July of this year, identifying the alliance between the war party neo-cons and the Democratic
Party, but there's a lot more to watch in its continuing operations to promote its Cold War
agenda, especially in Congress.
these neo con bloodsuckers are becoming irrelevant.. sure, they continue to suck on the blood
of a number of countries, but it is going to come to an end. if fact, it looks like the end
is in motion at present.. they want their war where-ever, and the corporations are all in tow
on this.. meanwhile ordinary people can see it for what it is..
i saw an article in fox news from kagan.. what was interesting were the comments in
response to his drivel... it gave me hope that people who are crazy enough to even read
something on fox news, can see bullshit when they see it and are willing to call it as such..
people aren't beholden to the western msm as much as some would like to think..
How can ordinary people, like me, be informed and make sound decisions? Common sense with a
strong bu****t meter helps. But there's so much going on and cross currents.
- Personally I don't think there has ever been a 'reset'.
It's the same as it ever was - they are still there operating in plain sight & pulling
the strings & levers of power in both the US Senate & Congress, of course the
influence of the AIPAC 'bloc' cannot be overlooked.
HRC was their candidate, as was BHO, as was Bush the younger, as was WJC et al.
PNAC is alive & well, the plan is still to destroy any nation which can independently
produce/supply hydrocarbons outside of the control of the US/Saudi hydrocarbon cartel, or act
as a third party transit corridor to China or Europe.
These nations typically fall foul of 'coloured revolutions', or ethinc minorities within
them - normally Sunni Muslims suddenly become the victims of 'ethnic cleansing' by State Govt
forces, no proof of this (pictures, moving images etc is ever provided by the MSM). The issue
is presented to the world as an 'uman rights issue. Often local Sunni extremists (sometime in
neighbouring states) then wage 'Jihad' & thus the state in question is totally destroyed
& 'Balkanised in the process.
Coupled with this is the ongoing operation to isolate Russian geopolitical & economic
influence over Festung Europa whilst drawing an ever more 'Balkanized 'Europa' into more
reliance on US influenced sources of hydrocarbons.
Simultaneous to this is the encirclement of Russia on 3 sides with THAAD style weapons
& conventional military forces to create a preemptive Nuclear/Conventional Strike
Scenario a reality.
In the Asia Pacific region its also a similar plan directed against China.
All of this is directly linked to maintaining the economic hegemony of the US 'Empire'
into the 21st Century.
Its not that simple to work out or follow.
Just my vacant ramblings this fine Monday morning 'downunder' feel free to rip it apart as
you wish.
Myanmar - shaping up to become a new hydrocarbon overland transit route from the Gulf for
China (avoiding the Malacca Straights maritime chokepoint) in exchange for an invitation into
the OBOR Project - Well it was until -
All of a sudden the Royhingas have been murdered en masse & driven into exile into
neighbouring Bangladesh (incidentally has anybody actually seen ANY pictorial moving footage
evidence of ANY of this?)
Bangladesh ... where the 'jihad' to avenge the Royhinga pogrom will be launched into
Myanmar ... has just 'accepted' an offer from the Kingdom of Saudi to construct hundreds of
new Mosques & Madrassas ... the perfect breeding ground to hatch a new generation of
Jihadis in SE Asia. Bangladesh will be in a perfect geographic position to threaten
neighbouring Indian provinces too. India has the largest Muslim population outside of the
Muslim world. There several million Bangladeshi migrant workers inside The Gulf states
working for a pittance ... who knows what some of them are up too.
Catlonia ... is/was setting itself up as a major LNG entry point into the EU from North
Africa ... primarily Algeria, since the predicted US 'Shale Boom' has not actually
materialised in sufficient volume to 'wean' the EU away from Russian Gas supplies.
Syria & now the likely formation of this quasi Kurdish state straddling the Shia
Crescent ... it really IS all about the Gas ... how can the Syrian state access its
hydrocarbons & move them abroad to the foreign market if somebody else has been
encouraged to create a quasi state right on top of them?
The Phillipines ... the southern half of the Island chain is predominantly Muslim &
since Duterte began making friendly overtures to regional players i.e. China they now have a
full blown 'insurgency' in the south despite plenty of US Military hardware in the very local
region (or is id direcly BECAUSE of the proximity of US Military forces?).
Nah. You couldn't've, because you were running on empty why you started your screed.
>>>The Phillipines ... the southern half of the Island chain is predominantly
Muslim & since Duterte began making friendly overtures to regional players i.e. China
they now have a full blown 'insurgency' in the south ...
A) Mindanao is the locus of the insurgency, and it has been that way ever since Spain
annexed it into its "The Philippines" administrative region.
B) The Muslim population of Mindanao is hardly the "southern half" of the Philippines; at
best, they are the "Southern sixteenth."
C) The Muslim portion of the "Southern Half of the Island Chain" makes up a total of about
6% of the total population of the Philippines. How you jump from there to "the southern half
of the Island chain is predominantly Muslim" is beyond me. That's simply factually false.
D) Duterte's overtures towards China have been overwhelmingly supported by the local
population, a vast number of whom have relatives who are overseas laborers working in
Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Canton/Guangdong, etc. In fact, the local Muslims in Mindanao
were trained by the US, and those currently financed by the Saudis (and, in the 70s, trained
by the U.S.) are staunchly opposed to Duterte's campaign to open up the Philippines to
Chinese investment.
Long-story-short: you're wrong on pretty much everything I am in a position to criticize
you on, and I suspect the rest of your screed can be similarly debunked.
Yep, the usual economic determinism mumbo jumbo from this guy, an epidemic in amateur and
professional poli sci circles conducting analysis on US geopolitical actions since 2003. Cast
aside the wide scope of history into the dustbin and focus on the US as some omnipotent robot
machine that runs on plundered oil. If the Colonel is reading this, what got me hooked on SST
was a comment of his back in 2014 in which he shot down that economic determinism crap as it
related to Iraq
It is just beyond belief that the majority of these clowns continue to be treated as if they
have a shred of credibility left or that their ideas carry ANY weight when it comes to their
outrageously incompetent foreign policy decisions/actions. That their ideological ideas have
any value at all, particularly when there has been no admission of a mistake or a
reorientation of their ideas, is just astounding. To be wrong so repeatedly and so publicly
should have engendered a least some, however small, sense of shame or humility.
On the other hand, it says something about our polity, too, that we continue to tolerate
this bullshit.
'On the other hand, it says something about our polity, too, that we continue to tolerate
this bullshit.'
absolutely. that these clowns, along with the various members of the pundit class
(friedman, krugman) who, after being repeatedly wrong about any number of things, continue to
be provided their bully pulpits tells you all you really need to know...
Every time I read about William Kristol's latest career move I am reminded of those old
Hammer Horror movies with Christopher Lee.
The dude comes to a grisly end in every movie, yet there he is in the next one, back from
the grave and - inevitably - none the wiser for the experience.
Ol' Dracula never once stops to think: Ya' know what, these always end badly. Maybe I
should sit this one out?
I just finished Simon Montefiore's two books on Stalin (Young Stalin and The Court of the Red
Czar).
With every passing day, the Neo-Cons and their fellow travelers are introducing the Soviet
method into American politics: Denunciations, Conspiracies, and the Never-Ending Search for
Wreckers.
Jacob Heilbrunn, via, I know, I know, the NYT. But, Heilbrunn, JULY 5, 2014
WASHINGTON -- AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative
movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama,
not the movement's interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era
Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.
Does anyone remember the curious renaissance of the neocons? Quite a time before the
election officially started or heated up?
Iraq, looked at in hindsight with the appropriate and needed distance in time, may not
have been that wrong after all? At least once there was someone else to blame? The
appropriate public period of repentance seemed to be over. New servants available, that might
escape the probling public eye?
Now the Americans may not have chosen the right "cherry blossom king" (Tyler) in their
opinion, or backed the right horse in the race. But does that matter? Strictly, hadn't the
winner delivered the new meme variant quite dutifully?
One has to keep open to twists of fate, seize the day, I would assume Trump knows that
too. Let's see. ...
******
Yes, now I remember a tale in Boccaccio's The Decameron, Sixth Day, Tenth Tale, Friar
Cipolla and a Feather of the Angel Gabriel. Which might fit. One of my favorites really.
I just finished Simon Montefiore's two books on Stalin (Young Stalin and The Court of the
Red Czar).
Judging by the "level" of Western historic narrative (granted with some notable
exceptions) on Russian/Soviet history of the 20th Century, I would be very cautious when
reading anything from Great Britain, especially from people with Montefiore's background. Not
to mention people who praise him--from WSJ, NYT etc. Western awareness of actual, real
Russian history is extremely low.
This is the first I've heard of the German Marshall Fund other than on The Ministry of
Information, I mean NPR, they are occasionally mentioned as providing money for some of the
propaganda uh, programming. I thought it was a fund to thank us for lending Les Boches a
helping hand after we were done bombing them to smithereens.
100% with you my rational thinking brother. I have another post here somewhere, Facebook
excecs had to be asked 3 times before they "found" these alleged Russian election changing
ads- just writing that makes me laugh- and stated that approximately 56% of these ads only
ran after the election. I mean we no those evil Russians are ultra cunning and highly
sophisticated but even so that takes some doing.
And the NSA, GCHQ, CIA does not have trolls apparently despite their massive budgets? Bear in
mind lefty news outlets are favourite covers for western security services. An example of
this is Kim Philby who while ostensibly working for MI6 was posted to the middle east working
for the Sunday edition. You know before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed the wall to
wall anti-Russian propaganda and the extremely close relationship between the Clinton
campaign and the US media indicates the trolls are running mainstream media in the US and the
UK.
It's the sense of entitlement that gets me, candidates throw as much questionable campaign
contributions at an election (such as Singer) and believe the electorate has a duty to vote
for them, and if the dont then the it must of been because of the opposition corruption and
the stupidity of the lower orders rather than incompetence or policy failure such as
representing wall St. rather than main St. on their part.
I'll do that English course when I have time, at the moment - and for the foreseeable- future
I'm flat out ridiculing the Russia-gate nonsense and the fools who are eager to champion any
old nonsense, no matter how ludicrous and continue to do so even when it is comprehensively
demolished.
There is tonnes of more proof that refugee numbers in Europe and the illegal bombing of Libya
and arming of 'rebels' in Syria are connected, yet everyone avoids that question.
There is also video proof that McCain and Nuland had incited the violent overthrow of the
elected government in Ukraine a few years ago. Before accusing me of being a Russian troll, I
am Hungarian.
Facebook spending by "russia" $100,000, unclear that was russian government.
Presidential salary of Bill Clinton $400,000/year. Clinton's at start had little net worth
according to them, now they have estimated net worth of $110 million+, much of it comes from
speeches, including to groups in places like Saudi Arabia.
Clinton foundation charity received donations from foreign governments and individuals,
including millions from some in saudi arabia. Not possible to see exact amounts.
US spending in ukraine over 20 years according to politfacts.com: About $2.4 billion went
to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border
security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement
interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing
justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic
growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million).... of course not all money
by CIA may be disclosed here.
I suspect Russia, US, and many other countries do spend on influencing other countries,
small potatoes though compared to how much Hillary and Trump spent, and those hundreds of
millions of dollars given to Hillary and Trump were probably partially to influence/bribe
them for later government decisions.
Are you not embarrassed writing this?
McCarthy is dead, the 50s are over, the Soviet Union no longer exists, The Billion Dollar
Brain and Dr Strangelove was not advice on how to run a successful US foreign policy, nobody
believes this nonsense anymore.
Quite honestly it is articles like this make me wish the Guardian would hurry up and go
bankrupt, although I hope your more reputable Journalists (such as Larry Elliot) continue
their journalism in another form. You are dragging a paper with a proud history from
Manchester radicalism into the mud and besmirching real journalists trying to carry out real
journalism.
To quote another 'article' in the Guardian (I use the word loosely) that does not have
comments "Russian operatives spent thousands of dollars on Google ads, source claims". Really
$1000s of Dollars, there are pet food ad campaigns that spend more than this.
Is the Guardian world news just run out of somebody else's office?
Yes, lets follow the money, using facts who made campaign contributions to the Democratic
and Republican party.
Yes, there is a conspiracy all right, it's the old one of the plutocrats conspiring
against the poor. To ensure their man or woman would represent wall street not the electorate
such as by ensuring Sanders was blocked by the super delegates. Then trying to ensure the
more finance friendly candidate became president, such as by google working closely with the
Clinton campaign. And no this is not misogyny as Bill Clinton was Americas worst domestic
president in history. 3 strikes and you're out, workfare mass incarceration of black people,
deregulation of finance. George W gets the crown as worst US president in foreign affairs due
to Iraq.
And the Russians according to evidence free speculation spent $1000s and were successful?
You are aware that $1.4bn is larger than $1000s? The US are obviously not very good at
advertising or capatalism or democracy, and if you want a cost-effective ad campaign go to
Russia, as nobody in history has run such a cost effective ad campaign where 1000s can be
more effective than Bns.
Quite frankly I am insulted this article is being presented in what used to be a reputable
newspaper.
For a good laugh go to Consotiumnews. com, read the article headed The mystery of the
Russiagate puppies. There is a lot there but essentially Clinton's desperate losers would
have us believe that a page set up for puppy lovers was Trojan horse to start slipping in
anti Clinton stuff. Those evil evil Rooskies, is there no end to their perfidy! puppies! is
nothing sacred?! A line that got a laugh for me is:' if some fact, like the puppies page
doesn't seem to fit the sinister conspiracy theory you simply pound it into place until it
does
If we can only fully understand something by following the money Diana, why does your
organisation, the Center for American Progress Action Fund - which Politico says 'openly runs
political advocacy campaigns, and plays a central role in the Democratic Party's
infrastructure' - refuse to disclose who its donors are?
There's a mountain of pig flop, most of the alleged "evidence" has collapsed under relatively
mild scrutiny. Remember the "hacked" voting machines and electric utility computer system?
not only not the evil Russians, just didn't happen at all and there are other tissue thin
bits of "evidence". No convincing any of Clinton's sore loser bleaters of course but I assume
you are aware that 25% of the alleged Russian ads were not viewed by anyone and that many
were not run til AFTER the election. Is there no end to those devilish Rooskies that they can
impact an election result AFTERWARDS!
It wasn't the entire US intelligence community - it was hand picked representatives from four
agencies. By the way, how are you going with all those weapons of mass destruction that the
entire US intelligence community was so sure of?
Let me get this straight. The USA, which holds the modern record for interfering in other
people's elections, for engineering coups, for doing dodgy deals with cocaine and heroin
merchants to fund death squads, which BOASTED (on the front cover of Time no less) of fixing
the 1996 election in Russia, has now got it's tits in a tangle because some maybe, might be,
could possibly be if you hold them edge on against a red light, Russians bought some Facebook
ads. Seriously?
Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad
In previous elections China has been linked to helping Democrats I don't see anyone
complaining, perhaps because the Democrats won. The USA, under a Democratic Preisdent spent
nearly $100 million dollars on an attempt to affect the election of an ally Israel in a vain
attempt to get rid of Netanyahu as Prime Minister. Welcome to politics.
> So, it's not Facebook's problem that they are aiding and abetting treason?
So, if the let's say an entity connected to the US government pays for an article/ advert
that could be linked to some protests or a controversial issue in a foreign country, then the
entity who sold the media space is guilty of treason?
Be careful what you wish for.
The reason you don't even see how wrong you points to the fact that the US is a
semi-totalitarian state already.
So wait, I'm trying to follow the logic of continuing to beat the Russia drum after it's so
clearly jumped the shark. Let me see if I understand...
What you're now telling me is that Clinton and her cadre of policy wonks and election
experts had the entire media behind them (including the owners of Google, Facebook, Twitter,
etc.) and spent $1,200,000,000 to win the election.
Nevertheless, they still lost against *Donald Trump*. ...Because...because the Russians
"hacked the election" with $150,000 and a few online trolls. Is this what it's come to? Say
it ain't so.
Also, why isn't the actual content of these election-changing ads being disclosed? What
did they say? What propaganda did "The Russians" use that was so effective on the American
public?
I mean, did "The Russians" promote any ideas that were actually *more* offensive than what
the Guardian publishes on a daily basis? I'd like to see the Russian identity politics ads to
compare...
The only trolls are the ones claiming that unproven allegations of Russians buying a handful
of ads on facebook are somehow more important than the fact that both our political parties
are owned and operated by private corporate interests.
> Only through this method can we fully understand the Russian corporate hydra behind the
ad buys
Lol. I am here with my popcorn to be entertained. Bring it on.
American politicians spend billions on their campaigns , but, sure, facebook has to
investigate those few allegedly Russian linked ads. They are just a drop in a sea of
political propagandizing and manipulation that goes on daily.
Also, how does this align with the freedom of speech? The way I look at it - as long as
information is truthful, it doesn't matter what source it is coming from, friendly or
unfriendly. Going after the source just because you don't like what being said seems to be
the old method of killing the messenger.
And who is the author of this article? "Diana Pilipenko is a principal investigator for
the Moscow Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund."
It figures. Someone who works for whatever "Center for American Progress Action Fund" is.
She is basically a lobbyist.
Whats truly laughable is this whole "was Russia involved" witch-hunt particularly in light of
all the US involvement in swinging Latin American elections etc for DECADES! We are basically
encouraging the people who live in glass houses to throw as many stones as possible and get
away with it!
Much as I don't like Trump that whole "was Russia involved in the Hillary-wikileaks" was
also purely a diversionary tactic. Don't talk about the content talk about who might have
provided it. Personally I don't care whether it was North Korea who dug it up, what should
have been THE story was the appalling corrupt stuff that was in those shocking leaks, and it
surely would have been front-page news for months had the target been Sanders or Trump and
not Wall Streets chosen favourite! IMHO we the public are being taken for mugs!
During the Cold War you had "Team B" looking for non-existent nefarious Russian schemes. It
was staffed by the now infamous Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
At least they looked into matters of import such as nuclear missiles and submarines, this
is more like "Team Z".
Ironically the people devoting the most effort to investigating Russiagate are
Wolofowitz/Rumsfeld's brothers in arms from the Iraq days, like Bill Kristol.
The FSB chief and Putin must be having a right laugh. Western journos who are still sore over
HRC losing the American Presidential Election are making for the best unpaid shills to extol
Russian intelligence and political power.
It seems to me that pundits like the one that wrote this risible article are doing far more
to promote KGB and Russian propaganda around the world and in the West than the Russians
themselves, through their screaming of "BIG BAD RUSSIAN BEAR!!!!!" from every soap box they
can find.
Putin should invite them to the Kremlin and decorate them for service to the Motherland.
Even CIA couldn't dream of such mythologising by the mass media.
"Some have argued that $150,000 is an insignificant fraction of the total spent on political
ads in 2016 ..."
0.00153% to be exact. Same proportion of total voters who voted for anybody would be 2000
people. Or 0.115 cents per voter. Yeah, this is a big news story.
I cannot resist another analogy. A Super Bowl commercial (and we all know what big fans of
the NFL the Left is) goes for $5 million per 30 seconds. The amount mentioned in this article
would buy a 900 millisecond ad (that's 0.9 seconds for those who missed it). Need some good
subliminal flash advertising to get your money's worth.
Let me know when the investigation reveals that the $150,000 spent on Facebook ads by the
Russians starts to be significant compared to the $9.8 billion spent on the campaign adverts.
Clinton vastly outspent Trump and still lost because she was a deplorable candidate.
Some have argued that $150,000 is an insignificant fraction of the total spent on
political ads
And they would be correct. Out of the $7 billion or so spent on the American elections,
it's a piddling amount. However, you are clinging to it for dear life because, almost a year
on, you can't accept that Clinton was a horrible candidate, so much so that even someone as
obscene as Trump could beat her (and yes I know she got more votes thank you very much).
You're really coming across as desperate now. Not a good look.
Most of these ads look more like click bait than any kind active measures campaign. As usual,
there is no evidence that the ads are in anyway connected to the Russian government. Even if
they were, $150,000 worth of ads are insignificant in an election where over $1billion was
spent on digital advertising. American elites should spend more time pondering how their
policy failures contributed to Trump's election and less chasing the chimera of Russian
interference.
This whole Russian meddling is getting more and more absurd. Clinton spent billions on
advertising and lost. Some supposed Russian investors spent thousands on puppy photo sites as
part of a cunning plan to suck Americans in. Russia is behind black lives matter, Russia is
behind taking the knee at american football matches, Russia is behind the Catalan referendum,
Russia is behind Brexit, Russia is probably behind the Dove advert. And anyone who finds the
whole farrago of mudslinging at Russia is obviously a Putinbot from a troll farm somewhere in
St Petersburg. The lunatics have very definitely taken over the asylum in America.
Roy Greenslade wrote an excellent column today on fake news. The hysteria regarding Russian
involvement in US politics could well be a prime example of which Roy writes. The Nation, in
an article titled Russiagate Is More
Fiction Than Fact details exactly how this tale of innuendo, supposition but very little
evidence has been pushed. The Nation examines in detail the Facebook accusations, and
records:
Then there is Facebook's disclosure that fake accounts "likely operated out of Russia"
paid $100,000 for 3,000 ads starting in June 2015. The New York Times editorial board
described it as "further evidence of what amounted to unprecedented foreign invasion of
American democracy." A $100,000 Facebook ad buy seems unlikely to have had much impact in a
$6.8 billion election. According to Facebook, "the vast majority of ads didn't specifically
reference the US presidential election, voting or a particular candidate" but rather
focused "on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological
spectrum -- touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun
rights." Facebook also says the majority of ads, 56 percent, were seen "after the
election." The ads have not been released publicly. But by all indications, if they were
used to try to elect Trump, their sponsors took a very curious route.
The ads are commonly described as "Russian disinformation," but in the most extensive
reporting on the story to date, The Washington Post adds multiple qualifiers in noting that
the ads "appear to have come from accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency,"
itself a Kremlin-linked firm (emphasis added).
The Post also reveals that an initial Facebook review of the suspected Russian accounts
found that they "had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren't working for
a foreign government." Furthermore, "the security team did not find clear evidence of
Russian disinformation or ad purchases by Russian-linked accounts." But Russiagate logic
requires a unique response to absent evidence: "The sophistication of the Russian tactics
caught Facebook off-guard."
Would it be too much to ask for actual evidence of Russian interference, rather than this
leap to conviction?
The official US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. that excludes any
friendship. The best that can be done is to avoid WWIII. And due to Putin patience that might be
possible. After Putin is gone, who knows. If nationalist come to power, the neocon might
really feel the depth of Russian anger at the US imperial policies.
Bunch of neocons travel to Moscow to test waters for rapprochement. After then pissed Russia
and launched neo-McCarthyism campaign for the last two years... such a great diplomats.
Those neocons completely poisoned the well and now want to drink clean water. No way.
Notable quotes:
"... President Vladimir Putin's recent hint that the Kremlin could cut another 155 people from the number permitted to work at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. ..."
"... because Mr. Putin does not seem to feel real pressure from U.S. sanctions, he is unlikely to be disposed to offer major concessions to the United States simply to reach agreement, especially in the runup to Russia's 2018 presidential elections ..."
"... Keep pretending that Russia has hacked your elections. There is zero interest from the US side in improving relations and we know this quite well here. There is no question that the fat defense and intelligence budgets and all the extra power that the spooks now got is a direct outcome of destroyed Russia-US relations. The democrats sour grapes and election rigging cover up with Russiagate is also undeniable. Keep living the lie ..."
"... It is sad that the media, the Democratic party, and the "deep state" are all working together to try to keep the phony Trump-Russia collusion story alive - but it has almost run its course and less and less people believe it. ..."
"... The US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. That is a very foolish and self defeating way in the 21st century. The West would have been better off when the bankers did not have such controls and the American congress grew real courage and paid down the national debt. ..."
"... I don't know to what degree the author of this article and those he went with have real influence on either side, but we, the American public, have yet to be presented with any real proof that Russia (and specifically its government, directly) actually did anything significant with regard to the election. To the degree that we've been shown any evidence, it appears completely inconsequential, extremely minor dabbling at most. The latest is that "Russia" (nebulously defined) spent $100,000 on Facebook ads... Meanwhile the Clinton campaign spent $1 BILLION. This is a joke. ..."
"... The situation in Ukraine is a million times more of a significant obstacle to improved relations. ..."
"... Russia and US have all the reasons to be adversaries. Because US seeks global domination but will never be able to achieve it as long as Russia exists as subject of global politics. US invests huge resources into making harm to Russia in every possible way. And it been this way at least since Truman administration. ..."
"... NATO cannot save a non-existent failed state. There are at least three different and geographically separate Ukraines. Catholic Galicia has nothing to do with the rest of the country. And the East wants to separate. It is another case of former Yugoslavia. ..."
"... trump was given a choice by the deep state of you either work with us or else... so he has become a puppet of the swamp ..."
Russian officials were largely dismissive of U.S. and European economic sanctions, which some
indirectly credit with significantly strengthening Russia's agricultural sector -- to such an
extent that they claimed Russian products may fiercely compete in Europe if and when the
European Union eases it sanctions and Russia lifts its protectionist counter-sanctions. Indeed,
the U.S. Department of State itself asserted in 2016 that a loss of
"at most 1 percent of GDP can be potentially explained by sanctions" as opposed to declining
global energy prices. The combination of "at most" and "potentially" in this sentence suggests
that there is little empirical evidence that sanctions have caused real damage to Russia's
economy. Moreover, since U.S. sanctions could account for only a small part of this -- because
Europe's economic
relationship with Russia is far larger than America's -- there is no reason to think that
new U.S. sanctions, which have yet to be fully implemented, will make a material difference at
the macroeconomic level. (The State Department did find that sanctioned companies appeared to
lose significant revenue and assets.) Still, some officials did privately admit that the
sanctions undermine Russia's investment climate, especially among foreign investors.
At the same time, however, some officials reacted quite strongly to the Trump
administration's decision to close Russia's consulate in San Francisco, the latest move in an
escalating diplomatic spat that began with the Obama administration's expulsion of thirty-five
Russian diplomats and seizure of two diplomatic properties in December, following a widely
publicized intelligence community report on Russia's election interference.
Even in this area, however, our interlocutors seemed to prefer curtailing the dispute over
extending it -- notwithstanding President Vladimir Putin's recent hint that
the Kremlin could cut another 155 people from the number permitted to work at the U.S. Embassy
in Moscow.
Yet containing this battle between the State Department and Russian Foreign Ministry
bureaucracies may well be the easiest step in working toward a functional U.S.-Russia
relationship. Far more important and more challenging will be addressing Russia's election
interference, which has poisoned the relationship to an extent that Russian officials -- who
describe the matter strictly as a U.S. partisan slugfest brought on by sour-grapes Democrats --
did not seem to appreciate....
... Russia's
diplomatic, economic, military and security officials will each seek to pursue their own
objectives, sometimes contradicting one another. Also, because Mr. Putin does not seem to
feel real pressure from U.S. sanctions, he is unlikely to be disposed to offer major
concessions to the United States simply to reach agreement, especially in the runup to Russia's
2018 presidential elections .
Thus "getting to yes" on these or other issues will take
persistence and creativity.
Paul J. Saunders, associate publisher of the National Interest, is executive director of
the Center for the National Interest.
Keep pretending that Russia has hacked your elections. There is zero interest from the
US side in improving relations and we know this quite well here. There is no question that
the fat defense and intelligence budgets and all the extra power that the spooks now got is a
direct outcome of destroyed Russia-US relations. The democrats sour grapes and election
rigging cover up with Russiagate is also undeniable. Keep living the lie
I agree with you that Russia probably did not hack the US elections. Julian Assange, head
of WikiLeaks, has made it quite clear that he received the Clinton campaign emails from
elsewhere. (and he has a 100% history of being truthful with regard to what he releases) But
I would say to Russia to not give up on better relations with America. It is true that the
"deep state" and the Military Industrial Complex make a lot of money from "bad relations"
with Russia, but I think Trump understands that improving relations will be good for both
sides and potentially save a lot of money for America's citizens. Give it some time.....
Wow, good to hear a sober voice! I have felt some backlash personally in the commercial
world, and it really feels nasty (basically just like racism), especially since I feel like
1/2 American, having lived in the US for 11 years. So this has gone very deep even in private
sector.
Not too sure about good prospects coming up soon. I'm following both the foreign and domestic
policies of the current government in Washington and its a bit scary - Cuba, Nicaragua,
Venezuela, NK, China, Iran - all are becoming enemies, sanctions reintroduced, and all the
ultra-right wing stuff home like getting rid of health insurance, removing all regulations,
now 20% poverty rate in CA, I don't recognize the country I used to live a couple decades
ago!
It is sad that the media, the Democratic party, and the "deep state" are all working
together to try to keep the phony Trump-Russia collusion story alive - but it has almost run
its course and less and less people believe it. It is now looking like it was the Obama Admin's justice department that actually paid for the phony "Trump Dossier" that was used as
an excuse to wiretap the Trump campaign. Once that story blows up (Senator Grassley has
subpoenaed the background docs) I think you will see a rapid improvement in relations.
pavel , Russia made
its choices. The onus is not on the US to pacify Russia with any standard of proof that it
may find convincing. Its up to the US authorities to interpret the Russian actions as being
either confrontational or friendly. Russia has no say over it.
The US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. That is a very foolish and self
defeating way in the 21st century. The West would have been better off when the bankers did
not have such controls and the American congress grew real courage and paid down the national
debt.
It is testimony to the gross malfeasance of American media and pols (both sides but
especially Ds like both idiotic Clintons) that America has no working relationship with
Russia. The good news, once again in time Trump will be proved right.
I don't know to what degree the author of this article and those he went with have real
influence on either side, but we, the American public, have yet to be presented with any real
proof that Russia (and specifically its government, directly) actually did anything
significant with regard to the election. To the degree that we've been shown any evidence, it
appears completely inconsequential, extremely minor dabbling at most. The latest is that
"Russia" (nebulously defined) spent $100,000 on Facebook ads... Meanwhile the Clinton
campaign spent $1 BILLION. This is a joke.
But apparently this group went over there and acted as if the American people are
outraged. No, dishonest Democrat hacks and never-Trump Republicans inside the Beltway are
obsessed with it, because they hate the outcome of the election and want to discredit Trump.
But they've been fishing for a year and a half and can't find anything, despite furiously
leaking every innuendo they can, that turns out to be a false smear against Trump and
completely falls apart on inspection.
The situation in Ukraine is a million times more of a significant obstacle to improved
relations.
"If Russia can't be trusted to respect the borders of its neighbors, we can't have good
relations."
Says who? Citizen of a country which invaded 100+ countries since 1890, including Russia
twice? Learn how to respect borders and sovereignity or others yourself. Otherwise it is not
going to end well for you.
Given your namesake, I'm not sure what point you think you're making. My point is that
now, today, the US and Russia have no reason to be adversaries. The past is the past. This is
just practical reality. We have allies in Europe who are worried about Russian expansionism.
Again, because of your namesake. If Russia makes moves to its west, relations cannot
improve.
"My point is that now, today, the US and Russia have no reason to be adversaries."
Russia and US have all the reasons to be adversaries. Because US seeks global domination
but will never be able to achieve it as long as Russia exists as subject of global politics.
US invests huge resources into making harm to Russia in every possible way. And it been this
way at least since Truman administration.
'This is just practical reality."
Exactly. And reality is that US stirs up troubles all over the world, including sphere of
vital interests of Russia like Ukraine.
"We have allies in Europe who are worried about Russian expansionism."
Russian expansionism? Oh please, there never was any at all. Its been EXACTLY Europe which
hundreds of times tried to expand into Russia. The only way Russia expanded over centuries
was by defeating and absorbing those who tried to conquer Russia first. If western degenerate
elites will not learn this important lesson, of cource Russia will defeat and absorb the
west. It will be civilizational self defense.
You better leave Russia alone, and stop meddling in its business.
" If Russia makes moves to its west, relations cannot improve."
Russia does not need any improvement in relations with the west. At all. Over centuries we
learned that force is only language you barbarians do understand. You can not be reasoned
with. That is why we will always keep you at the gunpoint. And out gun will always be bigger
than yours.
If you are, presumably, Russian, it doesn't sound as if your government shares your
mindset. Which is good. I can tell you that the American people do not "seek global
domination". And European nations basically have no military to speak of, so the idea that
they would expand into Russia is ridiculous. You are very much stuck far in the past. In the
modern world, with the threat of Islamic terrorism and the rising economic power of China,
the US and Russia, as allies, would be an insurmountable bulwark. To the extent there would
be "global domination", it would be mutual.
As imperfect as our goverment is, it still orders of magnitude more intelligent and
competent than yours. Especialy when it comes to geopolitics. Russia always plays chess,
while your nations can`t handle checkers nowadays.
"American people do not "seek global domination""
Every people has government which it deserves. So do not try to shift blame to your
government as if you are not responsible for it. You gave them mandate.
"European nations basically have no military to speak of"
Nice excuse to expand NATO east it was, wasn`t it? So much for this "Russian expansionism"
B-S.
"so the idea that they would expand into Russia is ridiculous"
Sorry, but we are not buying that. NATO heavily expanded east breaking all past promises.
NATO now tries to sиck in even Ukraine. So please, we are not going to just sit idle
and watch how your goverments loom another 1812 or 1941.
" You are very much stuck far in the past"
Because we have memory. Do not take us for idlots who was born yesterday.
" In the modern world, with the threat of Islamic terrorism "
Which your goverment created and keeps massively supporting. Oh yes we know that better
than you can imagine.
"rising economic power of China"
Nothing wrong with rising economic power of China.
", the US and Russia, as allies,"
US and Russia are not allies.
"To the extent the would be "global domination", it would be mutual."
Russia seeks no global domination. It just wants to be left completely alone on its
backyard and mainland which has size of a planet.
You have plenty of knowledge of history, but no wisdom. I did not say the US is blameless
in the continued conflicts. What I said is that both governments have shown short
sightedness, and are stuck in the past - and you provide an extreme example of someone stuck
in the past.
You have also said numerous things that are not true, but it's not worth the time to
argue. You should go out for a walk, breathe some fresh air and relax.
Yes. Our government used to be naive enough to trust west and expect it to live up their
promises. And yours by poking the Bear in every possible way. When you poking sleeping Bear
with a short sight and shorter stick, do not complain whole situation exploding into your
face.
"and are stuck in the past "
No. Only your government stuck in its past, past dreams about "the end of history" and
unrestrained global domination. Russia exactly learned from the past and moved on, that is
why your elites are panicking trying to hold on to their sweet illusions.
If you had more wisdom and less hostility, you would see that what I'm saying is more
favorable to you than you think. The ideal outcome, ultimately, would be for Russia to join
NATO. Putin has voiced that idea himself, as have past US presidents. But the continual back
and forth of spats been the US, Europe and Russia prevents it. I'm talking about a bigger,
more positive vision of the future, and you can only see small bitterness about the past.
Sane people want peace and prosperity. You do not seem to be one of them.
"The ideal outcome, ultimately, world be for Russia to join NATO."
The ideal outcome, ultimately, would be for NATO to join Russia.
Perfectly without Russia making it the hard way.
"Putin has voiced that idea himself, as have past US presidents. "
Look up what does sarcasm means.
"more positive vision of the future"
Russia has only two allies, its army and fleet. - Tsar Alexander III.
Today its also RuASF and SRF. We do not need any more allies than that. You choose if you
want to be or enemy. It was not Russia who started all this mess.
I've seen Putin talk about this, on video. He was not being sarcastic. You are an extreme
example of the mindset I'm criticizing, on both sides. The people of both of our countries
are not served by it, at all. It's a useless waste of energy and resources.
For any native Russian speaker who has even slightest idea on what happening during
historic period he was talking about his sarcasm was clear and transparent. The very idea of "Russia joining NATO" is an insult.
" The people of both of our countries are not served by it, at all."
We had no choice but to arm ourselves. You however always had. Russia and the USSR used to
lend you a hand with an olive branch many times. You choosen to spit on it.
What is the ultimate outcome of your mindset? Nuclear war, wiping out both countries? You
can't see any better solution?
Your namesake was a mass murderer, of his own people. I'm not sure why I'm arguing with
you. If you actually cared about the Russian people, you would not use that name.
We will not fire it first, but if it will ever come to this, Russia has all means it needs
to win it.
"You can't see any better solution?"
Yes, accept the idea that we are simply not interested in playing your ball. And we are
against you playing your ball on our lawn too. So figuratively speaking, we need you to get
lost from our horizon and never come back without an invitation. Your "civilization" reminds
me of jehovah`s whitness preachers annoying everybody with their nonsense. With the
difference that you tend to kill those who not agree to listen to your gospel.
"Your namesake was a mass murderer, of his own people."
See? Jehova's whitness mode on again. Sorry but he was not any kind of mass murderer, he
is ultimate hero for us Russians, and we do not need you to lecture us on our own history. We
can figure it out ourselves.
" Russia is attempting to subvert the process that stands at the very heart of the US
democratic system"
Still waiting for any real evidence, much less actual proof. As the calendar flips by.
What we've been told so far is that Hillary's $1B campaign was apparently helpless against
a few internet memes, which we're told were sponsored by the Russian government, without any
proof.
Russia is not going to unilaterally apologize for perceived influence in the US election.
Quite the contrary. Their tiny amount of influence will simply continue with tiny Facebook
purchases and commenters as well as RT coverage etc. becoming a permanent fixture of US
politics (if it wasn't before, which it likely was, but as long as Democrats were winning no
one in the media cared).
It shouldn't be hard for a US politician to win an election going up against this small
degree of influence which is probably less influential than that of other foreign countries
in America (Israel, Saudi and China come to mind). Hillary Clinton, however, was just that
awful of a candidate that she needed the whole system rigged for her just to get close. If
even one world power center was against her she couldn't win. One wasn't and she didn't.
Meanwhile Donald Trump's foreign policy is dangerous without Russian rapprochement. We are
antagonizing other rivals that in the past we have had to keep isolated from cooperating with
Russia (Iran, China).
This is what the Russians are waiting for Washington to realize. No current American
policy goal in the world can be achieved cheaply (less than an Iraq War level of engagement
and cost) without a working relationship with Russia. Our strategy becomes a binary trade
off- do we sacrifice our interests everywhere but Europe (Russia) or do we sacrifice them in
Europe for everywhere else?
My sense is that the Trump policy is a natural consequence of the Asian continent becoming
equal to Europe in economic might by 2020 (it already nearly is). We can no longer treat the
rest of the globe as ancillary to our objectives in Europe (although that is certainly our
habit now).
Whoever follows Trump will fall into this same strategic trap. Hemming in Russia is now
quite painful for Washington to accomplish. Ham fisted half measures don't work and bringing
to bear the full measure of our influence entails great sacrifice in areas equally or more
important.
None of the recent terror attacks in Europe and US have been traced to Iran. Please stop
beating the war drum against this country, chances are you will lose again.
Iran is a #1 perceived threat to Israel, and a sponsor to Hezbollah. Beyond Hezbollah
support there is nothing that qualifies Iran as a sponsor of terrorism
Allie, is your worldview formed solely by mainstream media? Have you tried independent
media? You sure you get the other side's story? You know, you can't really claim you
comprehend the situation without hearing both sides?
I can't recall which one it was, but one of the chemical attacks has been proven to be
carried out by rebels. Also, a chemical attack has been proven to be a hoax. Like I said, I
can't recall all the details. If you are interested you are free to look them up.
Russia will never support the imperial ambitions of the USA. The current situation is a
result of a long chain of anti-Russian decisions by the US. The USA tries to assault the
Russian economy, its harming the people, destroying families and futures. No Russian citizen should
forget that.
NATO cannot save a non-existent failed state. There are at least three different and
geographically separate Ukraines. Catholic Galicia has nothing to do with the rest of the
country. And the East wants to separate. It is another case of former Yugoslavia.
" Our NATO training base we are setting up in Ukraine will ensure the Russians do not
encroach. "
Adolf Hitler told something like that around 1944 when the Red Army was steam rolling his
goons and his Ostwall. You are even more deluded than him if you believe that few twirpy
little bases where your deуenerate men will get drunk and do local рrostitutes
can scare RussiaLOL
"Any drain on the Russian economy such as supporting the Crimea is less money for the
military."
Russian economy is booming since 2014. Russian reserves are growing. And Russian average
living standards are higher than US has it. But whatever makes you sleep at nights, keep
dwelling in russophrenic fantasies induced by your elites.
You are deluded if you think living standards in Russia are higher than the USA. It's not
even close. I guess you are spoon fed a steady diet of propaganda. The USA is by far the most
professional military in the world, and this military constantly foils Russian plans at
expansion.
"The USA is by far the most professional military in the world"
US has most expensive military in the world. And most inept. US never won any major war at
all and can not even deal with cave dwellers in Afganistan for 16 long years.
"and this military constantly foils Russian plans at expansion."
Russia has no plans for expansion. And if it ever will get one, nobody on this planet can
stop Russia from successfuly completing it.
Misinformed. Not a verifiable source. The USA has won plenty of wars, including the war to
topple the taliban in Afghanistan. Saying otherwise is nothing more than a talking point of
Russian propaganda. I've seen you say in other posts Russia will eventually reclaim Kiev Rus,
so which one is it? Try not contradicting yourself when debating educated people. You will
lose credibility. Russia literally just expanded to take the Crimea. They tried to expand into
Afghanistan, so you'd think you would have more respect for the USA effort there. Hightailed
it out of there after those goat herders whooped that @ss huh?
You won over the all powerful state of Grenada. Give you that.
Whooped the Taliban? After 16 years you're still stuck there and Trump adding more troops
to America's longest war to date. How long more to beat the goat herders, in your honest
opinion?
Stuck there? We could leave anytime we wanted. If the taliban took control of the country
again we could topple them again. Reconstructing a tribal society is not the same as fighting
a war. The war was over before it started. Unfortunately some people from our side are
benefiting from the status quo, and so allow it to persist. It is a drain on the country, but
not to the point that I'd call it losing a war. Not even close. Would you rather be in some
skyscraper in NYC or some cave in Baluchistan?
The development and production of new weapon systems is the most efficient way to advance
the technology and, in this way, the economic productivity. All the technological
breakthroughs which provided the current prosperity were financed by the governments with
absolutely non-commercial purpose. Therefore, the fact that Russia finally started developing
new weapon systems is quite promising for its future economic progress.
They are spending about 5% of GDP on their military, not counting intelligence agencies
and secret police and the money going towards the "rebels" in Ukraine. For a nation with the
domestic issues of Russia, it's quite a lot. Russia's oligarchs aren't spending that money
because it's a good use of the budget, they're doing it because they need the military to
distract the Russian public abroad and crush opposition at home. It's a sign of weakness, not
strength.
You don't seem to disagree with my point. Developing new weapon system is much more useful
for the economic development than production of consumer goods.
Who's buying? Russia's list of allies is small, many of their new weapon systems are quite
pricey, and that's all technology the US had years ago. And when it comes to low quality,
high quantity guns they are now competing with China.
I don't think you understand what you are talking about. Technological development is a
strategic project, it is ridiculous to discuss it commercially. Private business would have
never paid for the development of jet engines, laser, computer, nuclear reactor and internet.
They are parasites using the technology developed on the taxpayers money for commercial
purpose.
Concerning the customers: the US are still buying the Russian rockets. The Saudis and
Turkey have recently bought anti-aircraft defence systems. Avoid discussing what is beyond
you competence scope.
My, my, someone is feeling tense. Technological development is certainly helpful. It's
less helpful, however, if your competitors are there a few years before you. No enterprise
exists in a vacuum. If the primary strategic objective in Russia's development of technology
is in order to sell it, they will have to arrive there ahead of the US and others. Given
Russia's current situation, that seems... unlikely.
Hmm... I once read a Stratfor's report on the subject I actually know - it was about
business development in Islamic republics of Russia, and at the time I was one of the
analysts in Investment Promotion Agency of Bashkortostan.
The report was strait idiotic - a crazy mince of facts and fiction. I'm pretty sure now these
dudes are in business of making propaganda and have nothing to do with the truth but to turn
it into half-truths.
There is no proof because it didn't happen. The US media was heavily invested in trying to
get Hillary elected (they were even sending her debate questions in advance) - and needed a
scapegoat (the terrible Russians) for her loss. I think the truth will eventually come
out.
The truth has come out - besides having zero evidence of Russian government involvement,
there was no internet transfer of data from the DNC servers, its was a local leak. As you
probably know, DNC didn't allow FBI access to the servers, and instead hired a private firm
to conclude that it was Russian hacking (the zero-evidence conclusions of this private firm
were later used in intelligence agencie's reports). But nobody is listening to this, because
Russiagate is just so beneficial to so many actors.
"Hacking the election". Could you define what that means and present a single shred of
evidence of it? Or we simply follow the Goebelsian "A lie you keep repeating becomes the
truth.."
In the mid 70s, Vladimir Putin and the Russians began the systematic depopulation of
Detroit so that 40 years later Donald J Trump would win Michigan. It's true, ask a
Dimocrat.
Maybe you might want to take a gander at this:
https://www.nytimes.com/201...
But I guess when you're in total denial, any amount of "proof" will be insufficient. All I'd
say to the Russians is, keep it going.
bahaha That's the proof?! That's the best you can come up with? You fail to see that it is
people like you because of your toxic hatred and dogmatism that jump on any crazy theory to
support your hacking claims. The most probable underlying reason-excluding racist
russophobia? You just can't fathom why Trump won. That's the side-effect of reading the
coastal elites narratives instead of focusing on what has been happening on "fly-over
country" for a couple of decades. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Are you serious? You ask for proof, it is provided, and then you just go on pretending it
wasn't? You do realize that with all the resources and technology at the disposal of our
government, the notion of tracking the origins of certain content on the web is not at all
far fetched. And why would any American patriot not be alarmed at the fact that the Russian
government, the offspring of the USSR, our rival from the Cold War period, was involved in a
concerted effort to target voters with information that was proven to be false. This is
information warfare, and you would respond by rewarding the culprit. I hope you don't have
kids. Maybe you Greeks ought to learn how to run your country before commenting on
international affairs.
"You ask for proof, it is provided" Ahh..No, it wasn't. The only thing provided was a
report by US intelligence services-the last entity one could call a neutral party to
this-that basically said, "Trust us, we tell you the truth".
Again, until a shred of evidence is provided, the whole "russiagate" is BS of the first
order. A fact that even mainstream commentators in the US reluctantly begin to accept. e.g.-
"Russiagate Is More Fiction Than Fact"
https://www.thenation.com/a...
As for Greece, thank you for your advice considering us running our country. If you adhered
to the same principle of not being involved in the affairs of our nation-you helped install a
junta in Greece in 1967, you still interfere in our politics-we would refrain from
criticising your foreign policy that has a bad habit of sticking its dirty fingers
everywhere.
I see you buy into the conspiracy theories. In terms of global development, peace and
prosperity, Russia is not on the same page as the USA. One simply has more credibility than
the other. This is for historical reasons which you needlessly discard. Either way, it is not
just an intelligence report. Try browsing the web a bit. Finding Russian misinformation is
not difficult at all. Facebook, a private entity with no dog in this fight, has verified
Russian interference.
I'm sorry about the junta. A part of history I'm not familiar enough with. My
understanding was this was part of the fight against communism. The ends don't justify the
means, but our interests must be protected. Sometimes that means others go under the boot. We
are able to do that because our house is in order, and we are the most powerful country there
ever was. You may hate the fact, but it's the simple truth. No other nation has the same
ability to project power. Intelligent minds wouldn't disagree.
Lol..You simply cherish raw power-just like the naz.s did for that matter. Of course the
US is powerful, the most powerful country in terms of power projection. But being powerful
does not make one right. Your founding fathers remembered that but you have long forgotten
it, corrupted by power.
You actually believe your own megalomanic and delusional propaganda about being morally
"exceptional" with a mandate to do as you like. You are as exceptional as the other empires
before you were and headed to the same direction-decline and fall.
We Greeks have been around for a few millennia. We had our fair share of fights and helped
destroy some empires as well-the Persians, the Ottomans. We also had the distinction of
having our own empire twice-a feat very very few people can claim.
Today on your struggle with Russia no matter what the power balance might look (and it keeps
shifting on Russia's favor), Russia is morally right. But even excluding morality and Russia
and what not, and looking at the raw facts the fate of your Empire seems sealed.
A favorite metric of your money-obsessed society is GDP. In 1945 the US GDP was equal to
almost 50% of the World GDP. In 1990 it was about 25%. Today it is close to 16% and in
relation to the World GDP it keeps falling. Your military is in need of modernization but
more importantly it simply cannot bare the costs of maintaining a global presence, much less
engage in numerous conflicts.
But I think you already know those facts, that is why you shield your argument behind the "we
are the most powerful blah, blah, blah".
As I said, all this is not knew, even the creation of scapegoats-Russia, N.Korea, Iran ,China
etc are typical of every failing Empire, we 've seen this before.
I have a nice Greek term for you, it is a fundamental pillar of our way of viewing the world.
It's called Hubris and the US is so full of it it can't see past its own nose.
I don't cherish power, just understand and respect it. And the USA is full of it, and
admittedly full of hubris too. I wouldn't be quite so certain that the empire is over, but
agreed overstretched. Adjustments are being made, though only time will tell if it is too
little too late. Your reading of history is accurate, but history doesn't predict the future.
It simply provides proper context for discussion. Your entire comment seems more ideological
than logical. Where did I claim exceptionalism? I apologized about the junta, said it wasn't
justified, but acknowledged the underlying dynamics. Your response was to compare me to the
nazis? Wow. I will say this. You think Russia is "right". Good for you. I think it's quite a
bit more complicated. I certainly think the socioeconomic and political systems in be USA are
far superior to that of Russia, not inherently, but because of the institutions that have
been created. Russia has chosen to emphasize nationalism versus the USA where individualism
is still the prevailing ideological force. Nationalism was what the nazis promoted. Luckily I
don't share your assessment about the global balance of power. The USA, land of the free and
home of the brave, will continue to promote its interests abroad for quite some time to
come.
I don't know about "us Russians" because no matter how unfathomable it might seem to you,
not everyone even mildly supportive of Russia is a Russian. I am Greek and I consider Russia
a friendly state, with ties going back 1000 years, a state which is wrongfully demonized by
the Western elites. You claim that everyone speaking vs Putin is targeted somehow. Obivously
you have never been to Russia or spoke to Russians or have the vaguest clue of public
discourse in Russia both online and on the street.
Oh, and in case you missed it, I asked for a single proof of "Russia hacking the election".
Or anyone "hacking the election" for that matter. I did not ask any proof about Russia's
internal politics or whether it conforms to your hypocritical and selective notions of
democracy, ones that you care not apply to a host of tyranical nations you openly
support.
Oh, what a brilliant idea you got there..The one accused being responsible for providing
evidence of his innocence while the accuser having no need to present evidence to support his
case. Just relying on-"but it's Russia! It's evil and all that s..t!"
And neither Putin nor any Russian official ever made such an admission. Hillary lost because
she was a terrible candidate whose own actions fueled a populist backlash against her and the
Washington consensus policies she espoused.
So, you presume that russia is guilty because you don't have any proof of its innocence or
culpability when it comes to assert if there were any interference in America's
elections?
KingOn2K your assertion and the greatest press in the universe repeating continuously that
Russians did it without providing any shred of evidence after more than one and half year of
investigations (Sorry I forgot, they the press do mention that our $100 Billion +
intelligence agencies say so the same guys who got us in the mess in Iraq good luck believing
these guys). In the meanwhile we have an opioid epidemic and crumbling infrastructure.
Mrm Penumathy maybe,
just maybe, it might dawn on Russia that the US is not in any way hinged to Russia. The
status quo would do just fine. Apart from denials and raising a non-sequitur like Iraq the
arguments for a reset don't look convincing. It is always amusing to see arguments on
relative economic strengths coming from Russians when 68% of their exports come from oil
!!
The reason Hillarity was stumbling and falling during the campaign is because Vladimir
Putin and the Russians spiked her GERITOL(R)(TM). It's true, ask a Dimocrat.
In order to become a successful economy as the US needs to have 20 trillion foreign debt?
The Russian economy is not so dependent on oil as it is told on CNN ..
Russia is not bad at earning rocket engines for the USA (rd180) and delivering American
astronauts to the ISS ;)
Economy of Russia - GDP rank 12th (nominal) / 6th (PPP) (2017)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
US Congress allowed to drag itself into this propaganda swamp by politized Intelligence community, which became a major political
player, that can dictate Congress what to do and what not to do. Now it is not that easy to get out of this "intelligence swamp"
Notable quotes:
"... The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from. ..."
"... This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts ..."
"... iven the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee does not engender confidence. ..."
"... It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy and ultimate victory. ..."
"... One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard. ..."
"... purchase of advertisements on various social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, by the Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level." ..."
"... No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter, a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs. ..."
"... the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy. ..."
"... There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri) or immigration ("The Wall"). ..."
"... These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it. ..."
The 'briefing' is just another exercise in preferred narrative boosting.
The co-chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a press briefing Thursday on the status of their ongoing investigation
into Russian meddling in the American electoral process. Content-wise, the press briefing and the question and answer session were
an exercise in information futility -- they provided little substance and nothing new. The investigation was still ongoing, the senators
explained, and there was still work to be done.
Nine months into the Committee's work, the best Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), could offer was that there
was "general consensus" among committee members and their staff that they trust the findings of the Intelligence Community Assessment
(ICA) of January 2017, which gave high confidence to the charge that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The issue
of possible collusion between Russia and members of the campaign of Donald Trump, however, "is still open."
Frankly speaking, this isn't good enough.
The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who
were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross
understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless
of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence
Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when
it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from.
This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts from three of the Intelligence Community's sixteen agencies (the
CIA, NSA, and FBI) who operated outside of the National Intelligence Council (the venue for the production of Intelligence Community
products such as the Russian ICA), and void of the direction and supervision of a dedicated National Intelligence Officer. Overcoming
this deficient family tree represents a high hurdle, even before the issue of the credibility of the sources and methods used to
underpin the ICA's findings are discussed. Given the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication
of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee does not engender confidence.
It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still
an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in
the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy
and ultimate victory. Insofar as the committee's investigation serves as a legitimate search for truth, it does so as a post-conviction
appeal. However, as the distinguished Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna noted in his opinion in Berger v. United States
(1921):
The remedy by appeal is inadequate. It comes after the trial, and, if prejudice exist, it has worked its evil and a judgment
of it in a reviewing tribunal is precarious. It goes there fortified by presumptions, and nothing can be more elusive of estimate
or decision than a disposition of a mind in which there is a personal ingredient.
One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving
on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the
degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard.
The two senators proceeded to touch on a new angle recently introduced into their investigation, that of the purchase of advertisements
on various social media platforms, including
Facebook and Twitter, by the
Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that
the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level."
No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted
to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent
us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter,
a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs.
Nevertheless, the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who
care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who
are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy.
There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively
releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based
advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United
States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri)
or immigration ("The Wall").
These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where
one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable
that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it.
The take away from the press briefing given by Senator's Burr and Warner was two-fold: One, the Russians meddled, and two, we
don't know if Trump colluded with the Russians. The fact that America is nine months into this investigation with little more to
show now than what could have been said at the start is, in and of itself, an American political tragedy. The Trump administration
has been hobbled by the inertia of this and other investigations derived from the question of Russian meddling. That this process
may yet vindicate President Trump isn't justification for the process itself; in such a case the delay will have hurt more than the
truth. As William Penn, the founder of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, so eloquently noted:
Delays have been more injurious than direct Injustice. They too often starve those they dare not deny. The very Winner is made
a Loser, because he pays twice for his own; like those who purchase Estates Mortgaged before to the full value.
Our law says that to delay Justice is Injustice. Not to have a Right, and not to come of it, differs little. Refuse or Dispatch
is the Duty of a Good Officer.
Senators Burr and Warner, together with their fellow members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and their respective
staffs, would do well to heed those words.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control
treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of "Deal
of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War" (Clarity Press, 2017).
It was only a matter of time before Google and its subsidiaries (most notably
YouTube) would jump on the "Russia hacked the election" narrative concocted by
Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.
Executive Chairman of Alphabet, Inc., (Google's parent company), Eric Schmidt
was after all advising the Hillary Clinton campaign.
What took Schmidt and Google execs so long to join in on the never ending
litigation of the US presidential election, that Hillary lost almost one year ago?
Via The Daily Caller...
Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google's parent company
Alphabet, wanted to be "head outside advisor" to the Hillary
Clinton campaign, according to Clinton campaign chairman
John Podesta in an email released by WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks has continued to reveal Schmidt's cozy relationship with
the Clinton campaign. In a previously leaked email,
a memo showed that Schmidt was working directly with the Clinton
campaign on setting up various backend features to their website.
From accusations of Trump campaign collusion to Russian Facebook ad buys, the media has
substituted hype for evidence.
Since Election Day, the controversy over alleged Russian meddling and Trump campaign
collusion has consumed Washington and the national media. Yet nearly one year later there is
still no concrete evidence of its central allegations. There are claims by US intelligence
officials that the Russian government hacked e-mails and used social media to help elect Donald
Trump, but there has yet to be any corroboration. Although the oft-cited January intelligence
report "uses the strongest language and offers the most detailed assessment yet," The Atlantic
observed that "it does not or cannot provide evidence for its assertions." Noting the "absence
of any proof" and "hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government
engineered the election attack," The New York Times concluded that the intelligence community's
message "essentially amounts to 'trust us.'" That remains the case today.
The same holds for the question of collusion. Officials acknowledged to Reuters in May that
"they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the
communications reviewed so far." Well-placed critics of Trump -- including former DNI chief
James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Morrell, Representative Maxine Waters, and Senator
Dianne Feinstein -- concur to date.
Recognizing this absence of evidence helps examine what has been substituted in its place.
Shattered, the insider account of the Clinton campaign, reports that "in the days after the
election, Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss." Instead, one source
recounted, aides were ordered "to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way."
Within 24 hours of Clinton's concession speech, top officials gathered "to engineer the case
that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. Already, Russian hacking was the
centerpiece of the argument."
But the focus on Russia has utility far beyond the Clinton camp. It dovetails with elements
of state power that oppose Trump's call for improved relations with Moscow and who are willing
to deploy a familiar playbook of Cold War fearmongering to block any developments on that
front. The multiple investigations and anonymous leaks are also a tool to pacify an erratic
president whose anti-interventionist rhetoric -- by all indications, a ruse -- alarmed
foreign-policy elites during the campaign. Corporate media outlets driven by clicks and ratings
are inexorably drawn to the scandal. The public is presented with a real-life spy thriller,
which for some carries the added appeal of possibly undoing a reviled president and his
improbable victory.
These imperatives have incentivized a compromised set of journalistic and evidentiary
standards. In Russiagate, unverified claims are reported with little to no skepticism.
Comporting developments are cherry-picked and overhyped, while countervailing ones are
minimized or ignored. Front-page headlines advertise explosive and incriminating developments,
only to often be undermined by the article's content, or retracted entirely. Qualified language
-- likely, suspected, apparent -- appears next to "Russians" to account for the absence of
concrete links. As a result, Russiagate has enlarged into a storm of innuendo that engulfs
issues far beyond its original scope.
The latest two stories about alleged Trump campaign collusion were initially received as
smoking guns. But upon further examination, they may actually undermine that narrative. One was
news that Trump had signed a non-binding letter of intent to license his name for a proposed
building in Moscow as he ran for the White House. Russian-born developer Felix Sater predicted
to Trump lawyer Michael Cohen that the deal would help Trump win the presidency. "I will get
Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected," Sater wrote, believing that voters would
be impressed that Trump could make a real-estate deal with the United States' "most difficult
adversary." The New York Times describes the outcome:
There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email
suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr.
Putin's spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which
had stalled. But Mr. Cohen did not appear to have Mr. Peskov's direct email, and instead wrote
to a general inbox for press inquiries.
The project never got government permits or financing, and died weeks later.
Peskov has confirmed he ended up seeing the
e-mail from Cohen, but did not bother to respond. The story does raise a potential conflict of
interest: Trump pursued a Moscow deal as he praised Putin on the campaign trial. But it is hard
to see how a deal that never got off the ground is of more importance than actual deals Trump
made in places like Turkey, the Philippines, and the Persian Gulf. If anything, the story
should introduce skepticism into whether any collusion took place: The deal failed, and Trump's
lawyer did not even have an e-mail address for his Russian counterparts.
The revelation of Sater's e-mails to Cohen followed the earlier controversy of Rob Goldstone
offering Donald Trump Jr. incriminating information on Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and
its government's support for Mr. Trump." Goldstone's e-mail was more fruitful than Sater's in
that it yielded a meeting, albeit one that Trump Jr. claims he abandoned after 20 minutes.
Those who deem the Sater-Goldstone e-mail chains incriminating or even treasonous should be
reminded of their provenance: Sater is known as "
a canny operator and a colorful bullshitter " who has " launched
a host of crudely named websites -- including IAmAFaggot.com and VaginaBoy.com to attack a former business partner." Meanwhile,
Goldstone is a British tabloid journalist turned music publicist. One does not have to be an
intelligence expert to doubt that they are Kremlin cut-outs.
The indicted husband-and-wife team of former IT aides to Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman
Schultz sat directly across from each other at the defendants' table in federal court Friday in
Washington, D.C., but refused to look at each other.
Even as they are co-defendants in a U.S. case, Imran Awan's own wife, Hina Alvi, has become
the latest person to accuse him of fraud, filing papers against him in Pakistani court,
according to Pakistani news channel ARY.
The couple were in U.S. court to face bank fraud charges related to sending money to
Pakistan around the time they learned they were under investigation for abuses related to their
work managing IT for members of Congress. Awan was arrested at Dulles Airport in July
attempting to board a flight to Pakistan.
Wasserman Schultz, former chair of the Democratic National Committee, and other House
Democrats have vigorously defended Awan, claiming the Capitol Police might be drumming up
charges
out of
Islamaphobia .
Alvi was arraigned Friday on four felony counts, and Awan, who has already been arraigned,
requested that his GPS monitoring bracelet be taken off -- citing the fact that his wife was in
America as the reason he was not a flight risk.
Yet the couple entered and left the court separately, have different lawyers, and Awan's
lawyer told the judge that the husband and wife are staying "in a one-bedroom apartment and
then also a house."
Pakistani legal papers published
by the news channel show Alvi recently accused Awan of illegally marrying another woman,
and of fraud. "My husband Imran Awan son of Muhammad Ashraf Awan, committed fraud along with
offence of polygamy," she charges in the papers.
Hina's U.S. lawyer, Nikki Lotze, did not dispute the account. "I don't see how that's
newsworthy," Lotze told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The Pakistani legal petition named as
the second wife is a woman who records show told Virginia police she felt like Awan was keeping
her "like a slave."
Awan, his wife and two brothers -- all previously on the payroll of House Democrats --
became subjects of a Capitol Police investigation last year after investigators concluded they
were submitting falsified invoices for equipment and
had transferred "massive" data off a House server. After he was banned from the House
network, Awan left a laptop with the username RepDWS in a Capitol Hill phone booth.
Although
The Washington Post has reported that investigators found that Awan and his relatives made
unauthorized access to a congressional server 5,400 times, Wasserman Schultz has said concern
about the matter was the
stuff of the "right-wing media circus fringe."
Awan and Alvi have been charged with bank fraud involving moving money to Pakistan, but they
have not been charged with crimes related to their work, and the other family members have not
been charged at all. Awan's attorney used Friday's hearing to argue that he "very strongly"
wanted to block prosecutors
from using evidence they found in the Capitol Hill phone booth.
The Pakistani legal motion filed by Alvi states: "A few months ago I got apprised of the
fact that my husband has contracted second marriage secretly, fraudulently and without my
consent with Mst. Sumaira Shehzadi Alias Sumaira Siddique Daughter of Muhammad Akram r/o
Township, Lahore. The second marriage of my husband is illegal, unlawful and without
justification."
"The court has recorded the testimonies of the applicant and other witnesses," the Pakistani
news outlet reported.
... ... ...
The Awan family had access to the full digital files of 45 House members and
their staffs, but Democrats have said they don't believe he would abuse that access, despite a
host of financial red flags, including financial ties to an
Iranian fugitive and money sent to a Pakistani police officer.
In a civil case this year, Awan's stepmother Samina Gilani accused Abid Awan, who was also
on the House payroll, of stealing a $50,000 life insurance policy, and said Awan used his
employment in Congress to intimidate people.
"Imran Awan introduces himself as someone from US Congress or someone from federal
agencies," she charged. He "threatened that he is very powerful and if I ever call the police
[he] will do harm to me and my family members back in Pakistan and one of my cousins here in
Baltimore."
Additional reporting from Peter Alexander, Hallie Jackson and Vivian
Salama.
WASHINGTON -- John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, abruptly scrapped plans to travel
with President Donald Trump on Wednesday so he could try to contain his boss's fury and manage
the fallout from new revelations about tensions between the president and Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson, according to six senior administration officials.
Kelly summoned Tillerson, and their ally Defense Secretary James Mattis, to the White House,
where the three of them huddled to discuss a path forward, according to three administration
officials. The White House downplayed Kelly's decision to stay in Washington, saying he did so
to manage day-to-day operations.
Vice President Mike Pence, meanwhile, was fuming in Phoenix, where he was traveling, seven
officials told NBC News. He and Tillerson spoke on the phone before the secretary's public
appearance on Wednesday morning.
Pence was incensed upon learning from the NBC report that Tillerson's top spokesman had said
he once privately questioned the value of Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations. Officials said the spokesman, R.C. Hammond, fabricated an anecdote that Pence had
asked Tillerson in a meeting whether Haley, who is seen as a possible successor if Tillerson,
is helpful or harmful to the administration.
NBC reported Wednesday that Tillerson had threatened to resign in July after a series of
clashes with the president, at one point venting his frustrations among his colleagues by
calling the president a "moron," according to multiple senior administration officials who were
aware of the matter at the time.
Four senior administration officials said Trump first learned on Wednesday that Tillerson
had disparaged him after a July 20 national security meeting at the Pentagon. Trump vented to
Kelly Wednesday morning, leading Kelly to scrap plans to travel with the president to Las Vegas
to meet with victims and first responders in Sunday's mass shooting.
Trump was furious when he saw the NBC News report, which was published shortly before 6 a.m.
Wednesday. For the next two hours the president fumed inside the White House, venting to Kelly,
officials said. He left for Las Vegas shortly after 8 a.m., 20 minutes behind schedule. Tillerson scrambled to pull together a statement, while his spokesman publicly apologized
for his comments about Pence and Haley, saying he "spoke out of line about conversations I
wasn't privy to."
Tillerson delivered a statement praising Trump and insisting he never considered resigning,
but it's what he didn't say that further enraged Trump, officials said.
The secretary's refusal to deny that he had called the president a "moron" in his opening
statement and in his responses to questions from reporters stoked Trump's anger and widened the
rift between the two men, officials said. After watching the secretary's response Wednesday, one White House official said, "When
Tillerson didn't deny it, I assumed it was true." Hammond is seen by the White House, particularly Pence's office, as untrustworthy, officials
said. It's unclear if he will remain in his post, according to three administration
officials.
Pence was "very annoyed anyone would misrepresent anything he said, particularly in private
meetings," one White House official said. On Wednesday, this source said, White House officials spoke to State Department officials to
make it clear that Hammond's comment was "false" and needed to be corrected. The revelations followed Trump's frustrations over the weekend after Tillerson said the U.S.
would talk to North Korea.
State Department officials tried to reach Tillerson on his government aircraft during his
flight from Beijing to Japan, but they couldn't reach him, sources said. The secretary and his
team didn't want to issue a clarification, further stoking tensions with the White House, on
administration official said.
Trump took to Twitter, telling Tillerson not to waste his time trying to negotiate with the
North Korean regime.
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
"... These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org . ..."
The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by
CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from
being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an
enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that
role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating
with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think
the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and
Russia.
Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative circles
for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked Washington's plans to
invade Syria and to bomb Iran.
Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea.
Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base
on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia.
The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign
policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism.
This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there
also is the material interests of the military/security complex.
Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington convincing
Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO bases on Russia's
borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO provide more evidence
that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more reckless and irresponsible
than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.
Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election
or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic
Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.
These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth .
This is particular dirty campaign to implicate Trump and delegitimize his victory is a part of
color revolution against Trump.
The other noble purpose is to find a scapegoat for the
current problems, especially in Democratic Party, and to preserve Clinton neoliberals rule over
the party for a few more futile years.
Notable quotes:
"... Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump. ..."
"... The mini-ads were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the issue. ..."
"... A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads. Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be automatized. ..."
"... This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates "news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it. ..."
"... We learned after the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of dollars by selling advertisements on their sites: ..."
"... The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he dropped nuggets of journalism advice. ..."
"... After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube. ..."
"... Russian Car Crash Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify divisive political issues across the political spectrum". ..."
"... "Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the oligarchs. This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes). ..."
"... The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation . ..."
"... Great article. I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM business model. Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for. ..."
"... Russia gate, since it is unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites. ..."
"... The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these companies will bleed ad revenues. ..."
Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were
claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of
Trump.
It now turns out that these Facebook ads had nothing to do with the election. The mini-ads
were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then
promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the
issue.
Providing new evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Facebook disclosed on
Wednesday that it had identified more than $100,000 worth of divisive ads on hot-button
issues purchased by a shadowy Russian company linked to the Kremlin.
...
The disclosure adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign,
which American intelligence agencies concluded was designed to damage Hillary Clinton and
boost Donald J. Trump during the election.
Like any Congress investigation the current one concerned with Facebook ads is leaking like
a sieve. What oozes out makes little sense.
If "Russia" aimed to make Congress and U.S. media a laughing stock it surely achieved
that.
Today the NYT says that the ads
were posted "in disguise" by "the Russians" to promote variously themed Facebook pages:
There was "Defend the 2nd," a Facebook page for gun-rights supporters, festooned with
firearms and tough rhetoric. There was a rainbow-hued page for gay rights activists, "LGBT
United." There was even a Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies
that spread across the site with the help of paid ads
No one has explained how these pages are supposed to be connected to a Russian "influence"
campaign. It is unexplained how these are supposed to connected to the 2016 election. That is
simply asserted because Facebook said, for unknown reasons, that these ads may have come from
some Russian agency. How Facebook has determined that is not known.
With each detail that leaks from the "Russian ads" investigation the propaganda framework of
"election manipulation" falls further apart:
Late Monday, Facebook said in a post that about 10 million people had seen the ads in
question. About 44 percent of the ads were seen before the 2016 election and the rest after,
the company said
The original story propagandized that "Russia" intended to influence the election in favor
of Trump. But why then was the majority of the ads in questions run later after November 9? And
how would an animal-lovers page with adorable puppy pictures help to achieve Trumps election
victory?
Roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone. That's because advertising auctions are
designed so that ads reach people based on relevance, and certain ads may not reach anyone as
a result.
...
For 50% of the ads, less than $3 was spent; for 99% of the ads, less than $1,000 was spent.
Of the 3,000 ads Facebook originally claimed were "Russian" only 2,200 were ever viewed.
Most of the advertisements were mini-ads which, for the price of a coffee, promoted private
pages related to hobbies and a wide spectrum of controversial issues. The majority of the ads
ran after the election.
All that "adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign ...
designed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald J. Trump during the election"?
No.
But the NYT still finds "experts" who believe in the "Russian influence" nonsense and find
the most stupid reasons to justify their claims:
Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent now at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in
Philadelphia, said Russia had been entrepreneurial in trying to develop diverse channels of
influence. Some, like the dogs page, may have been created without a specific goal and held
in reserve for future use.
Puppy pictures for "future use"? Nonsense. Lunacy! The pages described and the ads leading to them are typical click-bait, not a political
influence op.
The for-profit scheme runs as follows: One builds pages with "hot" stuff that attracts lots of viewers. One creates ad-space on
these pages and fills it with Google ads. One promotes the spiked pages by buying $3 Facebook
mini-ads for them.
A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or
the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads.
Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort
for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be
automatized.
This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates
"news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to
advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs
reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it.
We learned after
the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly
attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political
direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of
dollars by selling advertisements on their sites:
The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country
where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he
dropped nuggets of journalism advice.
"You have to write what people want to see, not what you want to show," he said, scrolling
through The Political Insider's stories as a large banner read "ARREST HILLARY NOW."
The 3,000 Facebook ads Congress is investigating are part of a similar scheme. The mini-ads
promoted pages with hot button issues and click-bait puppy pictures. These pages were
themselves created to generate ad-clicks and revenue. As Facebook claims that "Russia" is
behind them, we will likely find some Russian teens who simply repeated the scheme their
Macedonian friends were running on.
With its "Russian influence" scare campaign the NYT follows the same business model. It is
producing fake news which attracts viewers and readers who's attention is then sold to
advertisers. Facebook is also profiting from this. Its current piecemeal release of vague
information keeps its name in the news.
After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been
solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably
the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube.
Russian Car Crash
Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase
road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify
divisive political issues across the political spectrum".
The car crash compilations, like the puppy pages, are another sign that Russia is waging war
against the people of the United States!
You don't believe that? You should. Trust your experienced politician!
This gets more chilling daily : now we learn Russia targeted Americans on Facebook by
"demographics, geography, gender & interests," across websites & devices, reached
millions, kept going after Nov. An attack on all Americans, not just HRC campaign washingtonpost.com/business/econo
It indeed gets more chilling. It's fall. It also generates ad revenue.
Posted by b on October 3, 2017 at 02:09 PM |
Permalink
"Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from
the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the
oligarchs.
This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes).
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation .
You're presenting a very good concept/meme to understand: Fake news is click bait for
gain.
The same can be said for any sensationalism or shocking event - like the Kurdish
referendum, like the Catalonia referendum, like the Vegas shooting - or like confrontational
or dogmatic comments in threads about those events.
Everywhere we turn someone is trying to game us for some kind of gain. What matters is to
step back from the front lines where our sense is accosted and offended, to step back from
the automatic reflex, and to remember that someone triggered that reflex, deliberately, for
their gain, not ours.
We have to reside in reason and equanimity, because the moment we indulge in our righteous
anger or our strong convictions, the odds are extremely good that someone is playing us.
It's a wicked world, but in fact we live in an age when we can see its meta
characteristics like never before.
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls
apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them
as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.
What we see is the biggest psyop., propaganda disinformation campaig ever in the western
media, far more powerful than "nuclear Iraq" of 2003.
Still, and this should be a warning, majority of people in EU/US believe this
nonsense.
I lol'd. But seriously the next step is a false flag implicating Russia. They're getting
nowhere assassinating Russian diplomats and shooting down Russian aircraft, both military and
civilian. Even overthrowing governments who are Russia-friendly hasn't seem to provoke a
response.
But I consider the domestic Russia buzz to be performance art, and I imagine it's become
even grating to some of its participants. How could it not be, unless everyone is heavily
medicated(a lot certainly are)? Anyway it's by design that the western media and the
political classes they serve need a script, they're incapable of discussing actual issues.
Independence has been made quaint.
The line between politics and product marketing has gone.
But no matter if "the Russians" influenced the US election or not - after all that is what
most countries do to each other - the FBI is correct that to be able to target audiences
according to demographics and individual traits is a powerful tool.
The newspapers had a clear agenda. An editorial in The New York Times, headlined In the
Terror by Radio, was used to censure the relatively new medium of radio, which was becoming
a serious competitor in providing news and advertising. "Radio is new but it has adult
responsibilities. It has not mastered itself or the material it uses," said the editorial
leader comment on November 1 1938. In an excellent piece in Slate magazine in 2013,
Jefferson Pooley (associate professor of media and communication at Muhlenberg College) and
Michael J Socolow (associate professor of communication and journalism at the University of
Maine) looked at the continuing popularity of the myth of mass panic and they took to task
NPR's Radiolab programme about the incident and the Radiolab assertion that "The United
States experienced a kind of mass hysteria that we've never seen before." Pooley and
Socolow wrote: "How did the story of panicked listeners begin? Blame America's newspapers.
... AND IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO COPY ORSON WELLES . . . In February 1949, Leonardo Paez and
Eduardo Alcaraz produced a Spanish-language version of Welles's 1938 script for Radio Quito
in Ecuador. The broadcast set off panic. Quito police and fire brigades rushed out of town
to fight the supposed alien invasion force. After it was revealed that the broadcast was
fiction, the panic transformed into a riot. The riot resulted in at least seven deaths,
including those of Paez's girlfriend and nephew. The offices Radio Quito, and El Comercio,
a local newspaper that had participated in the hoax by publishing false reports of
unidentified flying objects in the days preceding the broadcast, were both burned to the
ground.
Jackrabbit 2
No - the two words the Capital system fears the most are SURPLUS VALUE , the control of the
'profit principle' for social not private ends .
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls
apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them
as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.
somebody | Oct 3, 2017 3:11:44 PM | 9 The American panic was a myth, the Equadorian panic in 1949 not so much. I listened to this
Radiolab podcast about same ... the details of how they pulled it off in a one-radio station
country pre-internet are interesting and valuable (they widely advertised a very popular music
program which was then "interrupted" by the hoax to ensure near-universal audience (including
the police and other authorities). Very very fews were "in on the joke" and it wasn't a
joke.
whole page on WooW:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/91622-war-of-the-worlds/
Great article.
I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM
business model.
Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for.
"Lankford shocked the world this week by revealing that "Russian Internet trolls" were
stoking the NFL kneeling debate. ... Conservative outlets like Breitbart and Newsmax and
Fox played up the "Russians stoked the kneeling controversy" angle because it was in their
interest to suggest that domestic support for kneeling protests is less than what it
appears....
The Post reported that Lankford's office had cited one of "Boston Antifa's"
tweets. But the example offered read suspiciously like a young net-savvy American goofing
on antifa stereotypes "More gender inclusivity with NFL fans and gluten free options at
stadiums We're liking the new NFL #NewNFL #TakeAKnee #TakeTheKnee." ...
The group was most
likely a pair of yahoos from Oregon named Alexis Esteb and Brandon Krebs. "
Pity Rolling Stone got caught up in that fake college rape allegation, they have actually
done some solid reporting. Every MSM outlet has had multiple fake stories, so should RS be
shunned for life for one bad story?
It is time that sane part of independent media understood that there is no more need to
rationally respond to psychotic delusions of Deep State puppets in Russia gate, since it is
unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation
and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes
news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites.
There are only two effective responses to provocation namely silence or violence, anything
else plays the book of provocateurs.
Now they're seriously undermining their claims of intentionality ... as well as their wildly
inflated claims effect on outcome or even effective "undermining" ... again, compared to
Citizens United and the long-count of 2000 ... negligible....
And still insisting that Hillary Clinton is Russia's Darth Vader against whom unlimited
resources are marshalled because she must be stopped ... even though she damn near won... and
the reasons she lost seems unrelated to such vagaries as the DNC e-mails or facebook
campaigns (unless you believe she had a god-given right to each and every vote)
Why do you think this is important enough to make the effort to write another blog entry B?
Everyone who wants to know that this is all fantasy knows by now.
'Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were
claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor
of Trump.
This is the same US congress that regularly marches off to Israel to receive orders
This isn't about the "truth" (or lies) wrt Russian involvement, it's about the
increasingly rapid failure of the Government/Establishment's narrative ...
Increasingly they can't even keep their accusations "alive" for more than a few days ...
and some of their accusations (like the one here, that some "Russian" sites were created and
not used, but to be held for use at some future date) become fairly ridiculous ... and the
"remedy" to "Russians" creating clickbait sites for some future nefarious use, I think can
only be banning all Russians from creating sites ... or maybe using facebook altogether ...
all with no evidence of evil-doers actually doing evil...
It's rather like Jared Kushner's now THIRD previously undisclosed private e-mail account
... fool me once versus how disorganized/dumb/arrogant/crooked is this guy?
Sorry to be off topic but yesterday the Saker of the Vineyard published a couple of articles
about Catalonia. The first was a diatribe, a nasty hatchet job on the Catalan people which
included the following referring to the Catalan people:
"The Problems they have because with their corruption, inefficiency, mismanagement,
inability and sometimes the simplest stupidity, are always the fault of others (read
Spaniards here) which gives them "carte blanche" to keep going on with it."
"... They (the independistas) are NATIONAL SOCIALIST (aka NAZI) in their Ideology"
Then Saker published an article by Peter Koenig that was reasonable and what we have come
to expect. Then he forbade all comments on either of the two articles. My comment was banned,
which simply said in my opinion from working for fourteen years in Spain that the Catalans
were extremely efficient in comparison with their Madrid counterparts.
I must admit that I became a fan of watching those Russian car crashes that were captured by
the cams many russian drivers keep on their dash boards. Some of these were very funny. I was
not aware that made me a victim of Putin propaganda. In any case, they are not that
interesting anymore once they were commercialized. That was about 10 years ago.
The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media
juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what
it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these
companies will bleed ad revenues.
OT - more from comedy central - daily USA press briefing from today...
"QUESTION: On Iran, would you and the State Department say, as Secretary Mattis said
today, that staying in the JCPOA would be in the U.S. national interest?
MS NAUERT: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is this a position you share?
MS NAUERT: So I'm certainly familiar with what Secretary Mattis said on Capitol Hill
today. Secretary Mattis, of course, one of many people who is providing expertise and counsel
to the President on the issue of Iran and the JCPOA. The President is getting lots of
information on that. We have about 12 days or so, I think, to make our determination for the
next JCPOA guideline.
The administration looks at JCPOA as – the fault in the JCPOA as not looking at the
totality of Iran's bad behavior. Secretary Tillerson talked about that at length at the UN
General Assembly. So did the President as well. We know that Iran is responsible for terror
attacks. We know that Iran arms the Houthi rebels in Yemen, which leads to a more miserable
failed state, awful situation in Yemen, for example. We know what they're doing in Syria.
Where you find the Iranian Government, you can often find terrible things happening in the
world. This administration is very clear about highlighting that and will look at Iran in
sort of its totality of all of its bad behaviors, not just the nuclear deal.
I don't want to get ahead of the discussions that are ongoing with this – within the
administration, as it pertains to Iran. The President has said he's made he's decision, and
so I don't want to speak on behalf of the President, and he'll just have to make that
determination when he's ready to do so."
"... Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards." ..."
"... In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that they are sophisticated and in the know. ..."
"... Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia are false. ..."
"... This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to military attack. ..."
"... What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes? ..."
"... I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. ..."
Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept exposes the fake news put out by the US Department of
Homeland Security (an euphemistic name for a Big Brother operation that spies on US citizens) that
Russia hacked 21 US state elections, news that was instantly spread around the world by the presstitute
media. The propagandists running Homeland Security were contradicted by the state governments, forcing
Homeland Security to retract its fake news claims.
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/
The unasked/unanswered question is why did Homeland Security put out a FAKE NEWS story?
Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see
Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious
dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says
is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia.
Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard
for evidentiary standards."
In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for
the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans
sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that
they are sophisticated and in the know.
What Greenwald doesn't address is the effect of the massive amount of fake news on Russia, China,
Iran, and North Korea. Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia
are false. So why is Washington making false accusations against Russia?
This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false
accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime
criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North
Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to
military attack.
Iran and North Korea cannot attack the US and its European vassals, but Russia and China can.
I have written about the Operational Command of the Russian armed forces conclusion that Washington
is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. Instead of reassuring the Russians that no such
planning is in the works, Washington has instead pushed further the fake news Russiagate story with
the false report that Russia had hacked the elections of 21 states.
What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly
filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder
as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because
the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about
the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream
of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes?
If you were the Russian government, would you conclude that your country was the next to
be attacked militarily by Washington? If you were the Russian government, you would know that Washington/NATO
cannot possibly attack Russia except by surprise nuclear strike. Knowing this, if you were the Russian
government, would you sit there and wait on the strike? Imagine yourself the Russian government listening
day in, day out, to endless wild improbable charges against Russia. What can Russia possibly conclude
other than this is preparation of Western peoples for a nuclear attack on Russia?
Russia is not going to be hung like Saddan Hussein or murdered like Gaddafi.
I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most
extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. The crazed morons in Washington are risking the
life of the planet. The presstitutes are worse than the whores that they are. They never question
the path to war; they only amplify it. Washington's craven, cowardly, moronic vassal states in UK,
Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, and the rest of the EU/NATO idiots are, by
their cooperation with Washington, begging for their own destruction.
Nowhere in the West is there a sign of intelligence.
Will Washington follow Adolf Hitler's folly and march into Russia?
"... For the next three years, the court papers claim, Deripaska tried to get Manafort to provide accounting reports of what he had done with the money, but received nothing. "The Petitioner has not been provided with these audit reports nor is it aware whether any further audits were performed in respect of the Partnership." There is no trace or sign in these records, or in the New York Times excerpts of the Cyprus cutout loan accounts, that any Ukrainian asset had been purchased. If Deripaska's court claim is to be believed, Manafort had legged it with the cash – Deripaska had been hustled. ..."
"... The years 2008 and 2009 turned out to go badly for Deripaska in the US, particularly as he had set his heart on a German and Russian Government-financed buyout of General Motors' Opel car division. ..."
The second half of 2008 was a very bad time for Deripaska, as the Russian aluminium and
other businesses on which he depended, collapsed into insolvency with accumulated debts at one
point of about $20 billion. Deripaska told the Cayman Island court: "By mid-summer 2008, there
were clear indications of the oncoming world financial crisis, and at this time the Petitioner
was the only limited partner in the Partnership which had made only one investment (BSC [Black
Sea Cable]). In September 2008 the Petitioner [Deripaska] informed the GP [Manafort] that it
was suspending further investment into the Partnership."
For the next three years, the court papers claim, Deripaska tried to get Manafort to provide
accounting reports of what he had done with the money, but received nothing. "The Petitioner
has not been provided with these audit reports nor is it aware whether any further audits were
performed in respect of the Partnership." There is no trace or sign in these records, or in the
New York Times excerpts of the Cyprus cutout loan accounts, that any Ukrainian asset had been
purchased. If Deripaska's court claim is to be believed, Manafort had legged it with the cash
– Deripaska had been hustled.
A few weeks ago Kurochkina refused to tell the New York Times whether Deripaska is
continuing to pursue Manafort's $18 million debt. That newspaper claimed "Mr. Deripaska appears
to have stopped pursuing his court action against Mr. Manafort and his former investment
partners, Rick Gates and Rick Davis, in late 2015." The newspaper reporters didn't ask, and
Kurochkina didn't explain, what services Manafort had invoiced Deripaska for which $7.3 million
was paid out. Noone has asked Deripaska whether he thinks Manafort kept the money for
himself.
The years 2008 and 2009 turned out to go badly for Deripaska in the US, particularly as he
had set his heart on a German and Russian Government-financed buyout of General Motors' Opel
car division. The lobbying in Washington which Deripaska paid for, as well his reason to
believe then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported his Opel deal, were reported
here . But Clinton, the US Treasury and other Obama Administration officials broke their
word, and cancelled the Opel sale. If Deripaska had been content to leave Manafort holding
$26,288,400 of the Russian oligarch's cash through the 2008 crisis and the General Motors
negotiations in 2009, his patience had run out by November 2009, when the cancellation of the
Opel sale became public.
On November 5, 2009, then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced
after his cabinet ministers had discussed the Opel deal, "it shows that our American partners
have a very original culture when dealing with counterparties. We will have to take into
account this style of dealing with partners in the future, though this scornful approach toward
partners mainly affects the Europeans, not us. GM did not warn anyone, did not speak to anyone
despite all the agreements reached and documents signed. Well, I think it is a good
lesson."
These days, according to the media leaks, US Government investigators of Manafort are
pursuing a different lesson. This is that Manafort took Deripaska's money for the purpose of
subverting the US presidential election of 2016. The court evidence indicates that Manafort was
paid for Ukrainian assets which didn't materialize, and kept the money for himself through a
period when the US government first decided to sell a multi-billion dollar part of
then-bankrupt General Motors to Derripaska, and then, quite suddenly, decided not to.
Considering the following, (follow the link) that stretch thingie starts making more and
more sense.
The lobbying in Washington which Deripaska paid for, as well his reason to believe then
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported his Opel deal, were
reported here . But Clinton, the US Treasury and other Obama Administration officials
broke their word, and cancelled the Opel sale.
From the linked article;
When Hillary Clinton (lead, left) was US Secretary of State in 2009, she proved she
could lie to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel; keep secret her hostility towards Russia
even in her secret staff emails; and take money in her back pocket for an $8 billion deal
between the US, Germany and Russia recommended by her subordinates. The record, recently
revealed in US investigations of Clinton's emails and donations to the Clinton Foundation,
shows why the Kremlin assessment of Clinton is hostile and blunt – Clinton invites
and takes bribes, but can't be relied on to keep her bargains
A lot of people remember being screw*d out of a $million, even 5 or 10 years after the
fact.
The way I read this post, and the embedded history of Hillary's double-cross of Deripaska,
is that there is an unstated agreement among our current ruling class, that it's ok to
double-cross and provoke Russia/Russians for profit, but not to make actual deals because
that would be collaboration at least, and maybe treason.
I thought the same thing. Does Manafort have stock in Blackwater or what? The blithe
narration of unmitigated corruption says all one needs to know of the times we live in.
US Congressman
says Julian Assange "has absolute proof" Russia did not meddle in US elections
(Video)
Julian
Assange can prove hacks were not by Russia with 100% certainty.
Last year's DNC hack that took over via the Gmail account of campaign chairman John Podesta
provided a clear example of how important added protections are, but many people don't take
advantage because they can seem complicated to setup. Just a few months many users were bombarded
with a Google Drive-hosted phishing attack, and that won't be the last one.
As US lawmakers demand social media companies show how their platforms were allegedly used
by Russia to meddle in the 2016 election, WikiLeaks co-founder tweeted emails that show
Facebook executives in direct communication with one candidate's team.
Beginning on October 7
last year, WikiLeaks published hundreds of emails from the private account of Hillary Clinton's
campaign chairman John Podesta. The daily drops continued for a couple days after the November
8 election.
On Thursday, as US media were speculating about "Russian" meddling on Twitter,
Facebook and Reddit, Julian Assange tweeted some of the Podesta emails with a reminder that the
social network's leading lights were Clinton fans.
The segment started off with Geist introducing the latest reporting on the topic:
GEIST: Twitter says it has shut down more than two-hundred accounts that were tied to the
same Russian operatives who bought political ads on Facebook. Of the 450 accounts released by
Facebook as part of its investigation, Twitter was able to match 22 of them to its own site.
The disclosure by Twitter followed a briefing by company officials to staffers of the Senate
and House Intel committees yesterday. Following that meeting, the top Democrat on the Senate
committee, Mark Warner, slammed Twitter for its presentation.
SEN. MARK WARNER [D-VA]: [playing clip] The presentation that the Twitter team made to the
Senate Intel staff today was deeply disappointing. The notion that their work was basically
derivative based upon accounts that Facebook had identified showed enormous lack of
understanding from the Twitter team of how serious this issue is, the threat it poses to
democratic institutions, and, again, begs many more questions than they offered.
(...)
GEIST: The top Democrat on the House Intel Committee, Adam Schiff, also weighed in on
Twitters briefing to his committee, releasing a statement that read, in part: "... it is clear
that Twitter has significant forensic work to do to understand the depth and breadth of Russian
activity during the campaign. This additional analysis will require far more robust
investigation into how Russian actors used their platform as a part of their active measures
campaign..."
Without any perceptible degree of skepticism about the Democratic Congressmen's claims,
Geist then teed up Nicolle Wallace, host of the MSNBC afternoon show Deadline: White House , to
talk about social media and the 2016 election more generally:
GEIST: You do get the sense, Nicolle, that Facebook, Twitter, social media was totally
clueless about what was happening on their sites during the 2016 campaign.
WALLACE: It's worse than that [...]. The social media companies are sort of like the worst
stereotype of a Republican political organization. They're reactive, theyre opaque, they're
defensive, they are very slow to understand the value of transparency. They're totally lawyered
up, lobbied up. And they are as a culture, the hubris of thinking that they're all about the
public good, when if you take a low-tech analogy, its basically like someone got mugged in your
backyard and their position is: well, it's not our problem, I mean, we just bought the lot on
which the house was built, not our problem.
The MSM does not report news. They provide entertainment for their demographic base of
couch riding spectators. Controversy, salaciousness and division increase the amount of
eyeballs, which allow these channels of distraction to charge exorbitant fees to advertisers
who are selling crap most don't need or want. It's all just "chewing gum" for the eyes.
"This isn't new, this is the Kremlin playbook. They have been exacerbating racial tensions
in the US [for years]... "
So it's the Russians that have caused racial tensions in the U.S., who knew? Racial voting
patterns in this country are almost the same today as they were before the Civil War. In any
Presidential election, for instance, 95% of blacks vote Democrat, regardless of who is
running, and over 80% of Christian Fundamentalists vote Republican, regardless of who is
running.
During this last Presidential election, if you flipped the State of Virginia with the
State of Pennsylvania, the election turned on the Mason-Dixon line. Unless the Russians can
be blamed for the racism this nation was born into, it's probably absurd to blame today's
racial tensions on them.
"Black Lives Matter and targeting, specifically, ethnic groups [...] and allowing people
to target, not only for Russian influence, but also target housing ads, employment ads."
Shame on them for trying to get people to get a job!
How long until they declare antifa is a Russian sponsored terrorist org.? I know it is not
time yet but once the violence of antifa generates general rejection by the middle class due
to fear - perhaps then they will throw them under the bus. And use antifa as justification
for oppressive policies/laws.
Thinking about Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent really opened my eyes to what
democratization of the media could do. Why are we having this conversation about 2016, and
not 2008 or 2012? I have a number of theories about this. I think the endgame here is to
create a Great Firewall for major social media platforms to keep people from finding out
certain truths (I think you won't be hearing from Wikileaks, for example). It's a dark time,
and I'm sad we're here.
Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwn ... I don't do social media full stop.
So any government control mechanism actually fails and if anything with all the proactive
advertising, fake news and now mostly junk content I know people who are dumping it prefering
alternative forms of communication ... like talking to real people.
I never knew ... me dear old mum well retired now curses google and facebook with all the
shit they come out with.
Mwhahahahaha ... it's spreading.
To the point just refuse to talk to people who use social media, let them keep their
dumbed down universe to themselves.
MSNBC is a network of wackos. So are the ideas they promote as well as the usual suspects
they interview. No one takes this network or the nonsense they spew seriously.
Sure, lets invent another huge government bureaucracy in order to maintain the monopoly of
a dying, legacy media dinosaur !!!!
Through censorship no less
Its fucking both pathetic and laughable.... the MSM is a Dead Media Walking....
You think Bezos wanted to buy WaPo to enhance its journalistic character? No fucking
chance... he took it over in order to save a mouthpiece of the elite that was ready to go
TU..... for a huge Qid Pro Quo I might add ( to wit, you may recall that shortly after Bezos
took over WaPo, Amazon was suddenly given the ok to accept EBT, with not a peep of protest or
a question from Congress. So now, we have welfare queens ordering online and getting wildly
expensive Amazon Fresh deliveries IN THE FUCKING GHETTO.... ISNT THIS COUNTRY GREAT !!!!)
What cannot be controlled or co-opted by these fucks must somehow be "regulated" or
eliminated.
WELL FUCK THAT!!! Keep stacking pms, lead and brass
"... But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards. ..."
"... Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma – it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election), even if they end up being debunked. ..."
"... A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this recklessness. The story is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled (this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper) – calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war with Russia"). ..."
"... The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic: they secretly decide which Twitter accounts are "Russia bots," meaning accounts that disseminate an "anti-American message" and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone which Twitter accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they identify their methodology for creating their lists or determining what constitutes "anti-Americanism." ..."
"... That's how the Russia narrative is constantly "reported," and it's the reason so many of the biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It's because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties. ..."
"... No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. ..."
"... Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate as healthy. ..."
Last Friday, most major media outlets touted a major story about Russian attempts to hack into
U.S. voting systems, based exclusively on claims made by the Department of Homeland Security. "Russians
attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states in the run-up to last year's presidential election,
officials said Friday," began the USA Today story, similar to how most other outlets presented this
extraordinary claim.
This official story was explosive for obvious reasons, and predictably triggered instant decrees
– that of course went viral – declaring that the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential
election is now in doubt.
Virginia's Democratic Congressman Don Beyer, referring to the 21 targeted states, announced that
this shows "Russia tried to hack their election":
MSNBC's Paul Revere for all matters relating to the Kremlin take-over, Rachel Maddow, was indignant
that this wasn't told to us earlier and that we still aren't getting all the details. "What we have
now figured out," Maddow gravely intoned as she showed the multi-colored maps she made, is that "Homeland
Security knew at least by June that 21 states had been targeted by Russian hackers during the election.
. .targeting their election infrastructure."
They were one small step away from demanding that the election results be nullified, indulging
the sentiment expressed by #Resistance icon Carl Reiner the other day: "Is there anything more exciting
that [sic] the possibility of Trump's election being invalidated & Hillary rightfully installed as
our President?"
So what was wrong with this story? Just one small thing: it was false. The story began to fall
apart yesterday when Associated Press reported that Wisconsin – one of the states included in the
original report that, for obvious reasons, caused the most excitement – did not, in fact, have its
election systems targeted by Russian hackers:
The spokesman for Homeland Security then tried to walk back that reversal, insisting that there
was still evidence that some computer networks had been targeted, but could not say that they had
anything to do with elections or voting. And, as AP noted: "Wisconsin's chief elections administrator,
Michael Haas, had repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted."
Then the story collapsed completely last night. The Secretary of State for another one of the
named states, California, issued a scathing statement repudiating the claimed report:
Sometimes stories end up debunked. There's nothing particularly shocking about that. If this were
an isolated incident, one could chalk it up to basic human error that has no broader meaning.
But this is no isolated incident. Quite the contrary: this has happened over and over and over
again. Inflammatory claims about Russia get mindlessly hyped by media outlets, almost always based
on nothing more than evidence-free claims from government officials, only to collapse under the slightest
scrutiny, because they are entirely lacking in evidence.
The examples of such debacles when it comes to claims about Russia are too numerous to comprehensively
chronicle. I wrote about this phenomenon many times and listed many of the examples, the last time
in June when 3 CNN journalists "resigned" over a completely false story linking Trump adviser Anthony
Scaramucci to investigations into a Russian investment fund which the network was forced to retract:
Remember that time the Washington Post claimed that Russia had hacked the U.S. electricity grid,
causing politicians to denounce Putin for trying to deny heat to Americans in winter, only to have
to issue multiple retractions because none of that ever happened? Or the time that the Post had to
publish a massive editor's note after its reporters made claims about Russian infiltration of the
internet and spreading of "Fake News" based on an anonymous group's McCarthyite blacklist that counted
sites like the Drudge Report and various left-wing outlets as Kremlin agents?
Or that time when Slate claimed that Trump had created a secret server with a Russian bank, all
based on evidence that every other media outlet which looked at it were too embarrassed to get near?
Or the time the Guardian was forced to retract its report by Ben Jacobs – which went viral – that
casually asserted that WikiLeaks has a long relationship with the Kremlin? Or the time that Fortune
retracted suggestions that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN's network? And then there's the
huge market that was created – led by leading Democrats – that blindly ingested every conspiratorial,
unhinged claim about Russia churned out by an army of crazed conspiracists such as Louise Mensch
and Claude "TrueFactsStated" Taylor?
And now we have the Russia-hacked-the-voting-systems-of-21-states to add to this trash heap. Each
time the stories go viral; each time they further shape the narrative; each time those who spread
them say little to nothing when it is debunked.
None of this means that every Russia claim is false, nor does it disprove the accusation that
Putin ordered the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email inboxes (a claim for which, just by
the way, still no evidence has been presented by the U.S. government). Perhaps there were some states
that were targeted, even though the key claims of this story, that attracted the most attention,
have now been repudiated.
But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails
when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion
as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards.
Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma
– it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates
numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded
any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election),
even if they end up being debunked.
A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter
more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this recklessness. The story
is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic
national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former
acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the
founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled
(this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and
David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper)
– calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war
with Russia").
The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic:
they secretly decide which Twitter accounts are "Russia bots," meaning accounts that disseminate
an "anti-American message" and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone which Twitter
accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they identify their methodology for creating their
lists or determining what constitutes "anti-Americanism."
They do it all in secret, and you're just supposed to trust them: Bill Kristol, Mike Chertoff
and their national security state friends. And the New York Times is apparently fine with this demand,
as evidenced by its uncritical acceptance yesterday of the claims of this group – a group formed
by the nation's least trustworthy sources.
But no matter. It's a claim about nefarious Russian control. So it's instantly vested with credibility
and authority, published by leading news outlets, and then blindly accepted as fact in most elite
circles. From now on, it will simply be Fact – based on the New York Times article – that the Kremlin
aggressively and effectively weaponized Twitter to manipulate public opinion and sow divisions during
the election, even though the evidence for this new story is the secret, unverifiable assertions
of a group filled with the most craven neocons and national security state liars.
That's how the Russia narrative is constantly "reported," and it's the reason so many of the
biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It's because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike
the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties.
No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must
overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. And the penalty for desiring to see
evidence for official claims, or questioning the validity and persuasiveness of the evidence that
is proffered, are accusations that impugn one's patriotism and loyalty (simply wanting to see evidence
for official claims about Russia is proof, in many quarters, that one is a Kremlin agent or at least
adores Putin – just as wanting to see evidence in 2002, or questioning the evidence presented for
claims about Saddam, was viewed as proof that one harbored sympathy for the Iraqi dictator).
Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate
as healthy. Just look at how many major, incredibly inflammatory stories, from major media outlets,
have collapsed. Is it not clear that there is something very wrong with how we are discussing and
reporting on relations between these two nuclear-armed powers?
"... Is it possible that the left is being played? Is it possible that the media who almost exclusively report what the establishment wants are being told to report BS? Is it disinfo campaign aimed at ruining the lefts chances of coming back to power? I know the public can easily be made to have their collective heads explode over anything but are journalists that brainwashed too? I'm starting to see a birther parallel here. ouch. Is that ironic or what? ..."
"... The influence on the election from the Russians to me is absurd to the naked eye. Israel has far more influence on American elections through AIPAC. Saudi Arabia has influence through money Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have much more influence on American elections And the prime minister of Israel comes to our country and addresses Congress to criticize the presidents policy in Iran at the time – thats pretty outrageous. ..."
"... Our country is very much in the grip of a dictator: The dictator is money, the military-industrial-complex. ..."
"... This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is going to annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the majority of seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the presidency. ..."
"... It does not make an iota of difference which party is in power. The party of the People was in power, when Obama took office. Look what happened. They started more wars, finished off Libya as a Nation, started the destruction of Syria, started extermination in Yemen . . . . Obama set up more U.S. bases in Africa – the land of his ancestors to bring them back under control. And don't forget the Drone Wars of Obama. ..."
"... All this Russia Gate mess was started by Obama, and largely fueled by The Party of the People. If they come to power, they are going to double up on it. Dont we watch the likes of Adam Schiff On TV every day spitting out their lies and and hatred towards Russia! The party of Bill and Hillary are clamoring for more action – like setting up no Fly Zones – in Syria. They want to subjugate Russia. ..."
"... Mike K. in his post yesterday under Rise of New McCarthyism had this link to an interesting article on the Neocons. ..."
At some point, you would like to believe that this stuff is so over the top, it would be
self-defeating. Are there any accurate polls of what the general public thinks of all this?
If it weren't for the threat of a thermonuclear Armageddon, it would only mean more resources
wasted on the war party and less for social security, etc. Russia is not going anywhere, and
I believe is beyond our ability to harm it, unless said nuclear holocaust ensues. Our
attempts to isolate Russia are doomed to fail.
Sam F , September 28, 2017 at 9:41 pm
Yes, the charade is doomed to fail to persuade, let alone hurt Russia, but will succeed in
creating the foreign monster needed by tyrants to demand domestic power. In our modern witch
hunts we all know that there are no witches – the whole performance is a declaration of
tyranny over public information, a statement to the common man that he must follow his master
the mass media, he must avow that he is the slave of the rich, and pretend that the declared
enemy is his own. He must praise the flag betrayed by his masters the oligarchy.
hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 11:08 am
Is it possible that the left is being played? Is it possible that the media who almost
exclusively report what the establishment wants are being told to report BS? Is it disinfo campaign aimed at ruining the lefts chances of coming back to power?
I know the public can easily be made to have their collective heads explode over anything
but are journalists that brainwashed too? I'm starting to see a birther parallel here. ouch.
Is that ironic or what?
Abe , September 29, 2017 at 11:26 pm
During a discussion with The Nation concerning the documentary series The Putin
Interviews, first broadcast in June 2017, Academy Award winning film producer Oliver Stone
addressed the hacking allegations and questions of influence on the American election:
The influence on the election from the Russians to me is absurd to the naked eye. Israel
has far more influence on American elections through AIPAC. Saudi Arabia has influence
through money Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have much more influence on American
elections And the prime minister of Israel comes to our country and addresses Congress to
criticize the presidents policy in Iran at the time – thats pretty outrageous.
Our country is very much in the grip of a dictator: The dictator is money, the
military-industrial-complex. Its beyond absurd to have this kind of expenditure every year on
military.
If there is any comfort to be found in any of this, all this blaming Russia on everything
and anything is getting all to outrageous as each day goes by. In other words the MSM
overkill on this Russia-Gate silliness, is losing its credibility, with all this nonsense and
coverage saying so.
eole , September 29, 2017 at 6:34 am
I wish you were right. Unfortunately, here in Europe, there are still a lot of countries
which blindly follow whatever the USA think or do, particularly with NATO which would so like
to step by mistake of course across the Baltic and Polish borders.
I must say that I
admire
the strength of Putins nerves. How long will it last? Also there are elections next year, and
we can observe that Washington is arleady trying to plant seeds of revolution. I dont think
it'll work. According to Xavier Moreau a French political observer living in Moscow, Putin
enjoys a popularity that lots of foreign politicians would be envy!
Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 9:22 am
I wish eole, likeminded Europeans and us in the U.S. were to band together to protest, and
petition, our governments to stop with all this warring madness. From the Donbass, to Deir
Ezzor, and all the way across the globe to Seoul Korea, we the people for peace should stand
arm and arm to defy this ugly monster whos only goal is to marginalize us citizens with their
ultimate military strength towards having their ownership over all of the worlds precious
natural resources. All this to make a few bankers rich. Joe
mike k , September 28, 2017 at 5:46 pm
Money controls everything. ETHICS DOESNT STAND A CHANCE IN COMPETITION WITH MONEY.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ WELCOME TO THE WONDERLAND OF Capitalism, where you can have
anything you want, if only you have the MOOLA! Souls for sale here – CHEAP!
Just sign here in blood, and have we got a deal for you….
Leslie F , September 28, 2017 at 7:51 pm
The only poll I know about was an internal Democratic Party poll showing that rank and
file Democrats resented the incessant Russia did it mantra as not responsive to their
concerns. I don't remember whether people believed it or not but they definitely through it
was getting too much attention from Democratic leaders at the expense of more important
issues.
Joe Tedesky , September 28, 2017 at 9:23 pm
This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is going to
annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the majority of
seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the presidency. It
will serve the Democrates well, for allowing themselves for being used as a tool for the
Shadow Government.
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 4:07 am
Joe – This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is
going to annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the
majority of seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the
presidency.
It does not make an iota of difference which party is in power. The party of the People
was in power, when Obama took office. Look what happened. They started more wars, finished
off Libya as a Nation, started the destruction of Syria, started extermination in Yemen . . .
. Obama set up more U.S. bases in Africa – the land of his ancestors to bring them back
under control. And don't forget the Drone Wars of Obama.
All this Russia Gate mess was started by Obama, and largely fueled by The Party of the
People. If they come to power, they are going to double up on it. Dont we watch the likes of
Adam Schiff On TV every day spitting out their lies and and hatred towards Russia! The party
of Bill and Hillary are clamoring for more action – like setting up no Fly Zones
– in Syria. They want to subjugate Russia.
The way the things are in the country, of all the bad options available, Trump probably is
the best to have – he can not make the case for more wars effectively, like the slick
politician Obama did.
Mike K. in his post yesterday under Rise of New McCarthyism had this link to an
interesting article on the Neocons.
Dave you are right. The reason I mentioned the Democrates was because they were the last
party that I can recall who did once stand for the we the people. My memory also can recall
how even when at their best the Democrates weren't all that great to living up to their
overrated motto. So what I was referring too in many ways doesnt exist, and some would say
never did. These presidents we all find fault with, in my mind are only front people for our
Shadow Government (look up YouTube of Kevin Shipp). In fact watching Trump turn over his
staff, and his redo of his campaign promises, is like seeing the Shadow Government take over
in real time. You and I Dave are most definitely living inside of the matrix. Thanks Dave for
moving this conversation along in the right direction. Joe
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 11:53 am
Yes Joe. There was lot of good in that old Democratic Party of the 1960s and 70s –
my wife and I took part in the McGoverns campaign. And in those days, in old main street type
conservative Republicans, I found lot of good too. In fact, when I came to this country
during mid 1960s, the city council of Ann Arbor was Republican, and they were good people.
And now the city council of Ann Arbor is in Democratic Party hands – all Hillary
supporters, and Russia bashers too.
I wonder what they are teaching in these schools now. This is what this very effective
propaganda machine of this new age Edward Bernays is doing to the young minds and to the
public at large.
Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 12:24 pm
Dave you bring up the 1972 McGovern presidential run, and the way that all went down. I
quit voting after that all took a turn for the worst, and for the following next twenty years
I stayed away from the voting booth. That no doubt wasnt a smart way of dealing with my
disappointment, but at that time I thought it appropriate because I could see then that I
didnt necessarily agree with the majority of my fellow countrymen and woman. No big deal, I
just did what needed done to get my family food on the table. To be honest Dave, I still dont
know why I vote. Although you are right the Democrates arent in anyway much better than the
Republicans, and with that we all suffer. Joe
Laninya , September 28, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Quote: And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental
organizations if they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic
process no matter how sloppy the research or how absurd the findings.
Ha!ha! You know whats funny about this? Its that all the money poured into the NGOs in
Russia in the past quarter century that was intended to, not just meddle in, but to shape the
Russian political, social, and economic realities has, under Putins wise and delicate rule,
been squeezed into an ineffectual state of presence. And because their attempts on the ground
in real life have failed over there, a theatrical inversion of reality has to be created over
here.
Ah!ha!ha! This is SUCH an amazing movie. And, better when wearing 3-D glasses! Cant wait
to see how it ends.
Joe Tedesky , September 28, 2017 at 6:19 pm
Your right, Putin seems to out smart these clever American instigators every step of the
way. I will now take a knee for injustices committed against Blacks, and Native-Americans
(remember Dakota Access), and stay down on my knee a little while longer with the hope that
my beloved USA may come to its senses, and that my country will finally wise up.
laninya , September 29, 2017 at 12:44 am
Joe,
I appreciate your taking a knee for injustices committed against certain of those who
share this continent with us English-speaking peoples (who seem to have have claimed it as
our own), as I have long appreciated the tone and substance of your comments on this
site.
So, Im gonna quibble (in a friendly way) with you on the idea that Putin out smarts
American instigators at every step. Ive been spying on that guy for about three years, now,
and Id say its just that hes playing a different game. One the American players dont
understand, and dont believe even exists or maybe theyve heard rumours of such a game, but
they think its mythical.
See: our people -- yours and mine: your beloved USA and my Canada, heirs of the British
Empire -- our people make war for fun and profit. Always have done. We rule the waves, and
privateering is our game.
Putins people, on the other hand, have occupied the crossroads at the centre of the major
overland trade routes (north-south as well as east-west) since ancient times, and, due to the
geography and the demographics, have been fighting off invaders from all direction the whole
time. Its a whole different game.
And, its a game VV Putin takes seriously, cause he has no other choice. After perestroika,
after the Harvard boys [did] Russia ( ref: https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/
), that huge nation (11 time zones!) was on the brink of total collapse and dismemberment.
For the stability, security and prosperity of (what was left of) his people and the 1000-year
history of the nation, he just couldnt afford to make any mistakes or false steps.
For him and his team (Putin doesnt work alone by any stretch of the imagination), this
isnt a pissing contest. Its the life of their nation.
Whole different game.
I hope our countries wise up, too. Were really blowing it.
Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 1:46 am
There are two things here I see as interesting, and possibly crucial, laninya.
One, is the U.S. and Canada by the standards of a countrys age are fairly young. In fact
Russia got our countries beat by, probably would you say 4 fold? Anyway, our time at bat as
being an Empire of somekind would even be shorter by the standards of empire time. So for
America being stupid and young enough to be excused for at least this kind of uncontrolled
blind patriotism we have seen of late in the U.S., added to the total absence of attentioned
paid to all these American instigated wars, why us Americans are like distracted children in
a playground, so our youth is our only plead. I could be wrong, but this collective mindset
in our society here, makes me believe we need to do a lot of growing up in this nation, and
the world will be happy to throw the U.S. a coming of age party if peace is the prize.
The second matter is, is that I agree that Russia by having a defense oriented military
strategy is in better shape than like the U.S. having ourselves stretched out all over the
global network we have wove. You see I dont trust big, and Im leery of to much technology as
wellbut thats me. In fact, if a body existed like the UN who had some real juice were to laid
down some enforceable laws, I would then hedge towards them making nations have their
militaries situated more like the Russian Federation does.defensive. With the NFL in the news
so much these days this Good Defense thinking should make sense to no matter who stands or
kneels.
Lastly, the U.S. has already over spent itself on war, now the U.S. only needs to go on a
frantic rampage of somekind.lets hope it just boils down to rhetorical saber rattlings, and
the world laughs with us. Kim looks to be having a ball. I shouldnt have said that, but
sometimes a little humor lightens the reality.oh its very American to laugh when we should be
worried, but I digress..
Big isnt always better. You may look better in a $1,000. 00 suit than I do in my
$10,000.00 suit, and oh by the way these clothes we have on are still suits.
Nice conversation laninya. Joe
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 4:19 am
Ianinya – An excellent analysis. Right on the mark. Putin is not a dictator as they
malign him in the Media in The West. He is leading a team – very astute and shrewd
team. For Russia it is an existential struggle – a fight they can not lose. They have
been subjected to it during their entire History as you pointed out.
Americans – even our politicians and experts – do not have much understanding
of other peoples history – they do not understand Russia.
laninya , September 29, 2017 at 12:48 pm
Dave,
Well, its interesting what a person can learn these days just sitting in a chair, poking
at a few buttons on a keyboard. Never in the history of the world have ordinary people had so
many resources at their disposal and so much information at their fingertips. Yet, your last
sentence still seems accurate.
Why is that? In the US and Canada, we do have experts who are very knowledgable about
other peoples history and culture, including Russias. But, for some reason or another, there
are times when we just collectively choose to sideline and ignore them. In the US you have
Stephen F. Cohen Jack Matlock, and Sharon Tennison, among others, who can speak intelligently
about Russia. In Canada we have the voices of Patrick Armstrong, Paul Robinson, and the
blogger Mark Chapman (The Kremlin Stooge). Armstrong and Robinson both come from a military
background, both also publish easily accessible blogs.
I believe it was thanks to a commenter over at the Kremlin Stooge that I discovered a
book, then newly available in English translation, titled Russia and Europe / The Slavic
Worlds Political and Cultural Relations with the Gremanic-Roman West by Nikolai Danilevskii,
originally published c.1868.
Let me show you a quote from that book. A hundred and fifty years ago, Danilevskii wrote
this:
It is still in fashion among us to attribute everything to our unfamiliarity with Europe, and
to its ignorance concerning Russia. Our press says nothing, at least until recently, but our
enemies slander us. How would poor Europe learn the truth? It is shrouded in fog and
befuddled. Risum teneatis, amici; or, as we say in Russian, it would make a chicken laugh, my
friends. How could Europe -- which knows everything from the Sanskrit language to the
Iroquois dialects, from the laws of motion of complex solar systems to the structures of
microscopic organisms -- not know a thing about Russia? Such excuses -- ignorance, naivety,
and gullibility, as if we are talking about an innocent schoolgirl -- are laughable coming
from Europe, shrewd as a serpent.
Funny, eh?
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 8:37 pm
My comments have been in moderation for couple of hours, may be due to links to The Saker
I put in. I am posting it again without the links.
laninya,
The last paragraph in your comments, quotation from Danilevsky is very interesting. Yes,
you are right. There are quite a few people in academia and outside, like Stephen Cohen,
Matlock, and others. Matlock has been trying to calm the waters with his appearances on RT,
and a few other places, and also at the Valdai International discussion club forum. But these
people have no power.
Just about all the power – finance, media, TV, entertainment industry, foreign
policy, and to a large extent defense policy, in the U.S. is in the hands of the NeoCons,
mostly Zionists, in complicity with Israel.
You wrote about the Harvard Boys doing all this financial engineering on Russia during
1990s under that charlatan Yeltsin, who was in U.S. hands. I really thought The West has
finally finished Russia off – and that Russia can not recover in hundred years , as the
media was proclaiming here. Putin and his team has resurrected Russia once again – it
is almost a miracle. They – Russia – are not in good shape yet, but it seems like
they can defend themselves.
As you wrote, Russia, being at the cross roads, has faced invasions, and dangers
throughout its history – Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, under Tatar yoke for two centuries,
nomads from the steppes and Central Asia, Turks from the South, and from Caucasus warrior
tribes. From the West – Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, Germany, and France.
Russia has been under constant existential threat through out its history, and so is today
under threat form U.S., and the rest of The West. Wests intervention in Syria for regime
change, and then Iran as target is all aimed at Russia. Russia had no other recourse but help
Syria against the Jihadis, armed and supported by The West.
But Syria still is not out of danger. There are some articles in the Saker today related
to it and Kurdistan issue. In Syria , it seems like U.S., SDF, and ISIS are working in tandem
to stop the advance of Syrian Army supported by Russia.
Laninya , September 30, 2017 at 12:15 am
Hey Dave,
Glad you tweaked to the Danilevskii quote. When I read it, I thought: wow! has time stood
still?
Let me address what you said about power, though. You wrote:
But these people have no power. Just about all the power – finance, media, TV,
entertainment industry, foreign policy, and to a large extent defense policy, in the U.S. is
in the hands of the NeoCons, mostly Zionists, in complicity with Israel.
See, I dont go along with that cop out. The population at large has the power to make or
break any of the entities listed above. If Neocons have power, its because people are buying
what theyre selling. Stephen Cohen and Jack Matlock do not because few want to hear what they
have to say right now.
As I said above, our Western economy was built on privateering. We know what butters our
bread (plunder), yet we also want to present ourselves as being on the side of the angels. So
we give power to the murders and thieves among us and then pretend were not responsible for
what they do. I read that as being the shrewd as a serpent part of what Danilevskii was
talking about.
As for the Saker, I frequent the Vineyard myself.
Thanks for the conversation.
Karl Sanchez , September 28, 2017 at 6:04 pm
Essentially, in other words, the CIAs having another recruiting drive to further undermine
what little remains of honest, deeply investigative journalism within the Outlaw US Empire.
The Big Black Hole gets dug deeper daily. The success of CIA brainwashing can be seen by the
number of people denouncing those Taking a Knee.
MaDarby , September 28, 2017 at 7:56 pm
Clearly propaganda works. People rage against the empire and then swallow whole its fear
mongering and demonizing of Russia ultimately siding with the Empire.
There are so many people journalists and persons loved by the left who have clearly now
sided with the Empire big names who just cave in and say oh just one more election in our
wonderful democracy please its pathetic. There is no such thing as democracy in an
Empire.
Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 9:14 am
what has been revealed by Republican government officials to be facts, like the intrusion
of voting machines in 21 states
One should be very careful about such facts – much of it has been retracted, and
usually the retraction receives much less attention than the original allegation. As far as
Wisconsin is concerned, the allegations have already been retracted: https://www.apnews.com/10a0080e8fcb4908ae4a852e8c03194d
Based on our external analysis, the WI IP address affected belongs to the WI Department of
Workforce Development, not the Elections Commission, said the email from Juan Figueroa, with
Homeland Securitys Office of Infrastructure Protection. So, while the attribution of the
source of the probing to the Russian state is speculative, in the case of Wisconsin, the
target was not even the elections commission, but the department of workforce
development.
Of course, not everything has explicitly been retracted, but when we look at this pattern
of allegations about Russia (like that they hacked the electric grid in Vermont) that are
later retracted, that should rather lead people to be skeptical about all these
allegations.
Constantine , September 29, 2017 at 1:44 pm
Your very mention of hacked e-mails reveals your extreme bias on the issue. In your view,
it would be impossible to expect one or more individuals with integrity in the IT department
of the DNC being horrified by the revelations and the dealings these revealed about the
pre-selected candidate Clinton. Some people may have been genuinely outraged by the attempt
of the DNC establishment hacks to undermine Sanders in violation of the partys own rules and
proceed to leak this sensitive info to Wikileaks. But for people like you it had to be
Russia.
If anything, the pitiful arguments and non-facts used to promote the fake Russia-gate
scandal further reinforce the certainty that this was concocted to attack Trumps presidency.
And what people like you fail to understand is that had a leftist candidate won the
elections, one who would be sincerely interested to change the course of the US in numerous
aspects of domestic and foreign policy, such an individual would face the same implacable
hostility by the neoliberal establishment.
And it is the servile mentality of a large number of the US/western citizenry – to
which part you obviously belong – that allows the same people who have spewing lies and
fantastic narratives that serve the countrys corporate oligarchy to get away again and again
and proceed to do so in every occasion it is required of them. There are no consequences for
deliberately spreading falsehoods and it always works.
As for the threat of an armageddon, if you honestly believe that penalizing diplomacy with
Russia (a fantastic achievement that was not seen during the Cold War) doesnt carry any
dangers, you have an extremely limited perception of international politics.
Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 2:57 pm
Mr. Goldman, your comments on this site are entertaining and obfuscating at once. You say,
as though speaking truth, …it did appear that the hacked e-mails and Trumps closing
arguments in the election, were coordinated. What hacked emails? There were no hacked emails,
though, like you, newspapers repeat that phrase to establish it as a given in peoples minds,
cementing the propaganda at which point it is no longer questioned. Seeit worked with you.
Hacking and leaking are entirely different processes. The emails were LEAKED from the DNC to
Julian Assange/Wikileaks. Period. Provable. Fact. Ground zero is the leaked emailsproving
Hilary wanted to discredit Sanders as an opponent, move forward on war with Iran and Russia
(both would be as illegal as all our other wars in the past 70 years), strengthen her
connections with the banking world, and become president. Since you say you want facts to
prevail, let them.
Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 7:15 pm
To say there is no proof of mischief is a conclusion that defies logic and fact. Firstly
we have every right to investigate this issue, and secondly Trump operatives and Russian
behavior created this investigation, not the other way around, and the evidence appears to
be growing.
I think this person is a True Believer in what is the logical extension of the Cheney
Doctrine. <and here I've been saying that the BushBots were all gone!) From the wiki:
If theres a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a
nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. Its not about
our analysis Its about our response.
In other words, the Bushies were going to do what they damned well pleased. Fast Forward
to 2017. From the essay above:
The Times article also might have mentioned that Twitter has 974 million accounts. So,
this alarm over 600 accounts is a bit disproportionate for a front-page story in the Times,
dont you think?
As Mr. Golden says, it defies logic not to treat this as a genuine Threat To American
Democracy. Approximately 1/10,000th of 1% of Twitter accounts are in on this scheme –
Mr. Parry is clearly being a contrary stick-in-the-mud for denying evidence which is
perfectly obvious to the most casual observer.
Seer , September 29, 2017 at 8:29 am
Do you type with a straight face? From your previous post: Trump operatives and Russian behavior created this investigation
anon , September 28, 2017 at 7:35 pm
More propaganda from the zionist scammer Golden:
1. The professional investigators did any usable internet tracing in 2016: routers do not
have second thoughts; the investigators made serious and amateurish mistakes and false
statements recently;
2. An abundance of caution was allowed in 2016 and is propaganda now;
3. It is absurd to say that statements of the lack of evidence defy logic and fact and then
be unable to cite a single bit of evidence;
4. More zionist lies pretending that the US Mideast policy is not dictated by Israeli
bribes;
5. More zionist lies that Russia and the US have conflicting, geo-political interests in the
Middle East, that have nothing to do with Israel
6. Spare us the fantasy and stick to the facts or go preach to your zionist paymasters.
D5-5 , September 28, 2017 at 6:27 pm
right track wrong track polling with current sept figures
Right track wrong track polling, links now waiting moderation, show in the 60 percentiles
America on the wrong track in successive years. In pursuing this type of polling I find in
similar sources, consistent over the past year, discontent with the government spending time
on the Russia conspiracy instead of getting after health care and other issues considered
more important. I also find 84% currently support the NFL athletes right to protest, but only
39% think taking a knee is acceptable. Also found a somewhat amusing reference to the
Lingerie Football League, which Id never heard of, females playing football in skimpy
outfits, and this (should I say body) states that the flag is too sacred to be protested.
Well, the Russkies didnt get to these lingerie football players yet, I am relieved to
report.
I found results in duck duck go under right track wrong track polling and do Americans
believe in Russia-gate and do Americans support NFL players protesting.
Robert Golden , September 28, 2017 at 7:38 pm
I think 12% of Americans favored the R health care plan. They have spent 9 months on it,
and havent given up. Two years pitching Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi as a complete
fabrication, so what is your point again? Further, check your data on the Russian
investigation again. I dont know anyone who doesnt support the investigation and Rachael
Maddow is now #1 on cable news (from 3rd), and thats all she talks about.
D5-5 , September 28, 2017 at 8:12 pm
This comment appears to be typical of your thinking, Robert, and Im sorry to say it does
no credit. You have taken what I said and twisted it. According to poll reports I was looking
at earlier, and some of these are now waiting moderation 65% of Americans felt the emphasis
on Russia-gate overdone and want the government to spend time on more important matters, such
as health care, which you dismiss here as outright incorrect. In your previous reply to me
you revealed what your certainty about fact rests on: in your own words that is hunch. Well,
hunch wont do it for the critical thinking youre calling for, Robert, which I respectfully
suggest you do more of. Your cred here is pretty low at the moment. I mean no malice by
saying so.
Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 3:35 pm
R. Golden, Here are some facts: Healthcare for all citizens in this country would be half
the cost for twice the care. Period. Read T.R. Reids book, investigating other countries with
free health care for all. It is amusing that Fidel Castro once pointed out the Cuban
education and health care systems compared to the US.
All citizens want healthcare for all, except those few who are made wealthy keeping the
status quo (pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, those doctors in the AMA who are paid off
for supporting certain markets in the medical fields and encouraging use of certain drugs,
and paid-off politicians who lobby for these thieves and get funding for their elections).
Why should those handful of money hungry men control our health system? You may be interested
to learn that the people in the medical field who actually care about patients, the vast
majority, want Medicare from birth forward.
Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 3:51 pm
R. Golden, Rachael Maddow has lost her creditability with her rants about Russia and
pro-militarism, neither stance defendable. If shes now ranked 3rd, that is indicative of the
low level of intelligence and critical thinking in the country. After all, Russia/Putin is
innocent until proven otherwise (not by guesses, hunches, innuendos, suggestions, quotes by
unnamed officials, and outright lies). After all, ALL our wars since WWII have been illegal
and against international law, and are engaged with false flags. Should we support soldiers
who are sent into battle to murder innocent civilians in sovereign lands? No. That would be
insanity.
WC , September 28, 2017 at 6:53 pm
Bad enough on my safe space that I have Paul Craig Roberts harping on these same issues,
now Parry joins the fray. I need to be reassured that there is no profit in a nuclear
wasteland and even political sociopaths and the bankers that own them have an instinct for
survival. In the back of my head I keep hearing George C. Scotts character in Strangelove
saying, http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003295/quotes
floyd gardner , September 28, 2017 at 8:26 pm
WaterCloset, a courtesy flush please?
WC , September 29, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Good one. :) But you cant flush the level of BS that has been fed to the public over the
past number of years. Thats why Trump the plumber was elected, to drain the swamp etc.
So now what happens? 20+ trillion in debt with 100+ trillion in unfunded liabilities, let
alone off-shoring all those jobs is a fairly good indicator the shit is backed up to the
ceiling. If we are to believe Trump actually makes any decisions, what are his choices? QE4?
Austerity to piss people off even more? Or start another war someplace to take peoples minds
off the collapsing economy?
To quote Bachman Turner Overdrive – You Aint Seen Nothing Yet.
Danny Weil , September 28, 2017 at 7:17 pm
America is stumbling into a diystopic future with a clueless public and a corporate
fascist government.
Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 7:30 pm
The motivation of the neocon NYT is worth speculating about. Yes, they've been wanting to
smash Muslim nations for israel for ages. What other possible motives might there be?
Why are these billionaires doubling down on Israeli Investments?
What do Bill Gates, Carlos Slim Helu, Mark Cuban, Donald Trump, and Warren Buffett all
have in common?
Speculation – it might be as simple as money. Remember, Israel OWNS the US Congress,
and has managed to put the fear of God into every last one of them. This unprecedented
influence could easily be translated into some enormous financial benefits for those Rich
Guys who suck up in the proper and approved manner. It would be as simple as slipping in some
innocent-looking phrases into some of the boring legislation hardly anybody reads. You can
bet that it would pass, and you can also bet that the Corporate Media will keep their yaps
shut about it.
So thats another theory – plain and simple corruption midwifed by the thieving and
murdering little shithole of an apartheid nation.
I seem to have forgotten to mention that Carlos Slim is supposed to be a major stockholder
of the neocon NYT.
Robert Golden , September 28, 2017 at 7:48 pm
Please do some reading. Your first stop should be the Koch Bros who own the largest track
of Canadian Tar Sands, and are potentially going to be twice as rich, after Trump approved
the Keystone Pipeline, from Canada through the middle of America all the way to the flooded
and toxic plains, to Houston (final destination Asia). Youll find they already own most of
the global warming denying Congress (not Israel), and their next extraction site will
probably be the Grand Canyon. After you have read up on the Kochs, check out the Mercers.
Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 8:24 pm
koch Bros
Canadian Tar Sands
Keystone Pipeline
Mercers
The connection of these places and people to the BS peddling by the NYT isnt entirely
clear to me.
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 9:21 am
The connection is that this modern Roman Empire is very big: the inheritors of the Roman
Empire (France, Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, and so on) have been wanting to smash Muslim
Empires for 1500 years, having lost their M.E. and N. African Provinces to them. Since the
Zion project was hatched by Cecil Rhodes RoundTable Group in the19th century, the Israel
Project is a project of the British Province of the modern Roman Empire, which ALSO commands
considerable influence in its Western Provinces Canada and USA, hence: Koch Bros.,Canadian
Tar Sands, Keystone Pipeline, Mercers. Of course Im talking about the integrated community of
1%er Oligarchs, NOT The People of these Provinces. Corbyn and Sanders (and whoever the
Canadian and Israeli equivalents would be) can throw a gigantic Monkey Wrench into these
imperial shenanigans
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 9:26 am
Israel is a way of continuing the smashing process of Muslim Empires by the modern Roman
Empire, and I forgot to say that Germany is also a very big part of the modern Roman Empire,
which carried the name Holy Roman Empire up to Napoleonic times (which, BTW, ole Nappie
himself became their model for a modern Fascist Roman Emperor, as his Generals and extremely
regressive factions within the Catholic Church hatched the Synarchy Internationale Project
mid-19th century).
hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 11:59 am
ok, you brought it up, so i will run with it..
bringing it around full circle.
modern roman empire. yes. agreement . but
only british monarchy. with allies, not partners. why is this important? if one looks at
the history of the royal institute for international affairs, one can see that the crown had
to figure out how to maintain control of their assets. fast forward to the american branch.
its called the council on foreign relations. the number of members in our government over
years and years is staggering. just keep that in mind.
there is ample evidence of british involvement in the us war of northern aggression. and
not just because they traded with the south. did you know that the monarchys cousins, the
russian crown, sent warships to california in defense of the union?
its my opinion that this act is what sealed the fate of the romanovs in 1917. payback. for
whatever reason the british crown holds grudges. im irish. not sure what my ancestors did to
piss them off but they havent let off on our people in a thousand years…
this anti russia thing started before obama although it was not as overt.
the orange color revolution happened in (wait for it….) ukraine under bush. and
while not reported as a cia supported venture, i think we know what happened.
does anyone remember 8/8/08? opening day of the olympics in china. but a mini war was
started in south ossetia. american media initially reported that russians had attacked un
soldiers there.
the present anti russian hysteria started when putin checkmated the neo libs/neo cons when
their attempt to destabilize syria failed. thats when i observed the overt media attacks
begin.
funny thing. i have actually been to russia and ukraine. in 1979. it was the first time in
my life that i had been outside of the usa. the government propaganda of the previous 60
years had made me think of all russians as evil bond villians. it was eye opening to finally
meet real russians. understand they were just people like me. i was 16 and it was the first
time i had the blinders lifted. a real learning moment.
so, i guess that makes me guilty of collusion. sorry to you hillary supporters.
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 2:21 pm
Yes, hated, I agree with you on all points. Czar Alexander II was killed (he was Lincolns
Ally against British and French plans to join battle with Davis against Lincoln. Lincoln was
killed for the Greenback maneuver around British monetary control (a Venetian style of Empire
via monetary control & manipulation). Lincolns war of agression was a war against the
superpower British Empire and its puppet the Confederacy (Planter Oligarchs), Wall Street
assets (J.P. Morgan & Co., money handlers for the Planters), and the Essex Country Junto
(New England Blue Bloods in shipping for the Empires slave and Opium trade). The Planter
oligarchy was crushed. The Wall Streeters lived on (Essex County Junto bluebloods tooour Axis
of Evil against the Republic, and Independence from Empire). Lincolns GreenBacks was a
typical example of the American Credit System of Political Economy (control of economy by a
Sovereign Nation-States Government in the hands of We The People via House of
Representatives, a deadly threat to the British-Style of Empire via a Venetian Monetary
System manipulated & controlled by oligarchs. Russia always supported USA Revolution as a
counter-balance to British Empire designs on Russia (enemy of my enemy is my friend),(and
French Empire and Ottoman Empire too, as evidenced by Crimean War 1856).
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 2:25 pm
British Crown is Princeps? (First among Equals)
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 4:15 pm
Im of Welsh-Irish ancestry (Irish on my mothers side). Her grand father came over as a
stow-a-way to flee the potato famine (neo liberal economics at its purestancestor of TINA
Thatcherism and austerities, deficits, balanced budgets and suchlike wicked gaming with
peoples lives (but Banks and MIIC are too big to fail of course). Lincoln would have just
GreenBacked his way out of Depression and imminent economic collapse (a Credit System
recognizing it is LABOR upon raw materials that is the SOURCE of ALL wealth, NOT Venetian
Fondi in an oligarchs off-shore piggy bank). The grudge against the Celtic Fringe (Welsh and
Scotts too) comes from the fact that we were on the the Islands first, by many Centuries
before the Angels, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians showed up. This is just flawed human nature in
action. I suppose the Picts can claim the same grievance against us Celts; American Indians
too. The enemy is Oligarchy. It s class warfare, not Tribal warfare, and THEY are masters at
divide-to-conquer, seeking out all useful flaws and weaknesses.
As the rest of the world also sees the US fabrications, American may one day find itself
under fire from many directions. No one likes a dirty player.
Louise , September 28, 2017 at 7:47 pm
While it may appear to become a nuisance after more than a year, it may
also become very dangerous. It could be a serious effort to get the
populace to condone an illegal war in Syria involving Russia. People
dont pay much attention to Assad and the Syrians, but the Russians
are already complaining about US forces working with ISIS. If those
reports are true the plausible deniability will work if the people are
preconditioned to disbelieve whatever comes from the Kremlin.
Washington accuses others of nefarious tactics it employs itself. Now Washington accuses
the Syrian Arab Army of colluding with the wahabist militants bent on genocide in Syria. This
accusation alone informs the audience that Washington is in collusion with the wahabist
militant gangs operating across the globe.
In the link you will see how the SDF seems to cut through wahabist gang territory like a hot
knife through butter. Easily securing the region north of Deir es-Zor, and are currently
cutting west across the desert as fast as those ubiquitous toyota trucks can carry them
without showing any evidence of fighting, according to Russian surveillance.
Russia is all about protecting its buffer zone & rightly so. The West plays the Great
Game while an unwitting public buys the rationale for standing up to Russia, China, Iran etc.
Why wouldnt the Russians use the Trump admin to shore up its borders to protect them from
NATO expansion? Trump is surely engaged in laundering the Russian oligarchs money. How else
could it be after the US did everyting it could to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union
& let it be taken over by industries privatized by Yeltzin as a schill for America. As
Putin has pointed out, the collapse of the SU was the worst thing that happened in the 20th
cent.
Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 10:17 am
As far as I know, Putin did not say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst
thing that happened (to Russia?) in the 20th century. That would hardly be plausible –
even if the 90es were very bad for Russia, the Holocaust and Nazi Germanys attack on the
Soviet Union with about 20 million Soviet victims was almost certainly worse. Also the crimes
of Stalinism are certainly on a larger scale than the collapse of the Soviet Union.
What Putin said was: Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet
Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became
a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside
Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.
a major geopolitical disaster of the century does not necessaily mean the greatest
geopolitical disaster of the century
As with some other statements (for example the canard that Putin allegedly praised Trump
as a genius in December 2015), the basis of the claim is a translation problem. This question
is discussed here:
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10457/what-is-the-basis-for-putin-describing-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-as-the/10549
Putin used a superlative form krupneyshaya. The meaning of this form is similar to the
Italian grandissima and means very big. But it does not necessarily mean the biggest,
although it could in some contexts.
hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 12:06 pm
i like your comment. well researched.
Constantine , September 29, 2017 at 2:02 pm
The crimes of Stalin did not leave the country – USSR or Russia – a moribund
state. The population was increasing in the end of the 30s and the country was an
industrialized power that could not be easily threatened by other forces, short of being hit
by the most powerful army in the world (which is what happened). Russia by the late 90s was a
post-apocalyptic gangland with a fast decreasing population and a swiftly unraveling state
and society. That was a product of the collapse of the USSR and the ensuing neoliberal shock
treatment.
Since the countrys descent into the abyss was stopped by Putin & Co, it goes without
saying that this was the cause of the recent outburst of Putinophobia.
Lois Gagnon , September 28, 2017 at 9:39 pm
It all reeks of desperation on the part of the Empires power trippers. They know in the
back of their minds that their criminal racket is faltering. Russiagate is the duct tape
holding the house of cards together. At least until they can finish looting every last drop
of profit from as many colonies (including this one) as they can.
Sorry to say, the same phenomenon has been at work in climate science for quite some
time.
Apparently its all about providing fodder for propaganda outlets and requiring conformity
on the part of the white collar set.
Whether or not its convincing to the masses is not an issue.
Russiagate will be easier to fudge over the long term, and short of an upset in the power
structure may prevail for some decades until revision finally takes place.
Hide Behind , September 28, 2017 at 11:46 pm
The original inveztigation was begun by a man since fired, N. Y. STAtes attorney General,
and it had to do nothing at all about election interference by Russia proper,:It was about
Trumps illegally laundering Russian Oligarchs stolen funds from Russia.
Trail led to and thru AGI bank of Germany and off shore banking in Bahamas. Same facilitys
Clinton Foundation uses.
This got into a cluster fu.. when Feds and Congress intervened. As the Investigation also
uncovered many a counts to politicly connected elected and appointed officials who like as
Russia showed Mc Cains letters Doing for contributions from high ranking Russians during his
run for Prez.
Same formula as used clear back to Arizona 5s embezzlement of Fed HUD and FHA funds and
original Clintons when in Arkansas of same embezzlement that got sidetracked into a Lie about
a BJ in white house by girl.
Smoke and mirrors have hid many many a prominent and financial miscreants deeds in US.
Yet the brain washed still a t as if they live in a
Democracy, And like Little Ikemens salute the flag and let children never learn difference of
indoctrinated Nationalism from Ideals of
patriotism.
Dumb As Rocks Spout, Support The Troop, But Not The War, As the volunteer troop slaughter
hundreds of thousands and displace millions.
into eternal poverty by just following orders.
Go watch your military recruitment indoctrination and show your loyalty to permanent warfare
as millions of Americans suffer from your as S ki
Hide Behind , September 29, 2017 at 1:47 am
I would like to recommend George Orwells collection of essays, All art is propaganda, it
is not so much of a heavy read as it is time consuming as so many essays when finished invade
ones mind that one pauses to assimilate and judge the content fully before beginning
next.
As for slime:
It is said that government began in Mespotamia and it was quite a model for each following
social order; That is until the Greeks invented politics and since them chaos reigns.
Politics defy treason and logic as well as natural physical laws.
For unlike in natures scheme of things pond slime sinks to the bottom. Whereas in politics
the slime raises to the top.
Not of Orwell s caliber of writing, just my own observation of USA politi Al system.
Realist , September 29, 2017 at 2:53 am
This Spanish Inquisition being run by the Congress is getting to the point of absurdity.
They ought to be prosecuted for trying to deliberately deceive the public, and simply for
insulting the intelligence of everyone on the planet earth.
RT reports the following, they are usually spot on accurate with their reporting since
Washington is always trying to debunk them:
Earlier this month, Facebook said that it had identified up to $150,000 in advertising,
purchased between June 2015 and May 2017, that was connected to roughly 470 inauthentic
accounts and pages that were likely operated out of Russia, Chief Security Officer Alex
Stamos wrote. Stamos admitted that the vast majority of ads run by these accounts had nothing
to do with the election, voting, or a particular candidate.
Google said it had failed to unearth any facts that would implicate Moscow in exploiting
advertising to manipulate the election. Were always monitoring for abuse or violations of our
policies and weve seen no evidence this type of ad campaign was run on our platforms, Google
said last week, according to Reuters.
During the 2016 election, Twitter said they deleted thousands of tweets and accounts that
attempted to suppress or otherwise interfere with the exercise of voting rights, including
the right to have a vote counted, by circulating intentionally misleading information. This
included tweets that told users they could cast their ballots by text or tweet, which is not
true. Twitter also said that they shared the content of deleted tweets with investigators on
Thursday. The company however noted that they did not find any of those accounts had obvious
Russian origin. All these things were presented before Congress on Thursday.
So, Facebook, Google and Twitter all provide scant evidence, if any, that Russia or
Russians directed any disinformation at the American voter to try to sabotage our democracy.
If anything of the sort got through, it was certainly like a single tear drop in the deluge
of mud-slinging that the American candidates and their two parties constantly cast at one
another. Any sane person would realise nothing consequential was or really could be attempted
against that torrent of genuine American-made bullcrap, so there was zero motive to do so,
and we know that Putin is no fool to waste his time or resources. Yet, Adam Schiff presents
his hideous visage, peanut brain and deceptive words on American network television yesterday
and claims that its certain fact that the Russian government sabotaged our election by
purchasing ads on Facebook and tweeting mean things about Hillary Clinton on Twitter. For
good measure, he says Russia is also guilty of stirring up the whole Black lives matter
campaign and the bruhaha about taking a knee during the national anthem played at sporting
events. They wouldnt try making this stuff up even in Alices Wonderland. It would fail to get
a laugh in the Onion, even on April 1st. These people are a national embarrassment for being
so blatantly and shamelessly dishonest. These are the same knuckleheads who thought Baghdad
Bob was the propaganda parody to end them all, and theyve gone him one better far better.
I eagerly hope to see examples of the handful of ads and tweets that the conspiracy freaks
in the Congress have made the centerpiece of their case against Russia. But if they are
nothing more than blurbs advertising their media productions (like watch Larry King, Ed
Schultz or Tom Hartmann), I doubt we will ever will. Or, maybe they said something extremely
provocative like watch RT and evaluate the facts for yourself. Wow, that would be tantamount
to an act of war (in the minds of neocons), but still not enough to warrant a viewing by the
American public which still might harbor some sane individuals.
Trust me – as an Amerikanska in Russia – I think some Russians are hating me
when they hear me speak some English while from the other side –America – I no
longer get e-mails from -- Anyone. I understand where the Russians are coming from because I
see the demonization of their country coming from the Americans and their axis, but to see
the Americans get sooo programmed in propaganda that they cant even listen to someone theyve
known for decades -- is pretty disgusting , especially when some of them are/ used to be
– rather intelligent. Spacibo Mr. Parry and commenters.
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 6:51 am
Why Americans ever put any stock in the self-serving propaganda put out by the wealthy
owners of the major media is a mystery, until you consider all the false ideas about America
that have already been shoveled into their heads by their long public education brainwashing
and numbing experience. The basic idea promoted by our culture is just shut up and accept
whatever garbage you are told, and you will get along fine (conform). Start asking a lot of
challenging questions, and you are in for a lot of trouble. I know this from personal
experience, I was always in a lot of trouble with the self-satisfied authorities in my life,
including my parents and teachers. I am forever grateful that I stubbornly persisted in
questioning authority, in spite of all the difficulties it has caused me.
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 7:03 am
The football players who are taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem, are
experiencing the fury of those who clutch their societal group-think like a precious security
blanket. Our public opinion manipulator in chief D. Trump is making it clear why it was said
that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. Score one propaganda ploy for the scoundrel
in chief.
Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 9:59 am
Yes all this nonsense while at the same time, once again I might add, the 1st Amendment
takes a backseat to Private Ownership.now stand up damn it.
Sam F , September 29, 2017 at 10:19 am
Yes, the groupthink of mass media is accepted by most for personal security.
Mass media tell them the oligarchy line as what other people think so they dare not
disagree.
Mass media say that all are unethical so why pay a price to be good citizens.
But it is very significant that the football players refused to display nationalism.
D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 12:12 pm
It is also significant in signaling automatic (pavlovian) behavior, no questions asked,
and right in line with my country right or wrong and blind obedience, attitudes historically
is associated with autocracy and repression. I have yet to see any commentary on what the
flag means, or possible contexts of meaning, including that it stands for the current
governing system, as well as for historical considerations. Sorry to harp on this, but the
scantily dressed females of the Lingerie Football League in stating the flag is too sacred
evidently found no inconsistency in their salutes with serious faces while scantily clad.
This seems to me akin to going to church in a bikini and somehow contradictory to sacred. But
sacred in itself hearkens back to the 1690s and the Salem witch trials before separation of
church and state became understood as more rational. Any kind of worship can be taken too far
into mindlessness, which is contradictory to the ideals this country was founded on in terms
of equality and the first amendment. Beware of the scoundrels indeed.
I have always wondered why you seldom get reflections of the illness in American society,
after reading articles like this. Trump is mad, Hillary is evil, the MS media is corrupt and
dishonest. But its American culture that is responsible for thisthese arent accidents or
untypical. Self-honesty is the least common of all American characteristics. Hunting for
excuses and boogeymen, one of the most common.
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:25 am
The tacit belief in our exceptionalism makes us immune to self-criticism. Another name for
American Hubris. Our belief that we are Gods chosen ones explains in part our strange
affinity with Israel.
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 11:39 am
The American Culture was concocted with Malice Afore Thought by the Congress of Cultural
Freedom (CCF) starting in the Post-War years: from EIR search box; Congress of cultural
freedom; making the world safe for fascism, also from search box; Synarchy against
America.
Clif , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am
NPR is complicit, giving Mark Jacobson of Georgetown a platform on Sept. 28 All Things
Considered to pontificate about how Americans are falling prey to Russian disinformation.
This entire sequence has drained me of any faith in American Intelligence operations, and
MSM.
napier , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am
The researchers defined junk news as propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyperpartisan,
or *conspiratorial political news and information*.
I face-palmed when I read this. The lack of self-awareness on the part of the researchers
is truly amazing.
Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am
Often with such propagandistic allegations – be it WMD in Iraq or Russian meddling
-, there are problems that go beyond the lack of evidence. People without access to secret
information could not know, of course, whether these was a good basis for the allegations
about WMD. Certainly, people should have demanded that some of the evidence is made public,
but even if someone accepts that some things must remain secret, it simply did not make sense
to use the presentation of Colin Powell before the UN as a basis for starting a war. It could
have been a basis for intensifying the inspections – and at that time, after some
pressure, the Iraqi government allowed inspections everywhere -, but it certainly was no
basis for stopping the inspections and starting a war of aggression.
Similarly, it is clear that those who put forward allegations about Russian meddling (some
are regularly retracted, some arent and their status remain unclear) have the burden of
proof. But the problem is not just that evidence is lacking, but many of these allegations
are not very plausible and make little sense.
The first problem is that many statements in US media presuppose a worldview of
international politics as a kind of zero sum game and dont even ask the question whether such
a worldview is appropriate and whether it is common in Russia. It is just assumed that Russia
and the United States are enemies and that anything that is bad for the United States is good
for Russia and anything that is bad for Russia is good for the United States. Of course,
there are areas in international politics where the United States have conflicting positions,
but such a worldview based on a zero-sum game is far from obvious. What exactly should be the
advantage for Russia when internal divisions in the United States are increased? Is it
plausible that the United States is more likely to take the Russian perspective more
seriously or be ready for compromises if it has more severe internal divisions? Not
necessarily, I would even think that the opposite is more likely. Probably, the proponents of
this theory could come up with a story why in that case it would make sense for Russia to
increase internal divisions in the United States, but mostly, this question is not even
asked, and these stories look more like an ad-hoc justification for a preconceived story.
Then, ignoring the doubts whether it would really make sense from a strategic point of
view for Russia to exacerbate internal divisions in the United States for a moment, what
would someone who, indeed, has the goal to increase internal divisions in the United States
do? At first sight, it might seem that supporting both sides in existing conflicts (e.g. for
and against BLM, for and against gun rights, for and against NFL players kneeling down etc.)
may make sense. But the problem is that such a line of reasoning ignores the question of
effectiveness. As far as these matters are concerned, there are already many US citizens who
passionately support one of the two sides, and there are US donors who are ready to support
one of these sides. If, in addition to those passionate supporters of one side, someone who
is interested in increasing the divisions also supports both sides, the effect relative to
the resources that are needed is relatively small. This may not be a strong counter-argument
if we were talking about a large rich country attempting to meddle in a small poor one, but
that is hardly an adequate description of the relationship of Russia to the United States.
Certainly, on the whole, the Russian state still has quite a lot of resources, but if it had
the goal to increase internal divisions in the United States, adding a bit more to both sides
of existing conflicts about which many Americans are so passionate that they are ready to use
time and in some cases money to support one of the two sides would probably so ineffective
that it would hardly make sense. Attempting to create new conflicts could theoretically make
sense – then, we should see ads and social media campaigns about conflicts that are not
very prominent in public discourse (I dont know about any evidence or even indications that
this is actually done) -, but when there are just ads and social media messages from fake
accounts for both sides of common existing conflicts, other explanations are more plausible.
For instance, it can be that it only seems that they come from a common source because of
some superficial features, but are in fact from opposing sides (i.e. people who want to
support one of the sides in the conflict, not to increase the conflict by supporting both
sides), or it could be that there is a common source, but that the common source is a
commercial entity that conducts campaigns for both sides for money (and maybe there are some
people who use Russian language settings or some parts of that business are in Russia).
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:29 am
To expect most American citizens to think rationally is to expect the impossible. Not only
were they not taught to think critically; they were taught not to do that.
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:35 am
And because of that deficiency in the public, if we wish to effect some change in their
thinking, we are reduced to employing the same emotion based methods that have proven so
successful for the establishment and its propagandists. The simple truth has zero effect on
the typical American Zombie – he is too dead sure that his conditioning trumps
reality.
D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 11:37 am
It is almost amusing, as with this mainstream analysis from CNN (Sept 26), that states the
FB ads were meant to sew divisions and chaos in the electorate, with many of the messages at
cross-purposes.
The apparent goal of the ads, the sources who spoke with CNN said, was to amplify
political discord and fuel an atmosphere of incivility and chaos around the 2016 presidential
campaign, not necessarily to promote one candidate or cause over another.
This assessment is spoken with great seriousness and a recommendation that these ads be
made accessible to the public. This MSM report also assumes that the Russia-bought accounts
stem from official Russia or the Kremlin, with no further discussion. A CNN poll claims 54%
of Americans believe Russia interfered via these FB ads. Further breakdown in that polling
indicates the lions share comes from whites who believe this.
But as you point out, Adrian, the body politic is (and was during the election period)
already riven and in a state of incivility (another claim of the purpose of these FB ads) as
we could see by reviewing behaviors in the election itself, to include Trumps statements at
his rallies and Hillary Clintons actions in consort with a corrupted DNC. Common sense would
indicate these widely exposed rogue behaviors at the time would out-do a mere 100,000 spent
on FB, as has already been pointed out, so the CNN report is in danger of desperate
exaggeration.
As far back as 2014 surveys of that time indicates the American publics trust in MSM had
plummeted to something like 40%, and although I cannot find current figures on this (in 2016
RT found that only 6% of Americans trust MSM, but thats RT) but especially given the fiasco
of the 2016 election, plausibly, that sense of trust is not increasing much. So that, given
the already fractious and uncivil state of the country in many respects what were seeing is a
continuation of desperate efforts to use the Russia did it meme for various political and
opportunistic purposes. Further, MSM besides in the employ of special interests, has a
naturally in-built bias toward presentation of dramatic, simplistic viewpoints that incite
emotionalism and nationalism.
As I noted yesterday, the NFL controversy currently includes, with a straight face,
scantily dressed female football players of the Lingerie Football League claiming that the
flag is too sacred to be protested as they stand there with their booties exposed in the wind
clutching their chests with straight faces. This sort of high drama is surely could for MSM
audiences and ratings.
As to why a lot of Americans dont think critically about these matters there are, again,
the problems of survival, job-holding, paying rent, dealing with an outrageous health care
scheme which treats them as profit opportunities, increasing police management, and rising
inflation, let alone the morbidity and turn-off that considering politics has become.
Methinks the MSM furor now turning to FB in its puny weight to be taken seriously is
getting more and more desperate–and ridiculous.
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 12:01 pm
D5-5 –
Your comments: As to why a lot of Americans dont think critically about these matters
there are, again, the problems of survival, job-holding, paying rent, dealing with an
outrageous health care scheme which treats them as profit opportunities, increasing police
management, and rising inflation, let alone the morbidity and turn-off that considering
politics has become.
You have summed up the state in which an average person lives here now.
hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 12:24 pm
ok, i have to say it.
everybody is stupid. all over the world. and yet.everybody is a genius. even though i
partake in this complaining about how
stupid people are sometimes. its really not true. people are smart. just easily led.
i find that americans are just used to being propagandized. its a habit. that only some of
us are starting to come out of. if the workings of propaganda and advertising were taught in
school, at a young age, the world would be a better place. i think most of the commenters
here at consortium news have probably made that jump from believing the media blindly. but we
are still a minority. and to be honest, some views i see repeated here still seem to reflect
this instinctive belief in doctrines put forth in the media. remember that its only been
about 8 generations of people since we threw off the monarchy here. talk about
indoctrination…thats really not a long time. the history of kings/queens as rulers
takes up a much larger part of the history of human existence. one could even say its in our
genes..epi-genetics…
modern propaganda is only 100 years old or so.
so a modern antidote should be thought of.
well hopefully figure it out.
D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 12:31 pm
Dave, Im privileged in being able to spend so much time here in this forum and do some
thinking. But out on the street I find a different situation than what were discussing here
so often with (including myself) the tendency to talk of the American sheeple and stupidity
and such. I find people in supermarket parking lots in a state of despair, asking me for a
quarter, their misery plain on their faces. Im told 45 million Americans are on the verge of
poverty and in poverty. Where I go, too, I find my community members trying to be civil, most
of them, and theres not a whole lot of political talk at the cashier stands in the grocery
stores. I despair that this beautiful country, which still has a great deal going for it, is
knuckled under to the worst political system Ive seen in my lifetime going back decades. I do
not understand that an opposition party could become so inept and corrupted into
incompetence, and the ruling party in a state of incoherence and stupidity. And yet I can
give all this sort of thing time and thinking, but how many can? I love this country and the
people, and am very saddened at the travesty, and where we now stand in world opinion.
There is endless wars and devastation around the world
Western war criminals have their war banners unfurled
Millions dead and many millions uprooted
And the financial system is corrupted and looted
Blame it on Putin
The war criminals are free and spreading bloody terror
And their dirty propaganda says Putin is an aggressor
These evil plotters of death and destruction
Should be in jail for their abominable actions
But, Blame it on Putin.
The American election is won by Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton loses and gets politically dumped
The media is frenzied and foaming at their mouths
They are crying and lying, these corporate louts
They Blame it on Putin
Hollywood, too, is getting in on the act
The B.S. merchants are able to twist facts
In their fantasy world of channel changers
They do not approve of a political stranger
They Blame it on Putin
The spymasters and their grovelling politicians
All agree that their democracy is lost in transmission
Their comfortable and controlled system is now in danger
And these powerful parasites are filled with anger
They Blame it on Putin
One loose canon talks and babbles of an act of war
Could nuclear hell be started by a warmongering whore?
If the madmen of the establishment get their way
Could we all be liquidated in the nuclear fray?
Blame it on Putin
There is no doubt that the ruling class
Are all worried about saving their ass
Could there be huge changes and still more coming?
Is the sick and depraved society finally crumbling?
Hey, Blame it on Putin
[more info at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/01/blame-it-on-putin.html
Having just watched the episode of Oliver Stones excellent Untold History of the United
States which deals with the earliest historical political period which I can remember from
first hand experience, I found the revisiting of Ronald Reagan bald-faced lies delivered with
absolute seeming sincerity to be truly frightening. He was either a truly underestimated
first-rate actor, a complete psychopath, or he really was just a carefully picked figurehead.
Perhaps it really was as intimated in the episode that it was more a Bush II/Cheney sort of
thing, the first two options sort of meld into each other if the lies he repeated were done
so knowingly and he just didnt seem to have the intellectual capacity for much of anything
arduous like being an actual Machiavellian.
The most important thing about this was just how easy it was, at the time, to just take
the edifice of lies at face value. I was in my teens at the time, but I did consider myself
to be of a rather independent mindset and much of what was bandied by these Republican Party
Reptiles (not a funny proposition at all really in the end despite ORourkess seductiveness)
rang false. That did not stop them from acquiring the patina of Truth, albeit ever so
superficial, due to the hypnotic authoritative method of their delivery. Im glad I properly
discovered the work of Robert Parry even if it is belatedly, due to my own Sleep of Reason
because of this saturation of falsehoods despite his tireless work along with other
similar-minded people. I can sense some frustration here in his phrasing with the seeming
lack of difference this tireless work seems to be making to the general perception but I am
grateful for his lucidity, which contributes to mine. How long will such lucidity be allowed
to be disseminated, one can only wonder.
"... And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental organizations if they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic process no matter how sloppy the research or how absurd the findings. ..."
"... And, if you think the pillars of the U.S. mainstream media – The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN and others – will apply some quality controls, you havent been paying attention for the past year or so. The MSM is just as unethical as the NGOs are. ..."
"... So, we are now in a phase of Russia-gate in which NGO scholars produce deeply biased reports and their nonsense is treated as front-page news and items for serious discussion across the MSM. ..."
"... The story, which fits neatly into the current U.S. propaganda meme that the Russian government somehow is undermining American democracy by stirring up dissent inside the U.S., quickly spread to other news outlets and became the latest proof of a Russian war against America. ..."
"... The vague wording doesn't even say the Russian government was involved but rather presents an unsupported claim that some Twitter accounts are suspected of being part of some network and that this network may have some ill-defined connection – or links – to Russia, a country of 144 million people. ..."
As the U.S. government doles out tens of millions of dollars to 'combat Russian propaganda',
one result is a slew of new 'studies' by 'scholars' and 'researchers' auditioning for the loot
...
The Field of Dreams slogan for Americas NGOs should be: If you pay for it, we will come.
And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental organizations if
they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic process no matter how
sloppy the research or how absurd the findings.
And, if you think the pillars of the U.S. mainstream media – The Washington Post, The
New York Times, CNN and others – will apply some quality controls, you havent been paying
attention for the past year or so. The MSM is just as unethical as the NGOs are.
So, we are now in a phase of Russia-gate in which NGO scholars produce deeply biased reports
and their nonsense is treated as front-page news and items for serious discussion across the
MSM.
Yet, there's even an implicit confession about how pathetic some of this scholarship is in
the hazy phrasing that gets applied to the findings, although the weasel words will slip past
most unsuspecting Americans and will be dropped for more definitive language when the narrative
is summarized in the next days newspaper or in a cable-news crawl.
For example, a Times front-page
story on Thursday reported that a network of Twitter accounts suspected of links to Russia
seized on both sides of the [NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem] issue with
hashtags, such as #boycottnfl, #standforouranthem and #takeaknee.
The story, which fits neatly into the current U.S. propaganda meme that the Russian
government somehow is undermining American democracy by stirring up dissent inside the U.S.,
quickly spread to other news outlets and became the latest proof of a Russian war against
America.
However, before we empty the nuclear silos and exterminate life on the planet, we might take
a second to look at the Times phrasing a network of Twitter accounts suspected of links to
Russia.
The vague wording doesn't even say the Russian government was involved but rather presents an
unsupported claim that some Twitter accounts are suspected of being part of some network and
that this network may have some ill-defined connection – or links – to Russia, a
country of 144 million people.
Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon
Its like the old game of six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon. Yes, perhaps we are all
linked to Kevin Bacon somehow but that doesnt prove that we know Kevin Bacon or are part of a
Kevin Bacon network that is executing a grand conspiracy to sow discontent by taking opposite
sides of issues and then tweeting.
Yet that is the underlying absurdity of the Times article by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Scott
Shane. Still, as silly as the article may be that doesn't mean its not dangerous. The Times
high-profile treatment of these gauzy allegations represents a grave danger to the world by
fueling a growing hysteria inside the United States about being at war with nuclear-armed
Russia. At some point, someone might begin to take this alarmist rhetoric seriously.
Yes, I understand that lots of people hate President Trump and see Russia-gate as the golden
ticket to his impeachment. But that doesnt justify making serious allegations with next to no
proof, especially when the outcome could be thermonuclear war.
However, with all those millions of dollars sloshing around the NGO world and Western
academia – all looking for some study to fund that makes Russia look bad – you are
sure to get plenty of takers. And, we should now expect that new findings like these will fill
in for the so-far evidence-free suspicions about Russia and Trump colluding to steal the
presidency from Hillary Clinton.
If you read more deeply into the Times story, you get a taste of where Russia-gate is headed
next and a clue as to who is behind it:
Since last month, researchers at the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a bipartisan
initiative of the German Marshall Fund, a public policy research group in Washington, have been
publicly tracking 600 Twitter accounts -- human users and suspected bots alike -- they have
linked to Russian influence operations. Those were the accounts pushing the opposing messages
on the N.F.L. and the national anthem.
Of 80 news stories promoted last week by those accounts, more than 25 percent had a primary
theme of anti-Americanism, the researchers found. About 15 percent were critical of Hillary
Clinton, falsely accusing her of funding left-wing antifa -- short for anti-fascist --
protesters, tying her to the lethal terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 and discussing
her daughter Chelseas use of Twitter. Eleven percent focused on wiretapping in the federal
investigation into Paul Manafort, President Trumps former campaign chairman, with most of them
treated the news as a vindication for President Trumps earlier wiretapping claims.
The
Neocons, Again!
So, lets stop and unpack this Times reporting.
First, this Alliance for Securing Democracy is not some neutral truth-seeking organization
but a neoconservative-dominated outfit that includes on its advisory board such neocon
luminaries as Mike Chertoff, Bill Kristol and former Freedom House president David Kramer along
with other anti-Russia hardliners such as former deputy CIA director Michael Morell and former
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers.
Neoconservative pundit William Kristol. (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)
How many of these guys, do you think, were assuring us that Iraq was hiding WMDs back in
2003?
This group clearly has an ax to grind, a record of deception, and plenty of patrons in the
Military-Industrial Complex who stand to make billions of dollars from the New Cold War.
The neocons also have been targeting Russia
for regime change for years because they see Russian President Vladimir Putin as the chief
obstacle to their goal of helping Israel achieve its desire for regime change in Syria and a
chance to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran. Russia-gate has served the neocons well as a very convenient way
to pull Democrats, liberals and even progressives into the neocon agenda because Russia-gate is
sold as a powerful weapon for the anti-Trump Resistance.
The Times article also might have mentioned that Twitter has 974 million accounts. So, this
alarm over 600 accounts is a bit disproportionate for a front-page story in the Times, dont you
think?
And, theres the definitional problem of what constitutes anti-Americanism in a news article.
And what does it mean to be linked to Russian influence operations? Does that include Americans
who may not march in lockstep to the one-sided State Department narratives on the crises in
Ukraine and Syria? Any deviation from Official Washingtons groupthink makes you a Moscow
stooge.
And, is it a crime to be critical of Hillary Clinton or to note that the U.S. mainstream
media was dismissive of Trumps claims about being wiretapped only for us to find out later that
the FBI apparently was wiretapping his campaign manager?
However, such questions arent going to be asked amid what has become a massive Russia-gate
groupthink, dominating not just Official Washington, but across much of Americas political
landscape and throughout the European Union.
Why the Bias?
Beyond the obvious political motivations for this bias, we also have had the introduction of
vast sums of money pouring in from the U.S. government, NATO and European institutions to
support the
business of combatting Russian propaganda.
President Obama in the Oval Office.
For example, last December, President Obama signed into law a $160 million funding mechanism
entitled the Combating Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. But that amounts to only a
drop in the bucket considering already existing Western propaganda projects targeting
Russia.
So, a scramble is on to develop seemingly academic models to prove what Western authorities
want proven: that Russia is at fault for pretty much every bad thing that happens in the world,
particularly the alienation of many working-class people from the Washington-Brussels
elites.
The truth cannot be that establishment policies have led to massive income inequality and
left the working class struggling to survive and thus are to blame for ugly political
manifestations – from Trump to Brexit to the surprising support for Germanys far-right
AfD party. No, it must be Russia! Russia! Russia! And theres a lot of money on the bed to prove
that point.
Theres also the fact that the major Western news media is deeply invested in bashing Russia
as well as in the related contempt for Trump and his followers. Those twin prejudices have
annihilated all professional standards that would normally be applied to news judgments
regarding these flawed studies.
On Thursday, The Washington Post ran its own banner-headlined
story drawn from the same loose accusations made by that neocon-led Alliance for Securing
Democracy, but instead the Post sourced the claims to Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma. The
headline read: Russian trolls are stoking NFL controversy, senator says.
The evidence cited by Lankfords office was one Twitter account calling itself Boston Antifa
that gives its geolocation as Vladivostok, Russia, the Post reported.
By Thursday, Twitter had suspended the Boston Antifa account, so I couldnt send it a
question, but earlier this month, Dan Glaun, a reporter for Masslive.com, reported
that the people behind Boston Antifa were a pair of anti-leftist pranksters from Oregon who
started Boston Antifa as a parody of actual anti-fascist groups.
In an email to me on Thursday, Glaun cited an interview that
the Boston Antifa pranksters had done with right-wing radio talk show host Gavin McInnes last
April.
And, by the way, there are apps that let
you manipulate your geolocation data on Twitter. Or, you can choose to believe that the
highly professional Russian intelligence agencies didnt notice that they were telegraphing
their location as Vladivostok.
Mindless Russia Bashing
Another example of this mindless Russia bashing appeared just below the Posts story on
Lankfords remarks. The Post
sidebar cited a study from researchers at Oxford Universitys Project on Computational
Propaganda asserting that junk news on Twitter flowed more heavily in a dozen [U.S.]
battleground states than in the nation overall in the days immediately before and after the
2016 presidential election, suggesting that a coordinated effort targeted the most pivotal
voters. Cue the spooky Boris and Natasha music!
Boris and Natasha, the evil spies from the Rocky and Bullwinkle shows.
Of course, any Americans living in battleground states could tell you that they are
inundated with all kinds of election-related junk, including negative TV advertising, nasty
radio messages, alarmist emails and annoying robo-calls at dinner time. Thats why theyre called
battleground states, Sherlock.
But whats particularly offensive about this study is that it implies that the powers-that-be
must do more to eliminate what these experts deem propaganda and junk news. If you read deeper
into the story, you discover that the researchers applied a very subjective definition of what
constitutes junk news, i.e., information that the researchers dont like even if it is truthful
and newsworthy.
The Post article by Craig Timberg, who
apparently is using Russia-gate to work himself off the business pages and onto the
national staff, states that The researchers defined junk news as propaganda and ideologically
extreme, hyperpartisan, or conspiratorial political news and information.
The researchers also categorized reports from Russia and ones from WikiLeaks – which
published embarrassing posts about Democrat Hillary Clinton based on a hack of her campaign
chairmans emails – as polarizing political content for the purpose of the analysis.
So, this study lumped together junk news with accurate and newsworthy information, i.e.,
WikiLeaks disclosure of genuine emails that contained such valid news as the contents of
Clintons speeches to Wall Street banks (which she was trying to hide from voters) as well as
evidence of the unethical tactics used by the Democratic National Committee to sabotage Sen.
Bernie Sanderss campaign.
Also dumped into the researchers bin of vile disinformation were reports from Russia, as if
everything that comes out of Russia is, ipso facto, junk news.
And, what, pray tell, is conspiratorial political news? I would argue that the past year of
evidence-lite allegations about Russian meddling in the U.S. election accompanied by
unsupported suspicions about collusion with the Trump campaign would constitute conspiratorial
political news. Indeed, I would say that this Oxford research constitutes conspiratorial
political news and that Timbergs article qualifies as junk news.
Predictable Outcome
Given the built-in ideological bias of this research, it probably wont surprise you that the
reports author, Philip N. Howard, concludes that junk news originates from three main sources
that the Oxford group has been tracking: Russian operatives, Trump supporters and activists
part of the alt-right, according to the Post.
The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington
Post)
I suppose that since part of the methodology was to define reports from Russia as junk news,
the appearance of Russian operatives shouldnt be much of a surprise, but the whole process
reeks of political bias.
Further skewing the results, the report separated out information from professional news
organizations [and] political parties from some junk news source, according to the Post. In
other words, the researchers believe that professional news organizations are inherently
reliable and that outside-the-mainstream news is junk – despite the MSMs long record of
getting major stories wrong.
The real junk is this sort of academic or NGO research that starts with a conclusion and
packs a study in such a way as to guarantee the preordained conclusion. Or as the old saying
goes, garbage in, garbage out.
Yet, its also clear that if you generate research that feeds the hungry beast of
Russia-gate, you will find eager patrons doling out dollars and a very receptive audience in
the mainstream media.
In a place like Washington, there are scores if not hundreds of reports generated every day
and only a tiny fraction get the attention of the Times, Post, CNN, etc., let alone result in
published articles. But studies that reinforce todays anti-Russia narrative are sure
winners.
So, if youre setting up a new NGO or youre an obscure academic angling for a lucrative
government grant as well as some flattering coverage in the MSM, the smart play is to join the
new gold rush in decrying Russian propaganda.
1) This is the rise of the Self-Absorbed -- the Narcissist and Sociopath -- to a
critical mass of places of influence and control.
2) Pay attention to and denounce your more local/regional media -- they are in Control
mode, operating in stealth mode, enabling the narrative, in self-preservation.
3) The People are failing. There's no way to recover from that.
They are like termites, they just never go away, but why worry, none of them will ever
be held accountable-meanwhile, they are in the game, making tons. what is not to
like.
Some are also citizens of israel, chertoff for example. I believe he also has a large
security consulting firm;
"heh, here is my card, please call if you are worried about the iranian nuclear
capability."
The dumbmasses will not be able to follow whatever bullshit narrative the deep state
invents to "prove" Russian collusion-hacking-global warming or whatever.
"... A difference, however, from the McCarthyism of the 1950s is that this New McCarthyism has enlisted Democrats, liberals and even progressives in the cause because of their disgust with President Trump; the 1950s version was driven by Republicans and the Right with much of the Left on the receiving end, maligned by the likes of Sen. Joe McCarthy as un-American and as Communisms fellow travelers. ..."
"... The real winners in this New McCarthyism appear to be the neoconservatives who have leveraged the Democratic/liberal hatred of Trump to draw much of the Left into the political hysteria that sees the controversy over alleged Russian political meddling as an opportunity to get Trump. ..."
"... Already, under the guise of combating Russian propaganda and fake news, Google, Facebook and other tech giants have begun introducing algorithms to hunt down and marginalize news that challenges official U.S. government narratives on hot-button issues such as Ukraine and Syria. Again, no evidence is required, just the fact that Putin may have said something similar. ..."
"... The New McCarthyism with its Orwellian-style algorithms might seem like a clever way to neutralize (or maybe even help oust) Trump, but – long after Trump is gone – a structure for letting the neocons and the mainstream media monopolize American political debate might be a far greater threat to both democracy and peace. ..."
Special Report: As the New McCarthyism takes hold in America, the neocon Washington Post
makes Russia the villain in virtually every bad thing that happens, with U.S. dissidents
treated as fellow-travelers, writes Robert Parry.
Make no mistake about it: the United States has entered an era of a New McCarthyism that
blames nearly every political problem on Russia and has begun targeting American citizens who
dont go along with this New Cold War propaganda.
A difference, however, from the McCarthyism of the 1950s is that this New McCarthyism
has enlisted Democrats, liberals and even progressives in the cause because of their disgust
with President Trump; the 1950s version was driven by Republicans and the Right with much of
the Left on the receiving end, maligned by the likes of Sen. Joe McCarthy as un-American and as
Communisms fellow travelers.
The real winners in this New McCarthyism appear to be the neoconservatives who have
leveraged the Democratic/liberal hatred of Trump to draw much of the Left into the political
hysteria that sees the controversy over alleged Russian political meddling as an opportunity to
get Trump.
Already, the neocons and their allies have exploited the anti-Russian frenzy to extract tens
of millions of dollars more from the taxpayers for programs to combat Russian propaganda, i.e.,
funding of non-governmental organizations and scholars who target dissident Americans for
challenging the justifications for this New Cold War.
The Washington Post, which for years has served as the flagship for neocon propaganda, is
again charting the new course for America, much as it did in rallying U.S. public backing for
the 2003 invasion of Iraq and in building sympathy for abortive regime change projects aimed at
Syria and Iran. The Post has begun blaming almost every unpleasant development in the world on
Russia! Russia! Russia!
For instance, a Post
editorial on Tuesday shifted the blame for the anemic victory of German Chancellor Angela
Merkel and the surprising strength of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) from Merkels
austerity policies, which have caused hardship for much of the working class, or from her open
door for Mideast refugees, which has destabilized some working-class neighborhoods, to –
you guessed it – Russia!
The evidence, as usual, is vague and self-interested, but sure to be swallowed by many
Democrats and liberals, who hate Russia because they blame it for Trump, and by lots of
Republicans and conservatives, who have a residual hatred for Russia left over from the Old
Cold War.
The Post cited the Atlantic Councils Digital Forensic Research Lab, which has been pushing
much of the hysteria about alleged Russian activities on the Internet. The Atlantic Council
essentially is NATOs think tank and is financed with
money from the U.S. government, Gulf oil states, military contractors, global financial
institutions and many other sources which stand to gain directly or indirectly from the
expanding U.S. military budget and NATO interventions.
Blaming Russia
In this New Cold War, the Russians get blamed for not only disrupting some neocon regime
change projects, such as the proxy war in Syria, but also political developments in the West,
such as Donald Trumps election and AfDs rise in Germany.
Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN
Photo)
The Atlantic Councils digital lab claimed, according to the Post editorial, that In the
final hours of the [German] campaign, online supporters of the AfD began warning their base of
possible election fraud, and the online alarms were driven by anonymous troll accounts and
boosted by a Russian-language bot-net."
Of course, the Post evinces no evidence tying any of this to the Russian government or to
President Vladimir Putin. It is the nature of McCarthyism that actual evidence is not required,
just heavy breathing and dark suspicions. For those of us who operate Web sites, trolls –
some volunteers and some professionals – have become a common annoyance and they
represent many political outlooks, not just Russian.
Plus, it is standard procedure these days for campaigns to issue last-minute alarms to their
supporters about possible election fraud to raise doubts about the results should the outcome
be disappointing.
The U.S. government has engaged in precisely this strategy around the world, having pro-U.S.
parties not only complain about election fraud but to take to the streets in violent protests
to impugn the legitimacy of election outcomes. That U.S. strategy has been applied to places
such as Ukraine (the Orange Revolution in 2004); Iran (the Green Revolution in 2009); Russia
(the Snow Revolution in 2011); and many other locations.
Pre-election alerts also have become a feature in U.S. elections, even in 2016 when both
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton raised questions about the legitimacy of the balloting, albeit
for different reasons.
Yet, instead of seeing the AfD maneuver as a typical ploy by a relatively minor party
– and the German election outcome as an understandable reflection of voter discontent and
weariness over Merkels three terms as Chancellor – the Atlantic Council and the Post see
Russians under every bed and particularly Putin.
Loving to Hate Putin
In the world of neocon propaganda, Putin has become the great bête noire, since he has
frustrated a variety of neocon schemes. He helped head off a major U.S. military strike against
Syria in 2013; he aided President Obama in achieving the Iran nuclear agreement in 2014-15;
Putin opposed and – to a degree – frustrated the neocon-supported coup in Ukraine
in 2014; and he ultimately supplied the air power that defeated neocon-backed rebel forces in
Syria in 2015-17.
President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the
G20 Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security
Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
So, the Post and the neocons want Putin gone – and they have used gauzy allegations
about Russian meddling in the U.S. and other elections as the new propaganda theme to justify
destabilizing Russia with economic sanctions and, if possible, engineering another regime
change project in Moscow.
None of this is even secret. Carl Gershman, the neocon president of the
U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, publicly proclaimed the
goal of ousting Putin in an op-ed in The Washington Post, writing: The United States has
the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do
so.
But the way neocon propaganda works is that the U.S. and its allies are always the victims
of some nefarious enemy who must be thwarted to protect all that is good in the world. In other
words, even as NED and other U.S.-funded operations take aim at Putin and Russia, Russia and
Putin must be transformed into the aggressors.
Mr. Putin would like nothing better than to generate doubts, fog, cracks and uncertainty
around the German pillar of Europe, the Post editorial said. He relishes infiltrating chaos and
mischief into open societies. In this case, supporting the far-right AfD is extraordinarily
cynical, given how many millions of Russians died to defeat the fascists seven decades ago.
Not to belabor the point but there is no credible evidence that Putin did any of this. There
is a claim by the virulently anti-Russian Atlantic Council that some anonymous troll accounts
promoted some AfD complaint about possible voter fraud and that it was picked up by a
Russian-language bot-net. Even if that is true – and the Atlantic Council is far from an
objective source – where is the link to Putin?
Not everything that happens in Russia, a nation of 144 million people, is ordered by Putin.
But the Post would have you believe that it is. It is the centerpiece of this neocon conspiracy
theory.
Silencing Dissent
Similarly, any American who questions this propaganda immediately is dismissed as a Kremlin
stooge or a Russian propagandist, another ugly campaign
spearheaded by the Post and the neocons. Again, no evidence is required, just some analysis
that what youre saying somehow parallels something Putin has said.
The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington
Post)
On Tuesday, in what amounted to a companion piece for the editorial, a Post
article again pushed the unproven
suspicions about Russian operatives buying $100,000 in Facebook ads from 2015 into 2017 to
supposedly influence U.S. politics. Once again, no evidence required.
In the article, the Post also reminds its readers that Moscow has a history of focusing on
social inequities in the U.S., which gets us back to the comparisons between the Old
McCarthyism and the new.
Yes, its true that the Soviet Union denounced Americas racial segregation and cited that
ugly feature of U.S. society in expressing solidarity with the American civil rights movement
and national liberation struggles in Africa. Its also true that American Communists
collaborated with the domestic civil rights movement to promote racial integration.
That was a key reason why J. Edgar Hoovers FBI targeted Martin Luther King Jr. and other
African-American leaders – because of their association with known or suspected
Communists. (Similarly, the Reagan administration resisted support for Nelson Mandela because
his African National Congress accepted Communist support in its battle against South Africas
Apartheid white-supremacist regime.)
Interestingly, one of the arguments from liberal national Democrats in opposing segregation
in the 1960s was that the repression of American blacks undercut U.S. diplomatic efforts to
develop allies in Africa. In other words, Soviet and Communist criticism of Americas
segregation actually helped bring about the demise of that offensive system.
Yet, Kings association with alleged Communists remained a talking point of die-hard
segregationists even after his assassination when they opposed creating a national holiday in
his honor in the 1980s.
These parallels between the Old McCarthyism and the New McCarthyism are implicitly
acknowledged in the Posts news article on Tuesday, which cites Putins criticism of police
killings of unarmed American blacks as evidence that he is meddling in U.S. politics.
Since taking office, Putin has on occasion sought to spotlight racial tensions in the United
States as a means of shaping perceptions of American society, the article states. Putin
injected himself in 2014 into the race debate after protests broke out in Ferguson, Mo., over
the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, an African American, by a white police officer.
'Do you believe that everything is perfect now from the point of view of democracy in the
United States? Putin told CBSs 60 Minutes program. If everything was perfect, there wouldnt be
the problem of Ferguson. There would be no abuse by the police. But our task is to see all
these problems and respond properly."
The Posts speculative point seems to be that Putins response included having Russian
operatives buy some ads on Facebook to exploit these racial tensions, but there is no evidence
to support that conspiracy theory.
However, as this anti-Russia hysteria spreads, we may soon see Americans who also protest
the police killing of unarmed black men denounced as Putins fellow-travelers, much as King and
other civil rights leaders were smeared as Communist dupes.
Ignoring Reality
So, instead of Democrats and Chancellor Merkel looking in the mirror and seeing the real
reasons why many white working-class voters are turning toward populist and extremist
alternatives, they can simply blame Putin and continue a crackdown on Internet-based dissent as
the work of Russian operatives.
Already, under the guise of combating Russian propaganda and fake news, Google, Facebook
and other tech giants have begun introducing algorithms to hunt
down and marginalize news that challenges official U.S. government narratives on hot-button
issues such as Ukraine and Syria. Again, no evidence is required, just the fact that Putin may
have said something similar.
As Democrats, liberals and even some progressives join in this Russia-gate hysteria –
driven by their hatred of Donald Trump and his supposedly fascistic tendencies – they
might want to consider whom theyve climbed into bed with and what these neocons have in mind
for the future.
Arguably, if fascism or totalitarianism comes to the United States, it is more likely to
arrive in the guise of protecting democracy from Russia or another foreign adversary than from
a reality-TV clown like Donald Trump.
The New McCarthyism with its Orwellian-style algorithms might seem like a clever way to
neutralize (or maybe even help oust) Trump, but – long after Trump is gone – a
structure for letting the neocons and the mainstream media monopolize American political debate
might be a far greater threat to both democracy and peace.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, Americas Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
SteveK9 , September 26, 2017 at 5:46 pm
Its been going on since the arrival of the national security state after World War II. At
least for decades there really was a contest between Capitalism and Communism, not that it
excuses the lying and killing of millions. Now, its just a we rule the World habit. Is it
really getting worse? Perhaps so.
Erik G , September 26, 2017 at 7:17 pm
I would say that the dominance of economic power over democratic institutions has been
completely consolidated since WWII, accelerated under Reagan and after the collapse of the
USSR, and has been completed since 911. The articles conclusion that letting mainstream media
monopolize American political debate is a greater threat than Trump is quite an
understatement, appropriate to new readers.
More even than economic power (banks?) it is the intelligence agencies (all revolving
around the CIA) and the military-industrial complex. We could make progress in a lot of areas
if we could simply stop waging war, overt or covert, but it doesnt seem possible, partly
because the Deep State has become smart enough not to wage a war that requires a draft or
kills too many Americans. Its OK to spend trillions though, especially since having the
Worlds reserve currency allows us to create as much as we need.
Dave P. , September 27, 2017 at 11:41 am
SteveK9 – Your comments: Its OK to spend trillions though, especially since having
the Worlds reserve currency allows us to create as much as we need.
That is how we suck the blood of the people of the World beyond the Wests borders –
by printing unlimited money, using cheap labor, taking over and exploiting their
resources.
The oppressed have also to pay to the oppressor for their own subjugation. That is how we
maintain our grand life style – as they boast every day on TV channels and elsewhere
– for the top 10%.
During the Soviet days, USSR was a hindrance to this Western Imperialism. And now again
some how it turns out that Russia is again becoming the protector of the Oppressed –
though they have themselves a kind of makeshift type of Capitalism at this stage.
Sam F , September 27, 2017 at 5:50 pm
The complete economic power of oligarchy (zionists/MIC/WallSt/corporations) over Congress,
judiciary, federal agencies, and mass media, results in thedeep state structure. Doubtless
there is further deep state gangsterism.
The US has been dominated by the economic power that arose in the 19th century, because
the emerging middle class failed to see that this would corrupt democratic institutions if
not severely regulated, and of course oligarchy soon controlled the press and excluded the
issue from public debate.
Kiza , September 26, 2017 at 9:09 pm
I find it truly fascinating that the US Deep State has changed the narrative through its
liberal MSM mouthpieces, since Zuckcrook $100K ad saga, that the Russian goal was not so much
to elect President Swamp then to saw chaos and discord in US. Let us look at the hidden
meaning of this:
1) the Deep State feels confident that President Swamp has been brought under control; only
the quasi-liberal wing of the Deep State still wants to impeach him (fat chance now that he
is well under control, if he ever was not yet another faux agent of change –
YAFAOC)
2) the rulers are truly concerned about the forthcoming challenge to their rule, which would
begin as unrest, chaos and possibly a civil war; ironically they are delivering a very
powerful tool to Putin by establishing parallels between US sedition and Putins words; this
means that, if he wanted, Putin could just state some obvious criticisms, a sore point of the
US/Global system and this becomes a point of oppression in US; such oppression can ultimately
have only one outcome for the oppressors.
In brief, it is always useful to monitor the official statements to deduce what is on the
rulers minds. They do not appear terribly self confident with their Putin ate my homework
stories. Putin is both the leader of the hated Eurasia and Putins face is morphing into
the face of the internal enemy Emanuel Goldstein .
Peter Loeb , September 27, 2017 at 7:22 am
STEVEK9
An excellent comment, Stevek9.
To continue responding is to play by the McCarthyist rules. Do I want
to circulate Robert Parrys excellent article (for the most part)? There
would be a collective reply that :the Russians are coming and a
groupthink diversions from WHAT the issues really are (oppression of
blacks in the US -- the real point of the NFL -- discussions usually hidden
under Do you like Trump?Do you hate Russia?And thus not
addressed or an article in Consortium yesterday on the Palestine/
Israeli conflict which was responded to mainly in terms of what
the Russians are doing etc. etc.
I remember the McCarthy era. My Dad had to sign a loyalty
oath. There were other forms such as the Harry Trumans
the Attorney Generals list, The Truman Doctrine, domino
theories etc.
The late historian Gabriel Kolko discussed this in the subsection
Violence and Social Control of his major work MAIN CURRENTS
IN MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY (part of Chapter 5 of that work).
No one is talking about the raw courage of so many black players
(mostly) who suddenly step away from their roles as entertainers
of the American society to remind us all that the US is considering
the murder of unarmed blacks as patriotic…heroic.
Instead, the issue is President Donald Trump and I can guess
that , like Hitler and Mussolini, he loves it with a passion.
What a dirty shame that in the US blacks demonstrating for
justice, for life, are attacked by police funded by the US
via private organizations such as those of Israel which provide
their particular expertise in how to oppress minorities --
accompanied by junkets for US law enforcement officials
for training in the Israeli efficiency in murder, oppression,
and inhuman treatment of those Zionists consider inferior
if human at all.
Dont read the above if you fear that its all the
fault of the Russians.
In French one once said Le revolution se mange..
(The revolution eats itself (se))
-- –Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Susan Sunflower , September 27, 2017 at 12:12 pm
Yes, I think the Woodrow Wilson 14-point plan legacy of helping to keep most of Europe
from going communist or trying to do so is overlooked For all of Wilsons lies, deals and
broken promises, I think his inclusive idealistic promise to ordinary people that is still
felt today (and may provide some of the origin of American accepted world leadership in
anti-communism). European democratic socialism arose to quell the unrest, expectations and
dissatisfaction of those same people after the fall of the empires. Remember all those Frank
Capra movies in which Americanism was a non-communist path to egalitarian future. (yes, Capra
was an anti-communist)
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security reversed course Tuesday
and told Wisconsin officials that the Russian government did not scan the states voter
registration system.
Homeland Security told state elections officials on Friday that Wisconsin was one of 21
states targeted by the Russians, raising concerns about the safety and security of the
states election systems even though no data had been compromised. But in an email to the
states deputy elections administrator that was provided to reporters at the Wisconsin
Elections Commission meeting on Tuesday, Homeland Security said that initial notice was in
error.
Based on our external analysis, the WI IP address affected belongs to the WI Department
of Workforce Development, not the Elections Commission, said the email from Juan Figueroa,
with Homeland Securitys Office of Infrastructure Protection.
It wasnt immediately known if Homeland Security made similar mistakes with any of the
other 20 states. Figueroa did not immediately reply to an email seeking an explanation of
how the mistake was made.
Dr. Ip , September 26, 2017 at 6:28 pm
Ive lived in Germany for over 30 years now, and what has been clear since the infamous
Agenda 2010 introduced during the reign of the SPD government under Schroeder, and the
reforms introduced by pseudo-Socialist governments in France, is that the same right wing
forces that have captured the US, Poland, Hungary and are threatening France and Spain, have
their roots (and subtle support) from the neoliberals preoccupied with wealth creation for
the few and the destruction of the social net for the many.
Endless war – a perpetuum mobile cash machine – and the attempt to actually
own the whole world, has led to a situation that is an updated version of the corporatist
fascism of the 30s and 40s. Destruction of the Left is acceptable because it clears a path
toward endless profit, and arousal of the Right is seen as profit-beneficial because the
uneducated masses that comprise this sector are in love with the illusion of one day
belonging to a group that will allow them to achieve wealth and power. Of course it never
will. But the unleashing of their anger and violence against all those perceived as superior,
especially in intelligence, allows them a catharsis of blood and death which eventually
consumes them.
People who are registered democrats often see the party as liberal, when in fact it is
not. Under Bill Clintons administration the party was pushed even further to the right. I
know many democrats who define themselves as progressive or liberals, and have bought into
the nonsense that Russia rigged the US election. I never perceived these people as
progressive, or liberal and most kept their mouths shut throughout the Obama administration,
although he engaged in policies, and practices that no real progressive, or liberal would, or
should find acceptable. If they were liberal or progressive in their thinking why would they
be so vulnerable to propaganda? Why would they be so easily manipulated if they were truly
progressive in their thinking, or not be able to see things from a broader perspective? To me
many democrats simply hate Trump, and cant accept that their whining, war candidate lost. And
how can you define yourself as progressive when you supported Hillary Clinton in the first
place? We should be careful how we use the word liberal, or progressive. It was under the
Obama administration that the new cold war really got underway.
Realist , September 27, 2017 at 8:43 am
What you are saying is so true, Annie, but far too many people allow these truths to be
obscured by the stereotypes they would rather cling to. I look at Obama as the great betrayer
of liberal or progressive causes. He was about as progressive as a Wall Street banker
investing his yearly bonus on choice foreclosed properties, or Mitt Romney picking the bones
of companies he buys to strip of assets.
Susan Sunflower , September 26, 2017 at 7:18 pm
Recommend Richard Wolfe on fire on RT tonight -- are we at the end of capitalism . cant
find a link to youtube.. but while this new mccarthyism hysteria probably (not) the sort of
death-throes ravings what one might hope for the reality is that we are past pablum,
nostrums, teaks and fixes -- none of which are still operative
Wolfe here is in fine form .
D5-5 , September 26, 2017 at 7:50 pm
b who runs the Moon of Alabama site has a similar view to Parrys on the WAPOs view of the
German election (and as always comments recommended):
"... Lets assume for a moment that the basic claim is true, although so far the actual evidence indicates a tiny propaganda operation in the scale of things. If its true, the conclusion it points to is: American voters are morons who can be gamed into doing anything by anyone with the ability to buy ads on Facebook and Twitter. ..."
"... I didnt say that. Russian hackers didnt say that, at least in public. Thats what the propagators of the new Red Scare are claiming. ..."
"... If the American electorate is really as abjectly stupid as the blame the Russians crowd insists, it seems to me that instead of blaming the Russians, they should get to work on either making the electorate smarter or coming up with a system that doesnt leave important political decisions in the hands of the gullible. Just sayin ..."
And US Senator James Lankford (R-OK) thinks that the Russians and their troll farms (as opposed
to Donald Trump and professional football players)
are behind the current take a knee kerfuffle between Donald Trump and professional football players.
Because, you know, Americans never had rowdy disagreements with each other over race and religion
until last year, and wouldnt be having them now if not for those dirty, no-good Russian hackers who
stole the 2016 presidential election from the second most hated candidate in history, on behalf of
the most hated candidate in history, operating through subterfuge to achieve the outcome that some
of us predicted months in advance, long before anyone mentioned Russian hackers.
*
Evidence? Who needs evidence? The people who hated the outcome and have been railing against it
for nearly a year now have told us what happened, and why, and whodunit, and theyd never lie to us
about something like that, would they? They lied about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction,
and about illegal wiretapping by the NSA, and about a thousand other things, but THIS is DIFFERENT.
Keep in mind that when all the most wild and baseless accusations (e.g. that !THEM RUSSIANS! hacked
the voting machines) are discarded, the basic claim remaining is this: By spreading fake news through
social media, !THEM RUSSIANS! fooled a bunch of Americans into voting the wrong way.
Lets assume for a moment that the basic claim is true, although so far the actual evidence
indicates a tiny propaganda operation in the scale of things. If its true, the conclusion it points
to is: American voters are morons who can be gamed into doing anything by anyone with the ability
to buy ads on Facebook and Twitter.
I didnt say that. Russian hackers didnt say that, at least in public. Thats what the propagators
of the new Red Scare are claiming.
If the American electorate is really as abjectly stupid as the blame the Russians crowd insists,
it seems to me that instead of blaming the Russians, they should get to work on either making the
electorate smarter or coming up with a system that doesnt leave important political decisions in
the hands of the gullible. Just sayin
*In May of 2016, I predicted that Donald Trump would carry every state Mitt Romney carried in
2012, plus Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. I didnt predict Wisconsin and Iowa, but 48 of
50 states from six months out aint too shabby, is it?
Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the
William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian
Advocacy Journalism . He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted
with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.
I think the key to collapse of Soviet society and its satellites was the victory of
neoliberal ideology over communism. It was pure luck for neoliberalism was that its triumphal
march over the globe coincide with deep crisis of both communist ideology and the Soviet elite
(nomenklatura) in the USSR. Hapless, mediocre Gorbachov, a third rate politician who became the
leader of the USSR is a telling example here. Propaganda, especially "big troika" (BBC,
Deutsche Welle and
Voice of America), also played a very important role in this. Especially in Baltic countries and
Ukraine.
Domestic fake new industry always has huge advantage over foreign one in the USA and other
Western countries, because of general cultural dominance of the West.
The loss of effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda now is the same as the reason for loss of
effectiveness of communist propaganda since 60th. In the first case it was the crisis of
communist ideology, in the second is the crisis of neoliberal ideology. Everybody now understands
that the neoliberal promises were fake, and "bait and switch" manuver that enriched the tiny
percentage of population (top 1% and even more 0.01%).
When the society experience the crisis of ideology it became inoculated toward official
propaganda -- it simply loses its bite.
Notable quotes:
"... As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only 0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board. ..."
"... RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets. ..."
"... Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to it. ..."
"... There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's Southern segregationist ticket. ..."
"... Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?") ..."
"... Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of Americans. ..."
"... In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience. ..."
The Russians can dish it out, but don't expect Americans to swallow everything.
During the Cold War, it became an article of faith among Western policymakers and
journalists: One of the most effective ways to discredit the leaders of Communist countries
would be to provide their citizens with information from the West. It was a view that was
shared by Soviet Bloc regimes who were worried that listening to the Voice of America (VOA) or
watching Western television shows would induce their people to take political action against
the rulers.
So it was not surprising that government officials in East Germany, anxious that many TV
stations from West Germany could be viewed by their citizens, employed numerous means!such as
jamming the airwaves and even damaging TV antennas that were pointing west!in order to prevent
the so-called "subversive" western broadcasts from reaching audiences over the wall.
After the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989, communication researchers studying public attitudes
in former East German areas assumed that they would discover that those who had access to West
German television!and were therefore exposed to the West's political freedom and economic
prosperity!were more politically energized and willing to challenge the communist regime than
those who couldn't watch Western television.
But as Evgeny Morozov recalled in his Net Delusion: The
Dark Side of Internet Freedom , a study conducted between 1966 and 1990 about incipient
protests in the so-called "Valley of the Clueless"!an area in East Germany where the government
successfully blocked Western television signals!raised questions about this conventional
wisdom.
As it turns out, having access to West German television actually made life in East Germany
more endurable. Far from radicalizing its citizens, it seemed to have made them more
politically compliant. As one East German dissident quoted by Morozov lamented, "The whole
people could leave the country and move to the West as a man at 8pm, via television."
Meanwhile, East German citizens who did not have access to Western German television were
actually more critical of their regime, and more politically restless.
The study concluded that "in an ironic twist for Marxism, capitalist television seems to
have performed the same narcotizing function in communist East Germany that Karl Marx had
attributed to religious beliefs in capitalist society when he condemned religion as the 'opium
of the people.'"
Morozov refers to the results of these and other studies to raise an interesting idea:
Western politicians and pundits have predicted that the rise of the Internet, which provides
free access to information to residents of the global village, would galvanize citizens in
Russia and other countries to challenge their authoritarian regimes. In reality, Morozov
contends that exposure to the Internet may have distracted Russian users from their political
problems. The young men who should be leading the revolution are instead staying at home and
watching online pornography. Trotsky, as we know, didn't tweet.
Yet the assumption that the content of the message is a "silver bullet shot from a media gun
to penetrate a hapless audience," as communication theorists James Arthur Anderson and Timothy
P. Meyer put it, remains popular among politicians and pundits today, despite ample evidence to
the contrary.
Hence the common assertion that a presidential candidate who has raised a lots of money and
can spend it on buying a lots of television commercials, has a clear advantage over rivals who
cannot afford to dominate the media environment. But the loser in the 2016 presidential race
spent about $141.7 million on ads, compared with $58.8 million for winner's campaign, according
to NBC News . Candidate Trump also spent a fraction of what his Republican rivals had
during the Republican primaries that he won.
Communication researchers like Anderson and Meyers are not suggesting that media messages
don't have any effect on target audiences, but that it is quite difficult to sell ice to
Eskimos. To put it in simple terms, media audiences are not hapless and passive. Although you
can flood them with messages that are in line with your views and interests, audiences actively
participate in the communication process. They will construct their own meaning from the
content they consume, and in some cases they might actually disregard your message.
Imagine a multi-billionaire who decides to produce thousands of commercials celebrating the
legacy of ISIS, runs them on primetime American television, and floods social media with
messages praising the murderous terrorist group. If that happened, would Americans be rallying
behind the flag of ISIS? One can imagine that the response from audiences would range from
anger to dismissal to laughter.
In 2013 Al Jazeera Media Network
purchased Current
TV , which was once partially owned by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, and launched
an American news channel. Critics expressed concerns that the network, which is owned by the
government of Qatar and has been critical of U.S. policies in the Middle East, would try to
manipulate American audiences with their anti-Washington message.
Three years later, after hiring many star journalists and producing mostly straight news
shows, Al Jazeera America CEO Al Anstey announced that the network would cease
operations. Anstey cited the "economic landscape" which was another way of saying that its
ratings were distressingly low. The relatively small number of viewers who watched Al
Jazeera America 's programs considered them not anti-American but just, well, boring.
You don't have to be a marketing genius to figure out that in the age of the 24/7 media
environment, foreign networks face prohibitive competition from American cable news networks
like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, social media, not to mention Netflix and yes, those online porno
sites. Thus the chances that a foreign news organization would be able to attract large
American audiences, and have any serious impact on their political views, remain very low.
That, indeed, has been the experience of not only the defunct Al Jazeera America ,
but also of other foreign news outlets that have tried to imitate the Qatar-based network by
launching operations targeting American audiences. These networks have included CGTN (China
Global Television Network), the English-language news channel run by Chinese state broadcaster
China Central
Television ; PressTV, a 24-hour English language news and documentary network affiliated
with Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting ; or RT (formerly Russia Today), a Russian international television network funded by the
Russian
government that operates cable and satellitetelevision channels directed to
audiences outside of Russia.
After all, unless you are getting to paid to watch CTGN, PressTV, or RT -- or you are a news
junkie with a lot of time on your hands -- why in the world would you be spending even one hour of
the day watching these foreign networks?
Yet if you have been following the coverage and public debate over the alleged Russian
interference in the 2016 presidential election, you get the impression that RT and another
Russian media outlet, Sputnik (a news agency and radio broadcast service established by the
Russian
government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya ), were central players
in a conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and the Kremlin to deny the presidency
to Hillary Clinton.
In fact, more than half of the much-cited January report on the Russian electoral
interference released by U.S. intelligence agencies was devoted to warning of RT's growing
influence in the United States and across the world, referring to the "rapid expansion" of the
network's operations and budget to about $300 million a year, and citing the supposedly
impressive audience numbers listed on the RT website.
According to America's spooks, the coordinated activities of RT and the online-media
properties and social-media accounts that made up "Russia's state-run propaganda machine" have
been employed by the Russian government to "undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic
order."
And in a long cover story in TheNew York Times Magazine this month, with the
headline, "
RT, Sputnik and Russia's New Theory of War, " Jim Rutenberg suggested that the Kremlin has
"built one of the most powerful information weapons of the 21st century" and that it "may be
impossible to stop."
But as the British Economist magazine reported early this year, while RT claims to
reach 550 million people worldwide, with America and Britain supposedly being its most
successful markets, its "audience" of 550 million refers to "the number of people who can
access its channel, not those who actually watch it."
As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by
the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only
0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board.
The Times' s Rutenberg argues that the RT's ratings "are almost beside the point." RT
might not have amassed an audience that remotely rivals CNN's in conventional terms, "but in
the new, 'democratized' media landscape, it doesn't need to" since "the network has come to
form the hub of a new kind of state media operation: one that travels through the same diffuse
online channels, chasing the same viral hits and memes, as the rest of the
Twitter-and-Facebook-age media."
Traveling "through the same diffuse online channels" and "chasing the same viral hits and
memes" sounds quite impressive. Indeed, RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that
apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos
get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets.
But as The Economist points out, when it comes to Twitter and Facebook, RT's reach is
narrower than that of other news networks. Its claim of YouTube success is mostly down to the
network's practice of buying the rights to sensational footage -- for instance, Japan's 2011
tsunami -- and repackaging it with the company logo. It's not clear, however, how the
dissemination of a footage of a natural disaster or of a dog playing the piano helps efforts to
"undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."
It is obvious that the Russian leaders have been investing a lot of resources in RT,
Sputnik, and other media outlets, and that they employ them as propaganda tools aimed at
promoting their government's viewpoints and interests around the world. From that perspective,
these Russian media executives are heirs to the communist officials who had been in charge of
the propaganda empire of the Soviet Union and its satellites during much of the 20th
Century.
The worldwide communist propaganda machine did prove to be quite effective during the Great
Depression and World War II, when it succeeded in tapping into the economic and social
anxieties and anti-Nazi sentiments in the West and helped strengthen the power of the communist
parties in Europe and, to some extent, in the United States.
But in the same way that Western German television programs failed to politically energize
East Germans during the Cold War, much of the Soviet propaganda distributed by the Soviet Union
at that time had very little impact on the American public and its political attitudes, as
symbolized by the shrinking membership of the American Communist Party.
Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the
producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were
interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the
majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the
content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to
it.
Soviet propaganda may have scored limited success during the Cold War when it came to
members of the large communist parties in France, Italy, and Japan, as well as exploited
anti-American sentiments in some third-world countries. In these cases, the intentions of the
producer and the convention of the message seemed to be in line with the interpretations of the
receivers.
There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American
political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win
the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That
pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained
some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former
World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then
Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's
Southern segregationist ticket.
Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch
of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential
election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were
even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by
Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?")
Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian
propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining
more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of
the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of
Americans.
In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their
Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience.
Leon Hadar is a writer and author of the books Quagmire: America in the Middle East and
Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East. His articles have appeared in the New York Times,
The Washington Post, Washington Times, The Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy,
and the National Interest.
For an example of the success of propaganda, look at Breitbart. The messages online during
the 2016 election were pervasive and insidious. I think this post underestimates the threat
by focusing on traditional media instead of social interaction.
RT covered Assange during the election better than other outlets.
It's easy to see everything from a personal perspective and forget that we are very
diverse. We don't live in an ABC, CBS, and NBC world anymore, with information controlled.
Changes in thought and belief happen online now, in many, many different venues.
A government that has confidence in its own support doesn't need to fight foreign
information. In the '30s and '40s the US government encouraged shortwave listening, and
manufacturers made money by adding SW bands to their radios. We were going through a
depression and then a war, but our government was CONFIDENT enough to encourage us to
understand the world.
Since 1950 the government has been narrowing the focus of external input because it knows
that it no longer has the natural consent of the governed. TV and the Web are intentional
forms of jamming, filling our eyes and ears with internally produced nonsense to crowd out
the external info.
The ones you have to worry about are those much closer to home – "inside the tent".
Friends in the UK, Canada, and Europe are appalled at the distorting effect Israeli
propaganda has on American news sources, and how unaware of it typical Americans seem to
be.
Indeed, it is odd and more than a little worrying that all the concern about "foreign
meddling" has so far failed to engage with Israel, which is hands down the best funded, most
sophisticated and successful foreign meddler.
The FBI annually reports that Israel spies on us at the same level as Russia and China.
But we have yet to fully register that Israeli spying includes systematic efforts to
influence American elections and policies, efforts that dwarf those of Putin's Russia both in
scale and impact.
I think that the corporate masters of propaganda media and politics in these United States,
have, in the words of Edward G. Robinson's Rico in Little Caesar, "gotten to where you can
dish it out, but you can't take it anymore."
It's counterfactual to conflate Soviet propaganda with the perspective of Russians today,
unless Communism never really was the real point. In fact, it's our own leaders in media and
politics who now increasingly issue dogmatic and insulting derogatory language, sounding more
and more like late Soviet propagandists themselves.
So what? What's wrong with people being exposed to a broad array of points of view, trying
to better understand the world and constantly challenging, refining, and reshaping their
worldview in the process?
You're coming perilously close to suggesting that Americans who are critical of their
government are dupes of hostile foreign powers ! an unfair, unhelpful, and undemocratic
assertion.
The problem with Russian trolls is that people don't know they are Russian trolls. They think
they are their fellow Americans and neighbors on Facebook. The influence of foreign
propaganda on Americans is not due to transparent media like Al Jazeera. It's due to
propaganda disguised as your neighbor's opinion.
this conversation cant be taken serious without a serious discussion on Israel, who by the
way provides the perfect case and point of how effective foreign propaganda can be. They work
through our media, school systems and even our churches. Just look at what happened to McGraw
Hill for daring to show before and after maps of the Palestine over the years.
"... There are many questions regarding the Awan case. One might reasonably ask how foreign-born IT specialists are selected and vetted prior to being significantly overpaid and allowed to work on computers in congressional offices. And the ability of those same individuals to keep working even after the relevant congressmen have been warned that their employee was under investigation has to be explained beyond Wasserman-Schultz's comment that Awan had not committed any crime, which may have been true but one would expect congressmen to err on the side of caution over an issue that could easily have national security ramifications. And how does a recently bankrupt and unemployed Imran Awan wind up with a high-priced Clinton-connected lawyer to defend himself? ..."
"... As the story involves possible espionage, fraud and even something new to consider regarding the theft of information from the DNC server, one might have expected the Fourth Estate to wake from its slumber and take notice. But perhaps not surprisingly there has been astonishingly little follow-up in the mainstream media about the Awan family, possibly because it involves some leading Democrats, though the Daily Caller ..."
"... In a surprise development, investigative journalists have also determined that Imran Awan retained as of the end of August a still-active secret, numeric email account on the House of Representatives server. E-mail accounts in Congress normally are labeled using the holder's name, so all active accounts are identity-linked as a security measure. In this case the numeric account was linked to the actual account of a House staffer who works on national security issues for Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana. Imran Awan clearly has been using the anonymous House of Representatives address as it was cited in a suit filed by a landlord seeking unpaid rent on an apartment rented for his second wife in Alexandria. ..."
"... The most significant recent development in the Awan case is, however, the decision made by Imran's wife Alvi to return to the United States at the end of this month. She has been charged as a co-conspirator relating to the bank fraud that her husband was also involved in, which potentially could result in some jail time. There are, however, reports that she has been interviewed several times in Pakistan by FBI agents and has apparently agreed to a plea bargain to tell all she knows about what went on with the Awan family. Some on Capitol Hill believe that what she knows could prove to be explosive, not only regarding the lax security practices in Congress but also in terms of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's negligence in providing access to the DNC server. The actual whereabouts of the large quantity of stolen government documents might also be resolved. ..."
"... Something about this is strange. It is as if Imran Awan and his group were not really hired for IT purposes.It is perhaps noteworthy that Pakistani spooks have been intertwined with American events for years. For example, there was a Pakistani connection to 9/11. ..."
"... how can one leverage content in this day and age if there is no thorough knowledge of the tools behind any information system. Put congressmen and women to the test, how many have questions as use of data protocol, firewall, ports, delegated to "specialist", and loyal (the accent on loyal) collaborators without a notion of what they even delegate. If living in an area of specialization, the notion of minimal knowledge and comprehension might be at least a thorough understanding of man – machine correlations. ..."
"... Hillarious Hillary neither, did have a notion of any technicalities of tools applied to bid her interests. ..."
"... The phenomenon will worsen, the glue will thicken into further layers of ignorance. The Moore law? The more complex society, the bigger the ignorance of the elites. ..."
"... This is big. I would like to know, what are Awans credentials that qualified him for the IT position and who hired him? Someone had to vouchsafe for Awan and who is that person? Who approved his salary and why was there no review or audit? Apparently, someone, or some organization wanted to control a large block of the Congress. ..."
"... Audacity and chutzpah of Imran Awan's operation right away made me think of post-military service Israeli youth running various scams and intelligence gathering errands all over the world. ..."
I wrote an article on the strange case
of Imran Awan about two months ago. To summarize it briefly, Awan, his two brothers and wife,
naturalized U.S. citizens born in Pakistan living in the Washington DC area, found employment
as IT administrators in the House of Representatives working for as many as
80 Democratic Party congressmen . Even though they may have had little actual training in
IT, they insinuated themselves into the system and were paid in excess of $5 million over the
course of ten years, chief-of-staff level pay, while frequently not even showing up for work.
They even brought into the arrangement a frequent no-show Pakistani friend whose prior work
history consisted of getting recently
fired by McDonald's .
Along the way, their security files were never reviewed. They were involved in bankruptcies,
bank fraud and other criminal activity, but their troublesome behavior was never noticed. They
were on bad terms with their father and step-mother, which including forging a document to
cheat their step-mother of an insurance payment and even holding her "captive" so she could not
see their dying father. Their father even changed his last name to dissociate himself from
them.
Imran Awan, the leader of the group, worked particularly for Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz, who was, at the time, also the Chairman of the Democratic National
Committee. Though he had no clearance and was not supposed to work with classified material, he
and his family obtained password access to congressional files and Imran himself was able to
enter Wasserman-Schultz's own personal iPad computer which linked to the server used by the
Democratic National Committee.
As of February 2016, the Awans
came under suspicion by the Capitol Hill Police for having set up an operation involving
double billing as well as the possible theft and reselling of government owned computer
equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of
Representatives' computer network as well as to other information in the individual offices'
separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed to access. It was also believed
that Imran sent "massive" quantities of stolen government files
to a remote personal server . It may have been located in his former residence in Lorton,
Virginia. The police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that
there might be a problem. Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but
Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after he was actually arrested.
Imran was arrested on July 25 th at Dulles Airport as he was flying to Pakistan
to join his wife Alvi, who had left the country with their children and many of their
possessions in March. In January, they had also wired to Pakistan $283,000 that they had
obtained fraudulently from the Congressional credit union. After his arrest, Imran was defended
by lawyer Chris
Gowen , a high-priced $1,000 an hour Washington attorney who has worked for the Clintons
personally, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.
There are many questions regarding the Awan case. One might reasonably ask how foreign-born
IT specialists are selected and vetted prior to being significantly overpaid and allowed to
work on computers in congressional offices. And the ability of those same individuals to keep
working even after the relevant congressmen have been warned that their employee was under
investigation has to be explained beyond Wasserman-Schultz's
comment that Awan had not committed any crime, which may have been true but one would
expect congressmen to err on the side of caution over an issue that could easily have national
security ramifications. And how does a recently bankrupt and unemployed Imran Awan wind up with
a high-priced Clinton-connected lawyer to defend himself?
As the story involves possible espionage, fraud and even something new to consider regarding
the theft of information from the DNC server, one might have expected the Fourth Estate to wake
from its slumber and take notice. But perhaps not surprisingly there has been astonishingly
little follow-up in the mainstream media about the Awan family, possibly because it involves
some leading Democrats, though the Daily Caller and some other conservative sites have
stayed on top of developments.
Since his arrest Imran Awan has had his passports confiscated by the court and has been
released on bail on condition that he wear an ankle monitor at all times and not travel more
than 50 miles from the Virginia home where he is staying with a relative. In early September,
he sought to have the monitor removed and his passports returned so he could travel to Pakistan
and visit his children. His plea was rejected. He is not yet scheduled for trial on the
allegations of bank fraud and is apparently still under investigation by the Bureau relating to
other possible charges, including possible espionage. His four accomplices are also still under
investigation but have not been charged. They are on a watch list and will not be allowed to
leave the United States while the inquiry is continuing.
It has also been learned that Imran had been on the receiving end of
complaints filed with the Fairfax County Virginia police in 2015-6 by two women who resided
in separate apartments in Alexandria that are reportedly paid for by Imran Awan. Both of the
women complained of abuse and one is believed to be a "second wife" for Imran Awan, legal in
Pakistan but illegal in the United States. Imran reportedly divorced his second wife shortly
after his arrest.
In a surprise development, investigative journalists have also determined that Imran Awan
retained as of the end of August a still-active secret,
numeric email account on the House of Representatives server. E-mail accounts in Congress
normally are labeled using the holder's name, so all active accounts are identity-linked as a
security measure. In this case the numeric account was linked to the actual account of a House
staffer who works on national security issues for Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana. Imran
Awan clearly has been using the anonymous House of Representatives address as it was cited in a
suit filed by a landlord seeking unpaid rent on an apartment rented for his second wife in
Alexandria.
The most significant recent development in the Awan case is, however, the
decision made by Imran's wife Alvi to return to the United States at the end of this month.
She has been charged as a co-conspirator relating to the bank fraud that her husband was also
involved in, which potentially could result in some jail time. There are, however, reports that
she has been interviewed several times in Pakistan by FBI agents and has apparently agreed to a
plea bargain to tell all she knows about what went on with the Awan family. Some on Capitol
Hill believe that what she knows could prove to be explosive, not only regarding the lax
security practices in Congress but also in terms of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's negligence in
providing access to the DNC server. The actual whereabouts of the large quantity of stolen
government documents might also be resolved.
This story, which is still unfolding, continues to have the potential to blow wide open the
complacent culture on Capitol Hill and it also might ruin the reputations of a number of
leading Democrats. Stay tuned!
Something about this is strange. It is as if Imran Awan and his group were not really
hired for IT purposes.It is perhaps noteworthy that Pakistani spooks have been intertwined with American events
for years. For example, there was a Pakistani connection to 9/11.
There is a Pakistani connection to CIA and related sorts of things. One wonders what kind
of work these Pakistanis were really doing for Wasserman-Schultz and others involved ! and
what kind of things Debbie and the Americans she is connected to are involved in.
Of course, it could have the potential of a massive scandal, but If the inner circles of
the Dems, especially the criminal machinations of the Clintons and their stooges are
concerned, the mainstream media will keep mum. So far, they have always covered up their
dubious and dirty tricks. The American political system within the Beltway is so rotten and
corrupt that everybody will be affected if the slightest connection comes to the fore. Take
the so-called Russian hacking as a case in point. It's all bogus, but the investigation
continues by the Clinton stooge named Robert Mueller.
The US establishment reminds me of a poorly knitted jumper with many threads sticking out.
So it desperately prevents, using the intelligence services, the police and the media it
controls, any investigation because if one would pull one thread successfully the whole thing
would unravel in its full perverted glory of deprevity (the whole Demopublican establishment
that is).
No surprises, the quality of politicians worldwide is embedded in the system. The question
asked: how can a meritocracy apply extended family, friend and sex-mates, to the selection
system consequently. Another, how can one leverage content in this day and age if there
is no thorough knowledge of the tools behind any information system. Put congressmen and
women to the test, how many have questions as use of data protocol, firewall, ports,
delegated to "specialist", and loyal (the accent on loyal) collaborators without a notion of
what they even delegate. If living in an area of specialization, the notion of minimal
knowledge and comprehension might be at least a thorough understanding of man – machine
correlations.
Hillarious Hillary neither, did have a notion of any technicalities of tools applied to
bid her interests. "Boom", "Boom", "oBama", was using computers to play "drone of doom".
Politicians dress, groom, prepare and travel to public moments of extroversion, and that's
it. Very busy critters, highly un-focused beyond anything deeper then egocentric looks and
sway of an actor. It works, there is a public, "deplorable", "gens de rien" ignorance
carrying them, complicit media and scientists, sustaining them. The phenomenon will worsen,
the glue will thicken into further layers of ignorance. The Moore law? The more complex
society, the bigger the ignorance of the elites.
A suggestive test: time employment over years in office would uproot the sterling
conclusion that politicians, administrators of public affairs have simply no time and energy
left to analyze anything beyond their public person's direct interests. Systemic, in all
branches, our elites are simply not up to par. And that "works", in occurrence the state of
affairs worldwide, in the long term, in depth.
For those who are unfamiliar with US involvement in South Asia: Pakistan's military and
intelligences services are funded by America (just as Egypt's are). Pakistani intelligence
and army has long been a CIA stooge and that goes since the 80s and even before that. It was
Pakistanis who were training the mujahideen to fight Russia in Afghanistan during the cold
war. So no one is surprised when Pakistani ISI chief is here in US during the execution of
9/11. Throughout much of the world, 9/11 is seen as a plot of American government.
By the way, do you seriously think Pakistani army which survives on American funding would
bite the hand that feeds it by secretly giving refuge to Osama Bin Laden? If that was truly
the case, as government said during their s0-called raid in Pakistan that supposedly killed
Osama, would the US government still be giving billions to Pakistan's army? Pakistan's army,
like Egypt's army and Turkey's army, are supported by America as a way of subverting
democracy in those countries. Unfotunately American public's general knowledge of what
America funds and how it conducts itself with other countries is so low that it is impossible
for the majority to have any kind of reality based understanding of what their taxes are
paying for and how it does not support "freedom" but the opposite of it throughout the
world
This is big. I would like to know, what are Awans credentials that qualified him for the
IT position and who hired him? Someone had to vouchsafe for Awan and who is that person? Who
approved his salary and why was there no review or audit? Apparently, someone, or some
organization wanted to control a large block of the Congress. Was it Clinton, was it
Intelligence, the Mossad, Rothschilds, Russia?
I would imagine that her calls were being
monitored and her involvement known.
Audacity and chutzpah of Imran Awan's operation right away made me think of post-military
service Israeli youth running various scams and intelligence gathering errands all over the
world. Only people with a strong awareness of being the untouchable sacred cows and/or
somebody with a strong back up of security services can behave like this.
Each year, 75,000 soldiers are discharged from the Israel Defense Force. A third of them
then travel across Asia and South America, supporting businesses at home and abroad.
"... Anyway, the whole Russiagate thing will either explode into nothing or drift off into nothing. Why? Because there's no "there" there. ALL just fabricated hype. Too many people fall prey to surmises and suggestions and baseless conclusions. ..."
"... Read Robert Parry, and, please, interview him and others from consortiumnews.com , my best go to source for truth. Thanks for this interview with Max, a man I greatly admire. ..."
"... Fabricated hype yes, but for what reason? The last thing the 'elites' want is Trump making friends with Russia, they are scared it would expose their NATO scam. No enemies = no money for MIC! ..."
"... Neocons make military war while neoliberals make economic war. Neither group makes any sense and both groups are destroying the human race with synthetic ideologies based on nothing but greed, fear, hatred and greed. Both groups represent extreme wealth and the project to enslave and impoverish the whole world. It's them or us and so far we're clueless ..."
"... Right on, and well said Max! Now then, we know who the neocons are, nastiness is embedded in their DNA and makeup. I could go and on to an eternity, using a plethora of adjectives to describe their repugnant ideas and beliefs; but I won't. ..."
"... SCAM is the correct word. Now after failing to get a Russian "hack" dismissed by former CIA & NSA experts and Wikileaks (Never lied yet to my knowledge) NOW we get Russian FB accounts ( most of which have nothing to do with clinton). ..."
The promotional video of the Committee to Investigate Russia features actor Morgan Freeman
in what is 'probably his worst role since Driving Miss Daisy,' says AlterNet's Max
Blumenthal
Outside the government, there's a lot of going on, too. Media outlets and liberal
organizations have devoted extensive time and energy to Russiagate. This week, a new group
joined the fray. It's called the Committee to Investigate Russia. Its board includes Rob
Reiner, the well-known actor, producer, and liberal activist, and several right-wing pundits,
including David Frum, the man who coined George W. Bush's infamous phrase, the 'axis of
evil.'
The committee's kickoff video features the actor Morgan Freeman.
MORGAN FREEMAN: We have been attacked. We are at war. We need our president to speak
directly to us and tell us the truth. We need him to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office and
say, "My fellow Americans, during this past election, we came under attack by the Russian
government. I've called on the Congress and our intelligence community to use every resource
available to conduct a thorough investigation to determine exactly how this happened. The free
world is counting on us for leadership. For 241 years, our democracy has been a shining example
to the world of what we can all aspire to, and we owe it to the brave people who have fought
and died to protect this great nation and save democracy, and we owe it to our future
generations, to continue the fight."
VOICEOVER: Join the Committee to Investigate Russia. Join the fight.
AARON MATE: Joining me is Max Blumenthal, bestselling author, journalist, senior editor of
AlterNet's Grayzone Project, and cohost of the new podcast Moderate Rebels. Max, welcome. I'm
going to predict that you're not joining this fight.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: This is sad. It's sad for Morgan Freeman, and I think whatever you think
about Russia, you can agree with me that this is probably his worst role since Driving Miss
Daisy. Now he's driving, basically, the PNAC train, Project for a New American Century, driving
the neocons. This is highly unusual for me, maybe I'm wrong here, to hear a black American say
that America has been a shining example of democracy for 241 years. It sounds like something a
neocon would write in a script and put for Morgan Freeman in a teleprompter. 200 years ago, or
longer, he would have been scrubbing Thomas Jefferson's chamberpot, so this is just deeply
disturbing American exceptionalism.
Beyond that, Morgan Freeman has basically been brought into this by Rob Reiner, who's been
brought in by a cast of neocons, not just unindicted Iraq War criminal David Frum, who crafted
the axis of evil phrase, which has helped spread instability and death around the world, but
Max Boot, the neoconservative pundit and self-styled historian who's never met a war he didn't
like. We also have James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence and NSA director
affiliated with this group, the Committee to Investigate Russia. Max Boot is a fellow at the
Institute for the Study of War, which is run by Kimberly Kagan, who's part of the
neoconservative Kagan dynasty. The Institute for the Study of War is funded primarily by the
arms industry and surveillance industry, and their job is basically to gin up wars and consult
for generals, and make a windfall profit in the process.
That's what the Committee to Investigate Russia is about. It brings this Hollywood element
to it. Rob Reiner's involvement helps get David Frum on CNN and a host of radio and MSNBC
programs. It almost makes a neocon like him seem likable, although he and Max Boot were
welcomed with open arms by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, so in many ways we're
experiencing still the toxic alluvia of the Clinton camp with this bizarre initiative.
We have to first ask, what is the Committee to Investigate Russia? It reminds me of the
Committee on the Present Danger, which was a Cold War collection of neoconservatives, as well
as the Project for a New American Century, which was a larger conglomeration of
neoconservatives looking to take advantage of the post-Cold War atmosphere to gin up a war on
terror. What they said in their initial document was that, "Short of a catalyzing event, we
won't be able to realize our goals." Three years later, 9/11 happened, and that was the
catalyzing event.
They are attempting to manufacture a catalyzing event through the narrative of Trump-Russia
collusion in order to ramp up hostilities with Russia, not just in Russia's near abroad in
Ukraine, but also in Syria and across the world. This is an incredibly dangerous prospect.
AARON MATE: There was a piece today in the Daily Beast picking up on this Facebook story,
which you and I haven't discussed yet on the Real News, but it's gotten a lot of attention. A
few weeks ago, Facebook disclosed that some $100,000 was spent on Facebook ads by suspected
Russian accounts that may be tied to the Kremlin. It was a bit ambiguous. Most of the ads were
in 2015, a year before the election, and most of the ads, Facebook said, were not even directly
to do with the election but about divisive social issues. This was taken as another new level
of Russian influence in the U.S.
Just today, on the Daily Beast, which has been all over this story, there's an exclusive
story written by four reporters. A team of four reporters writes, "Exclusive. Russians appear
to use Facebook to push Trump rallies in 17 U.S. cities." Subheading is, "Being Patriotic, a
Facebook group uncovered by the Daily Beast, is the first evidence of suspected Russian
provocateurs explicitly mobilizing Trump supporters in real life."
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Maybe it's true. Maybe these four reporters found something that might be
true, but if you read into the ninth paragraph of that article, like so many articles about
Russiagate, these four reporters, the finest minds of the Daily Beast, including Spencer
Ackerman, who wrote the foreword to Russiagate huckster Malcolm Nance's book on how the
election was stolen, and I think his book might have come out before the election was decided,
if you read into the ninth paragraph that the story is not confirmed, that Facebook explicitly
states that it cannot confirm that any of these accounts are Russian accounts. Throughout the
article, the authors are forced to refer to them as suspected Russian accounts. I don't know
how this got past an editor, except that there is so much zeal at the Daily Beast to keep up
the Trump-Russia collusion narrative that generates clicks.
That's the same, I would assume, mentality that prevails among the producers among Rachel
Maddow's show, which you wrote about really clearly and effectively. I think it's not just the
narrative that's driven by political zeal but also the desire for ratings and clicks. At no
point in this piece do they ever establish that these are Russian accounts. It is possible that
this Facebook accounting question, was a Facebook account turned to a Russian bot farm, that's
what a lot of accounts do. They pay some bot farm to boost their profile on Facebook. One of
the things that bot farms do is they'll direct users to political ads, political hot button
issues, because that's what gets people engaged.
Again, there's no evidence here. What I found really interesting about this article, and
this is true for the previous Daily Beast article that Spencer Ackerman published about
Facebook suspected, alleged, possible Russian bots, is that he turns to a fake Russia expert
named Clint Watts, who's a former FBI agent. If you actually look at Clint Watts's work, and
you're just remotely informed about politics in the U.S., I think you'll realize that character
is a complete crank. If we actually lived in an actual meritocracy that relied on real experts,
he would be out with a metal detector looking for loose change on the beach or in some public
park, but instead, he was testifying before Congress.
He testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Clint Watts, that the chaos of Black
Lives Matter was spawned by RT and Sputnik. He links to an RT article about Black Lives Matter
as his evidence. Along with the Bundy ranch chaos. This too was a Russian active measure. Yeah,
the Bundy ranch. Russia had a huge hand in that. This is someone testifying before the Senate
Intelligence Committee.
Even worse, he goes on to talk about an article he wrote with Will McCants and Mike Doran,
who are these Beltway think tankers presented as terror experts. He wrote it in Foreign
Affairs, which is the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. It was an article lobbying
the U.S. government, the Obama administration, to send arms to Ahrar Al-Sham, which is a Salafi
jihadist rebel group in Syria. The teaser of this article, it's unbelievable, is, "An Al
Qaeda-linked group we can be friends with."
The article comes out. Clinton Watts gets mocked heavily on Twitter. I think I might have
been among the people mocking him, but again, I'm a Russian bot. [Inaudible]. I'm
malfunctioning right now. No, actually, real people mocked Clint Watts on Twitter justifiably.
He was calling for supporting an Al Qaeda alliance in Syria. He goes before the Senate and says
that, "This is when I noticed that there were Russian active measures and an influence
campaign, because I was being mocked on Twitter for this article." He doesn't say what the
article is. He covers up the content.
This testimony elucidates the kind of Russia experts that are being relied on to prove that
there's this vast information warfare campaign, this Gerasimov doctrine, employed by Russia.
Clint Watts is part of a larger initiative spun out of the failed Clinton campaign. It includes
people like Laura Rosenberger, who was a former policy advisor of Hillary Clinton. This should
scare anyone. Consider that these people would have been involved in foreign policy decisions.
Andrew Weisberg I think is another, and then there's J.M. Berger, who's part of the terror
jihadology industry. He never really established himself as much of a major expert there, but
now the hype is all around Russia, so he's rebranded himself as a Russia expert.
They have an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. If you go on the
Alliance for Securing Democracy's website, it's almost as entertaining as the Committee to
Investigate Russia. They have a chart that shows the Russia information threat matrix. They're
addressing all of the different websites, including the National Review, maybe they'll name the
Real News today, that are echoing Kremlin propaganda. How do they determine what the Kremlin's
propaganda is? They not only look at RT and Sputnik, they have a list that they've refused to
release of 600 Russian bots or Russian-controlled social media accounts. As I said, they refuse
to name what these social media accounts are.
Scott Shane, the New York Times reporter, he published another one of these exposes that
exposes nothing, and by the ninth paragraph, you realize the whole thing is unconfirmed and
it's based on suspicions and speculation. He determined that a lot of these supposed Russian
bots he was supposed to be looking at were actually real people, one you can look it is Marcel
Sardo, real people who just simply don't believe in a unipolar world, and they support Russia
as a counterhegemonic force. I know this is impossible for Beltway insiders and coastal elites
to believe, but there are people who actually think that way and are on Twitter.
You're basically looking at a gigantic scam. Scams are bad as they are. Amway's bad. It rips
a lot of people off and makes money for right-wingers. This is a pro-war scam that has
effectively deep-sixed diplomacy with Russia, which could have been effective in establishing
stability in certain areas. 1.4 million people are displaced in Ukraine. Syria's a complete
mess. The U.S. has to work with Russia there to defeat ISIS. This is just dangerous on a global
scale, and so it's important to call out these scam initiatives and to completely scrutinize
and hound the fraudmeisters and neocons behind it.
AARON MATE: All right, that's going to wrap part one of this discussion with Max Blumenthal.
Stay tuned for part two.
Max Blumenthal is a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the
award-winning author of Goliath, Republican Gomorrah, and The 51 Day War. He is the co-host of
the podcast, Moderate Rebels. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal.
Why isn't Max Blumenthal's great book, "The 51 Day War," listed above? Its
omission seems odd and deliberate. Also, "Driving Miss Daisy" was not a bad role for Morgan. It
was an excellent snap shot of the south at the time and the reduction of two representatives of
that era into real people. Never mind.
Anyway, the whole Russiagate thing will either explode
into nothing or drift off into nothing. Why? Because there's no "there" there. ALL just
fabricated hype. Too many people fall prey to surmises and suggestions and baseless
conclusions.
Read Robert Parry, and, please, interview him and others from
consortiumnews.com , my best go to source for truth. Thanks for this interview with Max, a
man I greatly admire.see more
Fabricated hype yes, but for what reason?
The last thing the 'elites' want is Trump making friends with Russia, they are scared it would
expose their NATO scam. No enemies = no money for MIC!
Now the dollar is starting to collapse, note each nation America are at loggerheads with, have
all stopped using or want to stop using the dollar. So, yes, they fabricated the hype and move
onto N Korea, because Russia wouldn't play ball and fire the first shot!
Perhaps Kim Jung-Un
can be tricked into this move? It also throws a spanner in the works against the Chinese One
Belt One Road [Eurasian Union] that also threatens American hegemony & dollar.
see more
Neocons make military war while neoliberals make economic war. Neither group
makes any sense and both groups are destroying the human race with synthetic ideologies based
on nothing but greed, fear, hatred and greed. Both groups represent extreme wealth and the
project to enslave and impoverish the whole world. It's them or us and so far we're clueless.
Right on, and well said Max!
Now then, we know who the neocons are, nastiness is embedded in their DNA and makeup. I could
go and on to an eternity, using a plethora of adjectives to describe their repugnant ideas and
beliefs; but I won't.
On the other hand, here we have the "liberals" of the West coast. Bad losers! Alas, Hillary,
"the queen of chaos" lost, and the Hollywood crowd "lost their mind." And regarding Morgan Freeman, highly disappointing and utterly pathetic.
Morgan is a "natural character actor"- while I enjoy some of his movies, he could easily
be "Morgan Freeman" in each role. I understand his desire to work and perhaps make more
money-he is a paid spokesman I presume. Morgan possesses mo particular geopolitical or
economic expertise that I am aware of: enough about Morgan.
SCAM is the correct word. Now
after failing to get a Russian "hack" dismissed by former CIA & NSA experts and Wikileaks
(Never lied yet to my knowledge) NOW we get Russian FB accounts ( most of which have nothing
to do with clinton).
Why won't Clinton go away?- she is just Not personable enough to get
elected against someone more personable. This is why Trump and Obama won.
I believe she could have beat Jeb and some other GOP hopefuls who also are not as personable.
This DEM meme is all about trying to set itself up for 2018 elections and perhaps to try to
bring Trump down before he does some AWFUL things such as: Open up a truly independent 911
investigation; release the JFK files "unclassified" (The CIA would probably not comply)
Incidentally the CIA was never Congressionally approved -- Trump could eliminate them with an
executive order; of course then we would see direct evidence of the shadow governments power.
What concerns me is that we do not see: Bill Binney, Ray McGovern, Kevin Shipp, Robert
Steele, Stephen Cohen in RN interviews? Is RN reporting its funding sources on its site?
Donatella • 4 days ago
A sign of the Democrat party's desperation is its embrace of the always-wrong
warmongering neocons. Hillary embraced them during her campaign assuming that it would
bring her Republican votes as Chuck Schumer seemed to think. Max Boot is part of this
joint Democrat/Neocon propaganda "Committee to Investigate Russia", there is an excellent
interview of him at the link below.
Lawmakers want the FCC to investigate the Russia-backed
Sputnik Radio for using "U.S. airwaves to influence the
2016 presidential election," apparently not realizing
that Sputnik wasn't on the radio until July 2017, says
Max Blumenthal
"... It is of course idiotic to believe that 3,000 ads for which some $100,000 was spent over two years would somehow effect a U.S. election. In a U.S. presidential election more than $2 billion is spend on advertising. Facebook's ad revenue per year is some $27 billion. ..."
"... The whole ugly mess would be a farce through and through if not for the suffering of innocents and the endless, meaningless attempted destruction of everything noble in the human spirit. ..."
"... "The lack of objectivity and journalistic integrity is a greater threat to western democracy than any "Russian influence" could ever be." ..."
"... Whats most outrageous about this is that same western liberal media daily could whine about Russian propaganda, meanwhile themselves could write propaganda everyday! These people are brainwashed, and unfortunately they fool a lot of westerners. ..."
"... There is no end to this, these liberals wont stop until Trump declare war on Russia, they are sick in their heads, racist against Russians, no other way to define their irrational hatred. ..."
"... Ah Ha! The Bezos Bozo strikes again! The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com pocketbook. Boycott the disgusting online retailer and urge everyone to, explaining that Bezos is a far bigger threat to peace and democracy than Russia, China, and DPRK combined. ..."
The Obama White House and some Democratic officials
pressed Facebook to find evidence for alleged "Russian interference" in the U.S. election.
When Facebook found none, the pressure increased. Facebook went back, again found nothing and
political pressure increase further. Congress threatened to investigate. Senator Warner flew to
California and demanded the "right" results. Eventually Facebook gave in:
By early August, Facebook had identified more than 3,000 ads addressing social and political
issues that ran in the United States between 2015 and 2017 and that appear to have come from
accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency.
All hailed Facebook - finally there was something they could build their anti-Russian
campaign on.
It is of course idiotic to believe that 3,000 ads for which some $100,000 was spent over
two years would somehow effect a U.S. election. In a U.S. presidential election more than $2
billion is spend on advertising. Facebook's ad revenue per year is some $27 billion.
Moreover - as it now turns out these 3,000 advertisements which "appeared" to be
"associated" with something "Russian" were not anti-Clinton or pro-Trump but were
a mix of pro- and contra ads on various social issues:
The batch of more than 3,000 Russian-bought ads that Facebook is preparing to turn over to
Congress shows a deep understanding of social divides in American society, with s ome ads
promoting African American rights groups, including Black Lives Matter, and others suggesting
that these same groups pose a rising political threat , say people familiar with the covert
influence campaign.
The Russian campaign ! taking advantage of Facebook's ability to send contrary messages to
different groups of users based on their political and demographic characteristics ! also
sought to sow discord among religious groups. Other ads highlighted support for Democrat
Hillary Clinton among Muslim women.
(Note again - there is no evidence that any of the ads were "Russian bought" or part of a
"Russian campaign". Those are mere assertions by the Washington Post authors.)
As we now learn that these ads were not, as earlier assumed, pro-Trump and anti-Clinton, the
narrative has to change. Earlier it was claimed that the alleged Russian aim was to get Trump
elected. That no longer holds:
"Their aim was to sow chaos," said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee. "In many cases, it was more about voter suppression rather than
increasing turnout."
How pro- and anti-Black Lives Matter ads might have suppressed voter turnout will stay
Senator Warner's secret.
Instead of "Russia helped Trump" we now get an even more implausible "Russia wanted to sow
discord" narrative. As if Donald Trump's campaign style had not been enough to cause
controversies.
The Washington Post has been the major outlet to push the
"Russian influence" baloney . It has long left all journalistic standards behind. Today it
goes even further. An editorial now claims
that Russia interfered in the German elections by pushing the right-wing AfD vote through last
minute tweets from some Twitter bots:
The party was buoyed by social-media campaigns of the kind Russia has used elsewhere !
faceless bots that multiply messages over and over. Once again, the Kremlin's quest to
disrupt democracy, divide the West and erode the rules-based liberal international order may
have found a toehold.
No evidence is presented that any online activity "buoyed" the AfD. No evidence is presented
that anything Russian was involved. Here is the sole point the editorial builds on:
In the final hours of the campaign, online supporters of the AfD began warning their base of
possible election fraud, and the online alarms were "driven by anonymous troll accounts and
boosted by a Russian-language botnet," according to the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic
Research Lab.
The Atlantic Council is financed by foreign (Middle East)
interest, NATO and the oil- and weapon industry. It has been a major driver of the anti-Russian
new Cold War narrative. Its "Digital Forensic Research Lab" indeed claims
to have found a few Twitter accounts which have their names written in Cyrillic(!) letters.
Only Russian influence accounts would ever do that! It even found one tweet warning about
election fraud that was retweeted 500(!) times. That MUST have helped the AfD to receive more
than 12% of the 47 million cast votes in Germany - (not!).
Election fraud in the German pen and paper balloting is nearly impossible. No one will take
vague claims thereof as serious. It is simply not an issue in Germany and any such claim would
not effect the vote. German officials have found no
sign of "Russian" election hacking or of voting fraud.
What the Washington Post editors and the Atlantic Council have missed in their search for
undue election influence in the German election is the large support of a islamophobic US
megadonor for the rightwing Germany AfD party:
[O]ne of the major publishers of online content friendly to the far-right [German] party is
an American website financed in large part and lead by Jewish philanthropist Nina Rosenwald.
Rosenwald's site, the Gatestone Institute, publishes a steady flow of inflammatory content
about the German election, focused on stoking fears about immigrants and Muslims.
The fake news stories by the Zionist agitators were translated into German and disseminated
to support the AfD.
Allegations of "Russian influence" in U.S., French and German elections is made
up from hot air. No evidence is or ever was presented to support these claims. Massive
election interference by other foreign interests, like large Saudi donations to the Clinton
Foundation, or Zionist Jewish financier support for extremist positions in Germany and France
is ignored.
The story about "Russian influence" was made up by the Democrats to explain Clinton's loss
of the election and to avoid looking at her personal responsibility for it. It also helps to
push the new
cold war narrative and to sell weapons. As no evidence was ever found to support the
"Russian influence" campaign, Facebook and others come under pressure to deliver the "evidence"
the U.S. intelligence services could not produce. The now resulting story of "sowing chaos" is
something out of la-la-land.
If there is something to learn from this sad story it is this: The lack of objectivity and
journalistic integrity is a greater threat to western democracy than any "Russian influence"
could ever be.
Posted by b on September 26, 2017 at 01:50 PM |
Permalink
Once again, the Kremlin's quest to disrupt democracy, divide the West and erode the
rules-based liberal international order may have found a toehold.
O, it hurts. The irony, it hurts. Repeating myself from the end of the last thread: The
whole ugly mess would be a farce through and through if not for the suffering of innocents
and the endless, meaningless attempted destruction of everything noble in the human
spirit.
There is nothing illegal about attempting to influence another nation's elections. However,
in most countries, it is illegal for citizens to actively work with foreign governments to do
so.
Whats most outrageous about this is that same western liberal media
daily could whine about Russian propaganda, meanwhile themselves could write propaganda
everyday! These people are brainwashed, and unfortunately they fool a lot of westerners.
Not sure what illegal thing there is with political ads to begin with?
Again there is no logic to the brainwashed liberal.
There is no end to this, these liberals wont stop until Trump declare war on Russia, they are
sick in their heads, racist against Russians, no other way to define their irrational hatred.
That is news to me.
I think you have to label it '
treason ' and the country concerned 'enemy' to get anywhere in law. Or some illegality has to be involved. Is
Russia America's Enemy?
"James Gardner, an election law expert at SUNY Buffalo Law School, said the answer to
whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia "depends on what specific actions formed the
basis of collusion." Political historian Allan Lichtman agreed, saying indictments and
prosecutions would depend upon the particular circumstances of a case and interpretations of
the law that are not always clear.
Both Lichtman and Gardner said the federal statute criminalizing treason could apply.
But putting aside treason, "there are numerous laws" that could be implicated by collusion
with any foreign government, Lichtman said.
Those include the Logan Act, which forbids dealings by private individuals with foreign
governments involved in disputes with the US; the Stored Communications Act, which creates
Fourth Amendment-like privacy protections for email and other digital communications; and the
Espionage Act.
John Coates, an election law expert at Harvard University Law School, pointed to
relevant federal statutes that could apply, including at least two federal statutes governing
campaign contributions and donations by foreign nationals and two governing fraud and
conspiracy offenses."
Ah Ha! The Bezos Bozo strikes again! The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com
pocketbook. Boycott the disgusting online retailer and urge everyone to, explaining that
Bezos is a far bigger threat to peace and democracy than Russia, China, and DPRK combined.
I usually can't miss by always first assuming that reports by officials or media in the West
are disinformation narratives.
I also am usually right to assume that they project on some other what these vermin in the
West are in themselves. They tell us what they are planning or already doing right out of
their mouths if you listen carefully.
@ Karlofi 8 "The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com pocketbook."
Untouchable he is. In addition to being well subsidized on every shipment by the
taxpayers, he is owned by that famous 3-letter agency. Look up the contract.
AND... endlessly parroted at need by the neocons. This entire thing really isn't a
left/right or red/blue deal - it's pro-war and pro-intervention propaganda from the elite
rich of both sides in the US.
in other related news, hillary clinton has influenced her good friends in saudi arabia to let
women drive.... for all the money they gave her to lose the election, that was the least she
could do for the women of saudi arabia!
They are basically doing to Trump what Republicans did to Clinton with the Libyan
investigation - keep going on and on to accidentally uncover something relevant in the
end.
My iphone gives me a news feed that is often from CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, ABC/NBC
news. It is constant Trump bashing. No useful news if any at all on such things as Syria,
economic issues (other than the DOW), health care (other than insurance friendly
Congressional nonsense). All useful news has to be found on alternative media of which this
site is definitely one of the best on Syria.
Look, if Whitewater, Vince Flynn's murder, Benghazi, Clinton Cash, Pizzagate don't need
evidence that leads somewhere, neither does Russian hacking. Pussies whining because their
loser boy Trump doesn't have the prestige actually winning the election would give him is
stupid, useless and boring. Go cry in the Electoral College.
Puting favored Trump. Tough shit if jingo xenophobia is dogmatically acceptable to
conservatives. That's going to be an embarrassment.
It's true that Putin was a gigantic fool for favoring Trump, but that's his shame to
bear.
Posted by: financial matters | Sep 26, 2017 4:15:13 PM | 19
I backed Bernie and several Dem candidates back when that seemed to matter. Because of that I
get about 50 plus emails a day asking for money. ALL without exception begin with a Trump
bashing statement, each more strident than the last (probably because I am not giving them
anything).
As you noted, there is nothing about Syria, loads about Russians, vague invasion hysteria
regarding Ukraine,endless black/white nonsense and don't get me started on the latest
flag/NFL rants.
I've protested in person and in writing just about every military adventure the US was ever
involved in during my life time and until the last few years it was a fairly lonely process.
But now, the level of information on and rejection of the Syrian war appears to be as high as
it was at the end of the Vietnam war. So we are getting somewhere, maybe. What is that
number, is it 13 percent of a population that is needed to create real change?
Bezos is nothing more than an apparatchik of the new USSA. Amazon is the company store. There
is no "boycotting" the company store. And anyway it's too late for that. You WILL read the
company newsletter, you WILL watch those writings being reinforced on the Company Channel
Network, you WILL shop at the company store, you WILL be surveilled by the company in order
to maintain company supremacy and ever-increasing profits.
As long as the company 'owns' the water you drink and the land you live on at least. And
it's not Bezos who owns the company, he's just on the board.
"It's hard to deal with people who confuse Austria and Australia, but there's nothing you
can do about this," he said, probably referring generally to Washington foreign policy
circles, though the original gaffe is attributed to former President George W. Bush.
"Apparently, this is the level of political culture within a certain part of the U.S.
establishment."
The Russian conspiracy claim is just the corporate Democrats excuse for losing the election
to a blowhard reality TV star and real estate hustler who had to be bailed out from several
bankruptcies by the Saudis and the US government. Despite having almost every media outlet
and government bureaucrat on her side, Hillary Clinton lost.
Where'd she lose? In the Rust Belt states that have been hit hardest by neoliberal trade
policies that have wrecked the local economies in those states.
The whole Russia thing really doesn't even involve the Republican Party - its mostly
internal Democratic Party politics, with Sanders Democrats trying to use Clinton's loss to
unseat the corporate Wall Street crowd, and the Clintonites fighting to stay in power by
claiming that their loss wasn't due to their crappy policies and incompetence, but rather to
a massive Russian conspiracy.
Don't forget, the American oligarchs who control the media were really hoping for a Jeb
Bush vs. Hillary Clinton election, and despite pushing hard for that, it almost came up as a
Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump election. Indicating a loss of control by the plutocracy -
that's the take home message. They're still struggling to re-establish control, which is what
flogging the Russia hype is all about.
Truth is, America would be better off with someone like Putin in the executive office,
someone who wouldn't be afraid to imprison at least a few leading Wall Street financiers for
their role in the 2008 economic collapse.
Fortunately, it's not that bad--yet. But it will probably need to get close to that before
the disparate US citizenry arises in an attempt to overcome it all.
Implosion or not, it is definitely an attempt to internal problems including the collapse
of neoliberal ideology by unleashing a
witch hunt in best Senator McCarthy style. One motivation might be suppressing any critique of
neoliberalism by equating it to pro-Russian propaganda. This is very much in best USSR
traditions, where propaganda was preoccupied with foreign enemies which were constantly trying to
undermine the state...
So far it proved to be a very effective tool for marginalizing the dissent. As in 1984:
"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."
There was a time when Russophobia served as an effective form of population control – used by the
American ruling class in particular to command the general US population into patriotic loyalty.
Not any longer. Now, Russophobia is a sign of weakness, of desperate implosion among the US ruling
class from their own rotten, internal decay.
This propaganda technique worked adequately well during the Cold War decades when the former Soviet
Union could be easily demonized as "godless communism" and an "evil empire". Such stereotypes, no
matter how false, could be sustained largely because of the monopoly control of Western media by
governments and official regulators.
The Soviet Union passed away more than a quarter of a century ago, but Russophobia among the US
political class is more virulent than ever.
This week it was evident from Congressional
hearings in Washington into alleged Russian interference in US politics that large sections of
American government and establishment media are fixated by Russophobia and a belief that Russia is
a malign foreign adversary.
However, the power of the Russophobia propaganda technique over the wider population seems
to have greatly diminished from its Cold War heyday. This is partly due to more diverse global communications
which challenge the previous Western monopoly for controlling narrative and perception. Contemporary
Russophobia – demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin or Russian military forces – does not have
the same potency for scaring the Western public. Indeed, due to greater diversity in global news
media sources, it is fair to say that "official" Western depictions of Russia as an enemy, for example
allegedly about to invade Europe or allegedly interfering in electoral politics, are met with a healthy
skepticism – if not ridicule by many Western citizens.
What is increasingly apparent here is a gaping chasm between the political class and the wider
public on the matter of Russophobia. This is true for Western countries generally, but especially
in the US. The political class – the lawmakers in Washington and the mainstream news media – are
frenzied by claims that Russia interfered in the US presidential elections and that Russia has some
kind of sinister leverage on the presidency of Donald Trump.
But this frenzy of Russophobia is not reflected among the wider public of ordinary American citizens.
Rabid accusations that Russia hacked the computers of Trump's Democrat rival Hillary Clinton to spread
damaging information about her; that this alleged sabotage of American democracy was an "act of war";
that President Trump is guilty of "treason" by "colluding" with a "Russian influence campaign" –
all of these sensational claims seem to be only a preoccupation of the privileged political class
. Most ordinary Americans, concerned about making a living in a crumbling society, either don't buy
the claims or view them as idle chatter.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov this week dismissed the Congressional hearings into alleged
Russian interference in US politics. He aptly said that US lawmakers and the corporate media have
become "entangled" in their own fabrications. "They are trying to find evidence for conclusions that
they have already made", said Peskov.
Other suitable imagery is that the US political class are tilting at windmills, chasing their
own tails, or running from their own shadows. There seems to be a collective delusional mindset.
Unable to accept the reality that the governing structure of the US has lost legitimacy in the
eyes of the people, that the people rebelled by electing an outsider in the form of business mogul-turned-politician
Donald Trump, that the collapse of American traditional politics is due to the atrophy of its bankrupt
capitalist economy over several decades – the ruling class have fabricated their own excuse for
demise by blaming it all on Russia.
The American ruling class cannot accept, or come to terms, with the fact of systemic failure
in their own political system. The election of Trump is a symptom of this failure and the widespread
disillusionment among voters towards the two-party train wreck of Republicans and Democrats. That
is why the specter of Russian interference in the US political system had to be conjured up, by necessity,
as a way of "explaining" the abject failure and the ensuing popular revolt.
Russophobia was rehabilitated from the Cold War closet by the American political establishment
to distract from the glaring internal collapse of American politics.
The corrosive, self-destruction seems to know no bounds. James Comey, the head of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation,
told Congress this week that the White House is being probed for illicit contacts with Russia.
This dramatic notice served by Comey was greeted with general approval by political opponents of
the Trump administration, as well as by news media outlets.
The New York Times said the FBI was in effect holding a "criminal investigation at the doorstep
of the White House".
Other news outlets are openly
airing discussions on the probability of President Trump being impeached from office.
The toxic political atmosphere of Russophobia in Washington is unprecedented. The Trump administration
is being crippled at every turn from conducting normal political business under a toxic cloud of
suspicion that it is guilty of treason from colluding with Russia.
President Trump has run afoul with Republicans in Congress over his planned healthcare reforms
because many Republicans are taking issue instead over the vaunted Russian probe.
When Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was
reported
to be skipping a NATO summit next month but was planning to visit Moscow later in the same month,
the itinerary was interpreted as a sign of untoward Russian influence.
What makes the spectacle of political infighting so unprecedented is that there is such little
evidence to back up allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. It is preponderantly based on innuendo
and anonymous leaks to the media, which are then recycled as "evidence".
Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said earlier this
week that he has seen no actual evidence among classified documents indicating any collusion between
the Trump campaign team and the Russian government.
Even former senior intelligence officials, James Clapper and Michael Morell who are no friends
of Trump, have lately admitted in media interviews that there is no such evidence.
Yet, FBI chief James Comey told Congress that his agency was pursuing a potentially criminal
investigation into the Trump administration, while at the same time not confirming or denying the
existence of any evidence.
And, as already noted, this declaration of open-ended snooping by Comey on the White House
was met with avid approval by political opponents of Trump, both on Capitol Hill and in the corporate
media.
Let's just assume for a moment that the whole Trump-Russia collusion story is indeed fake.
That it is groundless, a figment of imagination. There are solid reasons to believe that is the case.
But let's just assume here that it is fake for the sake of argument.
That then means that the Washington seat of government and the US presidency are tearing themselves
apart in a futile civil war.
The real war here is a power struggle within the US in the context of ruling parties no longer
having legitimacy to govern.
This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but
a symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics.
trulz4lulz -> Logan 5 •Mar 24, 2017 9:15 PM
I've been MSM-free for so long now, I forgot who I'm supposed to be hating this week!! I see the
effects in sooo many of my friends though, more so on the left, than the right. Which is odd....? Or
maybe it isn't, due to their mental retardation. Ohh well...game on.
stizazz -> trulz4lulz •Mar 24, 2017 9:44 PM
Russophobia has been ongoing since W Bush. They just want to keep Trump on the World War 3 track.
Bolsevism, apart being a russian word, is at home in US, originated in US, was nurtured by US
money and was, still is, the main US export (topic: imperial US wars).
hoyeru (not verified) •Mar 24, 2017 9:17 PM
Whether the Soviet Union exists or not has nothing to do with it. USA MUST always have an
enemy to divert the sheeple's attention that their so called American dream is really a
nightmare.
Besides, USA's empire is failing and Russia is getting stronger. of course USA will be pissed
off about it.
daveO -> hoyeru •Mar 24, 2017 9:34 PM
"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."
I'm glad to have lived to see them almost fail. When I first read this in 1984, by
coincidence, there seemed to be no end in sight.
As soon as the USSR failed they replaced it with terrorism(Eastasia)...
MEFOBILLS -> daveO •Mar 25, 2017 3:31 AM
Oceania is always against a land power arising, including Eurasia.
Another wrinkle that is important: Feminized Western Societies. Russia is now a traditional
masculine society, while the west has been feminized. (Judaized and Feminized are similar - both
operate with deception)
Femine societies lash out, don't forgive, make dubious alliances, and fight underhanded.
The table at the bottom of link above describes the differences in wartime behavior between the
two types of societies.
Since Trump is masculine, he naturally will be more instinctively in alignment with Putin and
Russia.
nmewn •Mar 24, 2017 9:22 PM
Isn't it interesting that Russian government officials simply say "Veee don't comment on state
spying activities" while in American government officials simply pass it directly to their media
cronies who are quoted in newspapers and on TeeeVeee?
Anonymously...of course ;-)
DuneCreature •Mar 24, 2017 9:31 PM
Did we declare war on Russia while I was taking a nap?
What is the hell is going on with the raving Russian hacker meltdown horseshit? ... Bill Gates
and the NSA camps out on my network every time I turn it on? .. Do I get to declare war and run
to the UN for sanctions on Ft Meade?
Will Insane McCain get charged for fraternizing with ISIS Big Bagdaddy?
... ... ...
Cabreado •Mar 24, 2017 9:49 PM
"This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but a
symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics."
More importantly, it is a decay in the electorate and how it relates to the elected (isn't that
the real heart of US politics?)
And so the elected, naturally, have become a corrupt mass of opportunists. This is why they
("We") invented Rule of Law. We just have to give a damn like We mean it.
francis scott f... •Mar 24, 2017 10:14 PM
Russophobia - Symptom Of US Implosion ? may be Symptom of Deep State implosion
dark_matter •Mar 24, 2017 10:36 PM
The Americans are poor haters in international affairs because of their innate feeling of
superiority over all foreigners. An American's hatred for a fellow American (for Hoover or
Roosevelt) is far more virulent than any antipathy he can work up against foreigners. Should
Americans begin to hate foreigners wholeheartedly, it will be an indication that they have lost
confidence in their own way of life. ~Eric Hoffer in True Believer
Escapeclaws -> dark_matter •Mar 25, 2017 2:49 AM
That book was written eons ago in "historical time". Now Americans, being ever more
stomped upon and ground down are identifying with the victims of totalitarian ideologies, like
the Russians under Bolshevism. We have our our own Bolsheviks. Like the Bolsheviks, they will
kill millions of their fellow citizens if all goes according to plan (20 Million in Russia under
the Bolsheviks). History doesn't rhyme, it repeats. THE NEOCONS--THEY WANT YOU DEAD!
Batman11 •Mar 25, 2017 3:37 AM
Look at US inequality:
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/557ef766ecad04fe50a257cd-960/screen shot 2015-06-15 at
11.28.56 am.png
A picture paints a thousand words. American philanthropists sponsor right wing think-tanks to
make people believe those at the top need more.
Look behind Trump when he talks from one of his residences, not everything is covered in gold
leaf. He does need more. The US is being ransacked by its own elite and who are not going to take
any responsibility for their own greed, so they are blaming the Russians.
Looking on the bright side. A nation with military bases in almost every nation on Earth is
ransacked by its own elite, a source of great amusement for generations to come (outside the US).
American exceptionalism – exceptionally stupid.
Batman11 -> Batman11 •Mar 25, 2017 4:03 AM
Add it to the list of things that will last forever: The British Empire, The Thousand Year
Reich, American exceptionalism
krage_man •Mar 25, 2017 5:02 AM
Russophobia is just the result of the clash of 2 irreconcilable things. The first one is
about USA being the superpower, controlling world affairs. The second one is that Russia's
economy, influence, military power and state management by Putin government actually prevent USA
from dominating Russia and its affairs.
It is internal conflict in the mind of Deep State figures. The only way is to either
prove that the USA status by dominating Russia, or to adjust self vision as the only superpower
and accept the changing world. Trump was elected to follow the later, but the deep
state/establishment is unable to see anything other that the former as the way forward. So
Russophobia is to keep all society following the way of dominance and to prevent Trump adopting
more rational way of agreeing on sphere of influence with Russia.
BritBob •Mar 25, 2017 6:15 AM
Can Russia be trusted?
Russia tells Britain give back Gibraltar & Falklands before telling US what to do.
RUSSIA has told Britain it should "clean its conscience" and give back Gibraltar and the Falkland
Islands before it criticises them over their involvement in Ukraine.
Moscow's ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin made the shocking remarks when responding to his
British counterpart Matthew Rycroft at a UN security council meeting in New York. (Daily Express
4 Feb 2017)
Do the Spanish have a claim to the Rock? Gibraltar - Some Relevant International Law: https://www.academia.edu/10575180/Gibraltar_-_Some_Relevant_Internationa...
Perhaps not.
Funny thing to say when Argentina has never legally owned the Falklands. So how can they 'be
returned' ?
No, of course Russia cannot be "trusted". Their governmen is no better than anyone elses.
Mimir -> BritBob •Mar 25, 2017 9:44 AM
Spain is continuously claiming the return of Gibraltar to Spain. (Was conquered in 1704)
When it comes to Falkland Islands, according to all International maritime agreements and
especially United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it is very difficult to argue that
the Falkland Islands is part of the UK. It would be for the International Court of Justice to
solve the dispute.
I think Russia has a point.
d edwards -> Last of the Middle Class •Mar 25, 2017 8:12 AM
Seems the only one's with Russophobia are the f ing neomarxist dems who need a scapegoat for
their loses over the last eight years under 0dumbo.
brushhog •Mar 25, 2017 7:40 AM
Its very simple, those in charge need an outside enemy to blame and to try to unite the people
against. The worse things get, the louder they will cry wolf and the more threatening they will
become towards Russia.
The global elitists would rather end the world in a nuclear holocaust then let go of power and
admit they're to blame.
Beans •Mar 25, 2017 7:53 AM
The whole Russophobia gimmick in the West is purely a Zionist fiction created to punish the
White Christian Russians for daring to assert themselves. Connect the dots between Jewish
political/business interests in Ukraine, Russia and the US Congress/Executive branch/Governmental
agencies and you quickly see how everything falls into place. Free yourselves, White Christian
Americans.
Faeriedust -> Beans •Mar 25, 2017 1:38 PM
Not all Jews are Bankers. Not all Bankers are Jewish. There is, however, a significant
overlap.
Beans -> Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 4:16 PM
Yeah sure, you're absolutely right. Another way of putting it is by saying; 'Not all Jews were
Bolsheviks. Not all Bolsheviks were Jews'... The historically indisputable fact however, is that
about 85 to 90% of the members of the first Bolshevik government of 'Soviet' Russia was indeed
Jewish ;)
Of course they try to influence our elections. Now step back. Ever heard the name Victoria
Nuland? Phillip of Makedon? Or perhaps The Great Game? In point of fact, major players in world
domination ALWAYS try to influence both rivals and all the bit players who have something they
want. And the Russians play hardball, no question about that. But generally, with their OWN
dissidents, not other people's. Ask Trotsky's ghost. Politics is a full-contact sport. The only
exception is when all the players belong to the same League, and the League bans anyone who
breaks the rules. Right now, there IS no league. So yes, Putin plays hard. The CIA does, too.
aloha_snakbar •Mar 25, 2017 9:44 AM
However, the power of the Russophobia propaganda technique over the wider population
seems to have greatly diminished from its Cold War heyday.
Im hiding under a desk... I cant hear you...
VW Nerd •Mar 25, 2017 10:46 AM
Commiey is a stooge of the deep state. Someone has some serious dirt on him.
Caleb Abell -> VW Nerd •Mar 25, 2017 11:01 AM
Along those lines, Comey may have derailed Clinton because elements of the deep state wanted
her gone, and they were willing to accept Trump on a temporary basis. Now that Clinton is out of
the picture, they can work on replacing Trump (one way or the other) with the much more compliant
Pence.
CRM114 •Mar 25, 2017 12:31 PM
This article would have an even stronger case if it weren't based on a false premise. The
Soviet Union WAS a threat to the West; that wasn't propaganda. Now Russia isn't a threat and it
is propaganda.
Thus it is even more obvious that the US/Western elite are hunting for a way to demonize
Russia, and we need look no further than Russia/China's efforts to escape the World banking
structure for the reason.
Faeriedust -> CRM114 •Mar 25, 2017 12:42 PM
That's really debateable. Remember, the Soviet Union was our ALLY in WWII. Stalin was a
batshit thug, and we (not to mention the Russians) were well rid of him. BUT -- immediately after
his death the USSR was taken over by a committee of Experienced Old Men who were willing and able
to be pragmatic.
Try to remember that when the Bolshevik Revolution started, both the English and the Americans
weren't sure whether to support it or oppose it. Then Lenin and Trotsky decided to default on the
Russian war debt -- which they had NO way of paying. Suddenly they became the world's greatest
evil. Many high-ranking foreign service specialists in Britain even supported Hitler, initially,
with the idea that they would turn him loose against the Russians and sit back to watch the
fireworks. Of course, that was before Hitler repudiated Germany's WWI war debt. Do you see a
pattern yet?
The issue was ALWAYS the wealth, profit, and survival of the banks. ALWAYS.
CRM114 -> Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 1:12 PM
I suggest you read some more history. You are making links for which there is only
circumstantial evidence, whereas the alternatives have an abundance of evidence. I am vehently
against the current role of the bankers, but...
The support for Hitler was both ideological and based on around 600 years of British
foreign policy - preventing any one power gaining hegemony in Europe.
Now, the bankers sought to exploit all of this and make a profit, immoral or otherwise, but
they didn't start it,and they couldn't have stopped it.
I am prepared to consider the idea that they now can exert such a high level of influence, and
are doing so, but this was not true in the past.
Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 12:35 PM
Washington has had a problem with groupthink for a long time, but now it's become obvious
to the entire world, not to mention the mythical Average American. Neither Millenials nor Boomers
were ever likely to fall for McCarthyism 2.0. Instead, they see the political leadership for what
it is -- a senile elite that has entirely lost its grip on reality. This is common in dying
empires; in fact it's the fundamental reason why empires collapse.
Yes, running through all your resources, hollowing out your military, and destroying
international goodwill aren't exactly the way to Win Friends And Influence People. But they
happen, because the 1% at the top of the totem pole become so divorced from what life is like for
the other 99%, that they lose the ability to make intelligent or rational decisions.
It's like an oil tanker trying to thread its way through a gap in a reef -- with good steering
and a willing crew, it can be done. But if the captain's passed out drunk and the Exec is high on
meth, with half the crew already taking off in the lifeboats against orders . . . it takes a
miracle to avoid the rocks.
"... Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. ..."
"... "In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News, the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of false or misleading items in news media. "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working for the Russians." ..."
"... The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven't noticed, Clinton supporters have waged a crude PR campaign to blame their candidate's loss on leftists, whom they equate with neo-Nazis and Trump. I've been smeared as "alt-left" by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton. The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan's "Kremlin disinformation" hysteria - the whole point was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they knew it or not. ..."
"... Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting campaign - "Kremlin active measures"; "Kremlin disinformation"; "Kremlin dupes" - terms introduced by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression, harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That's what happened last time, and if history is any guide, it's how this one will end up too. ..."
"... The Reagan Era kicked off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s - defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein & Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals - was an "active measures" treason conspiracy. ..."
"... The image at the top of this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University's student newspaper, the Spectator, published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee's assault on Mother Jones. The headline read: The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been and the the full-page article begins, If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton's new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism may be interested in you. ..."
"... It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees - only to have them revived one election cycle later in the Reagan Revolution. ..."
"... Sexual immorality -- it's a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years-whether the sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts, the hippie orgies of Denton's nightmares, or Trump's supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian prostitutes in our current panic. . . . ..."
"... To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators-Orrin Hatch, who's still haunting Capitol Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office in 1986. ..."
"... Sen. East's staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis - now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the Senate's "Russia disinformation" witch hunt. Funny how that works - today's #Resistance takes its core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers - is culturally appropriated from the alt-Right's guru. ..."
"... Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors. I'll have to save John Rees for another post - he really belongs in a category by himself, proof of Schopenhauer's maxim that this world is run by demons. ..."
"... These were the people who first cooked up the "disinformation" panic. You can't separate the Sam Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today's panic-mongering over disinformation - you can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture's ruling factions that brings them together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically opposed on so many other issues. ..."
"... The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution. Those who opposed Reagan's plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled "dupes" of Kremlin "active measures" and "disinformation" conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew it or not. The panic incubated in Denton's subcommittee investigations provided political cover for vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans. Fighting Russian "active measures" grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, anyone opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to refugees from south of the border. The "active measures" panic even led to FBI secret investigations into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret "FBI terrorist photo album". ..."
"... 'Russia is a bigger threat to America than Islamic State.' is almost certainly true. If one insists, as the US has done, on standing at the border of the bears lair and poking it with a very short stick, then there may well be consequences. On the other hand, Islamic State is no threat to the US in any way, shape or form. ..."
"... The Cold War is over, so now the US can reveal its truly feral nature. ..."
"... American slogan Violence R Us. Not judging, just being honest. We were no more interested in the common good of the Vietnamese back then, any more than we are interested in the common good of the Syrians today. ..."
"... It's always 'Russia this, Russia that', how we're going to bring democracy to some other part of the world, how some country's leader is a dictator. These are excuses we can do reverse Robin Hood wherever we can and enrich the 1%. ..."
"... It's my duty to point out that the glaring similarities in this brand of cold war Russophobia with that of pre-WW2 anti-Comintern material coming out of Nazi Germany (or even the anti-Semitic material from the early 1900s) are no coincidence. ..."
"... Among the Nazi intelligence officers and scientists we spirited away before the Russians could get their hands on them [ Operation Paperclip ] were a few sly operators who immediately started filling our elected leaders' ears with stories of Reds under the bed. One of these reps was Senator Joe McCarthy and the rest, as they say ..."
"... American-produced historical documentaries tell it like we were united as a country in support of Stalin against Hitler. This reluctance is usually credited to not wanting to get into another bloodbath like WW1 but let's be straight- about half the country (proto-deplorables?) wanted nothing to do with helping the commies beat the Nazis and actually thought the Germans weren't the bad guys. Anti-communism, big brother to anti-unionism and first cousin to anti-Semitism, was all the rage before we helped Uncle Joe beat Hitler, making it all the easier to revive after the war was over and it looked like the only threat to US world domination was a war-weakened Soviet Union. ..."
"... A few years ago, with the advent of internet freeness, I'd added MJ ..."
"... It is sensible but really too polite to say that NATO expanded because "that is what bureaucracies do and it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their 'toughness.'" To expand a bureaucracy by subversion of Ukraine and false reports of Russian aggression, to show toughness by aggression rather than defense, requires the mad power grasping of tyrants in the military, the intel agencies, the NSC, the administration, Congress. and the mass media. ..."
"... They are joined in a tyranny of inventing foreign monsters, to pose falsely as protectors, and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty, as Aristotle warned. This is the domestic political power grab of tyrants, a far greater danger. ..."
"... Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it should be. Any treaty becomes part of the Supreme Law of the land, and must be rigorously restricted to defense, with provisions for international resolution of conflicts. NATO has been nothing but an excuse for warmongering since 1989. ..."
"... I think this is much closer to the mark than the association of the anti-russia fearmongering with sincere xenophobia. Russia is the go-to foreign enemy because there is such a huge and convenient stockpile of propaganda material lying around in stockpiles, but left unused because of the tragic and abrupt end of Cold War 1.0. And Russia is a great target because it is distant, and has a weird alphabet. Anyone who knows enough about Russia to contradict the disinformation (like by mentioning that they are not commies, but US-style authoritarian oligarchs) is suspicious ipso facto ..."
"... Both parties being pro wall street deficit and war hawks differing in perhaps degree .with the Demos supporting a more generous portion of calf's foot jelly being distributed to peasants of more varied hue as they also support privatization, more subtle tax cuts and deregulation for the rich, R2P wars, and globalization's race to the bottom. People seem to inhabit their own Plato's Cave each opposing their own particular artfully projected phantom menace. ..."
"... Brilliant, as Ames usually is. Especially the point that this is a manifestation of consistent anti-left sentiment within the establishment whether R or D. The confounding of Putin's Russia with some imagined communist threat always amazes me. D's got to keep up the hippie-punching at all times though! ..."
"... The Russophobia is stuck on an endless loop. I wish they'd at least come up with new lies or some fresh enemy for us all to fear. ..."
"... Without defending Trump, it is wrong of the Dems to push this stuff when Ukrainians helped Clinton's campaign and Clinton approved Uranium One getting 20% of US uranium when they gave $100 million to the Foundation. ..."
By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio
War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here. Originally published at
The eXiled
Mother Jones recently announced it's "redoubling our Russia reporting"-in the words of editor
Clara Jeffery. Ain't that rich. What passes for "Russia reporting" at Mother Jones is mostly just
glorified InfoWars paranoia for progressive marks - a cataract of xenophobic conspiracy theories
about inscrutable Russian barbarians hellbent on subverting our way of life, spreading chaos, destroying
freedom & democracy & tolerance wherever they once flourished. . . . because they hate us, because
we're free.
Western reporting on Russia has always been garbage, But the so-called "Russia reporting" of the
last year has taken the usual malpractice to unimagined depths - whether it's from Mother Jones or
MSNBC, or the Washington Post or Resistance hero Louise Mensch.
But of all the liberal media, Mother Jones should be most ashamed for fueling the moral panic
about Russian "disinformation". It wasn't too long ago that the Reagan Right attacked Mother Jones
for spreading "Kremlin disinformation" and subverting America. There were threats and leaks to the
media about a possible Senate investigation into Mother Jones serving as a Kremlin disinformation
dupe, a threat that hung over the magazine throughout the early Reagan years. A new Senate Subcommittee
on Security and Terrorism (SST for short) was set up in 1981 to investigate Kremlin "disinformation"
and "active measures" in America, and the American "dupes" who helped Moscow subvert our way of life.
That subcommittee was created to harass and repress leftist anti-imperial dissent in America, using
"terrorism" as the main threat, and "disinformation" as terrorism's fellow traveller. The way the
the SST committee put it, "terrorism" and "Kremlin disinformation" were one and the same, a meta-conspiracy
run out of Moscow to weaken America.
And Mother Jones was one of the first American media outlets in the SST committee's sites.
Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including
King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan
years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote
about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being
Kremlin disinformation dupes. The mailer, on Senate letterhead, featured a tape recording of an interview
between the chairman of the SST subcommittee, Sen. Jeremiah Denton of Alabama, and a committee witness-
a "disinformation expert" named Arnaud de Borchgrave, author of a bestselling spy novel called "The
Spike" - about a fictional Kremlin plot to subvert the West with disinformation, and thereby rule
the world.
Here's how Hochschild described the Republican Senate mailer in his NYTimes piece:
"In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News,
the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of
false or misleading items in news media. "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble
with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know
who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical
of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working
for the Russians."
Here, the Mother Jones founder describes the menacing logic of pursuing the "Kremlin disinformation"
conspiracy: any American critical of US military power, police power, corporate power, overseas power
. . . anyone critical of anything that powerful Americans do, is a Kremlin disinformation dupe whether
they know it or not. That leaves only the appointed accusers to decide who is and who isn't a Kremlin
agent.
Hochschild called this panic over Kremlin disinformation another "Red Scare", warning,
"[T]o accuse critical American journalists of serving as its unwitting dupes makes as little sense
as Russians accusing rebellious Poles of being unwitting agents of American imperialism. When Mr.
de Borchgrave accuses skeptical journalists of being unwitting purveyors of disinformation, the accusation
is more slippery, less easy to definitively disprove, and less subject to libel law than if he were
to accuse them of being conscious Communist agents.
" Although if you believe the K.G.B. is successfully infiltrating America's news media, then anything
must seem possible."
It's a damn shame today's editorial staff at Mother Jones aren't aware of their own magazine's
history.
Then again, who am I fooling? Mother Jones wouldn't care if you shoved their faces in their own
recent history - they're way too donor-deep invested in pushing this "active measures" conspiracy.
Trump has been a goldmine of donor cash for anyone willing to carry the #Resistance water.
PutinTrump was a project set up last fall by tech plutocrat Rob Glaser, CEO and founder of RealNetworks,
to scare voters into believing that voting for Trump is treason. God knows I can't stand Trump or
his politics, but of all the inane campaign ideas to run on - this?
One would've thought that the smart people would learn their lesson from the election, that running
against a Kremlin conspiracy theory is a loser. But instead, they seem to think the problem is they
didn't fear-monger enough, so they're "redoubling" on the Russophobia. Donor money is driving this
- donor cash is quite literally driving Mother Jones' editorial focus. And it really is this crude.
Take for example a PutinTrump section titled "Russian Expansion" - the scary Red imagery and language
are lifted straight out of the Reagan Cold War playbook from the early-mid 80s, when, it so happens,
Mother Jones was targeted as a Kremlin dupe. Featuring a lot of shadowy red-colored alien soldiers
over an outline of Crimea, Mother Jones' donor-partner promotes a classic Cold War propaganda line
about Russian/Soviet expansionism-a lie that has been the basis for so many wars launched to "stop"
this alleged "expansionism" in the past, wars that Mother Jones is supposed to oppose. Here's what
MJ's partner writes now:
RUSSIAN EXPANSION
Through unknowing manipulation, or by direct support, Trump will become an accessory to the continual
expansionism committed by Putin. Might does not equal right-and it never has for Americans-but Putin's Russia plays by different
rules. Or maybe no rules at all.
The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven't noticed, Clinton
supporters have waged a crude PR campaign to blame their candidate's loss on leftists, whom they equate with
neo-Nazis and Trump. I've been smeared as "alt-left" by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton.
The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and
Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan's "Kremlin disinformation" hysteria - the whole point
was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they
knew it or not.
* * *
What's kind of shocking to me as someone who was alive in the Reagan scare is how unoriginal this
current one is. Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting
campaign - "Kremlin active measures"; "Kremlin disinformation"; "Kremlin dupes" - terms introduced
by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed
into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression,
harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That's what happened last time, and if
history is any guide, it's how this one will end up too.
Today we're supposed to remember how cheerful and optimistic the Reagan Era was. But that's now
how I remember it, it's not how it looked to Mother Jones at the time - and it's not how it looks
when you go back through the original source material again and relive it. The Reagan Era kicked
off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures
to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s -
defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein
& Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals - was an "active measures" treason conspiracy.
As soon as the new Republican majority in the Senate took power in 1981, they set up a new subcommittee
to investigate Kremlin disinformation dupes, called the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism.
Staffers leaked to the media they intended to investigate Mother Jones. Panic spread across the progressive
media world, and suddenly all those cool Ivy League kids who invested everything in becoming the
next Woodward-Bernsteins - the cultural heroes at the time - got scared. The image at the top of
this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University's student newspaper, the Spectator,
published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee's assault on Mother Jones. The headline
read: The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been and the the full-page article begins, If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support
the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton's new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism
may be interested in you.
It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security
Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees - only to have them revived one election
cycle later in the Reagan Revolution.
By the end of Reagan's first year in office, there was still no formal investigation into Mother
Jones, but the harassment was there and it wasn't subtle at all - such as the Republican Senate mailer
accusing the magazine of being KGB disinformation dupes. At the end of 1981, MJ editor/founder Adam
Hochschild announced he was stepping aside, and in his final note to readers and the public, he wrote:
To Senator Jeremiah Denton, chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism: If your committee
investigates Mother Jones, a plan hinted at some months ago, I demand to be subpoenaed. I would not
want to miss telling off today's new McCarthyites.
So here we are a few decades later, and Mother Jones' editor Clara Jeffery is denouncing WikiLeaks
- yesterday's journalism stars, today's traitors - as "Russia['s] willing dupes and propagandists"
while Mother Jones magazine turned itself into a mouthpiece for America's spies peddling the same
warmed-over conspiracy theories that once targeted Mother Jones.
* * *
Jeremiah Denton - the New Right senator from Alabama who led the SST committee investigation into
Kremlin "disinformation" and its dupes like Mother Jones - believed that America was being weakened
from within and had only a few years left at most to turn it around. As Denton saw it, the two most
dangerous threats to America's survival were a) hippie sex, and b) Kremlin disinformation. The two
were inseparable in his mind, linked to the larger "global terrorism" plot masterminded by Moscow.
To fight hippie sex and teen promiscuity, the freshman senator introduced a "Chastity Bill" funding
federal programs that promoted the joys of chastity to Americans armies of bored, teen suburban long-hairs.
A lot of clever people laughed at that, because at the time the belief in linear historical progress
was strong, and this represented something so atavistic that it was like a curiosity more than anything
- Pauly Shore's "Alabama Man" unfrozen after 10,000 years and unleashed on the halls of Congress.
Less funny were Denton's calls for death penalty for adulterers, and laws he pushed restricting
women's right to abortion.
Jeremiah Denton was once a big name in this country. Americans have since forgotten Denton, because
John McCain pretty much stole his act. But back in the 70s and early 80s, Denton was America's most
famous Vietnam War hero/POW. Like McCain, Denton was a Navy pilot shot down over Vietnam and taken
prisoner. Denton spent 1965-1973 in North Vietnamese POW camps-two years longer than McCain-and he
was America's most famous POW. His most famous moment was when his North Vietnamese captors hauled
him before the cameras to acknowledge his crimes, and instead Denton famously blinked out a Morse
code message: "T-O-R-T-U-R-E".
In the 1973 POW exchange deal between Hanoi and Nixon, "Operation Homecoming," it was Denton who
was the first American POW to come off the plane and speak to the American tv crews (McCain was on
the same flight, but not nearly as prominent as Denton). I keep referring back to McCain here because
not only were they both famous Navy pilot POWs, but they both wind up becoming the most pathologically
obsessive Russophobes in the Senate. Just a few days ago, McCain said that Russia is a bigger threat
to America than Islamic State. Something real bad must've happened in those Hanoi Hiltons, worse
than anything they told us about, because those guys really, really hate Russians - and they reallywant
the rest of us to hate Russians too.
Everything they loathed about America, everything that was wrong with America, had to be the fault
of a hostile alien culture. There was no other explanation for what happened in the 1970s. The America
that Denton came home to in 1973 was under some kind of hostile power, an alien-controlled replica
of the America he last saw in 1965. Popular morality had been turned on its head: Hollywood blockbusters
with bare naked bodies and gutter language! Children against their parents! Homosexuals on waterskis!
Sex and treason! Patriots were the enemy, while America-haters were heroes! Denton re-appeared like
some reactionary Rip Van Winkle who went to sleep in the safe feather-bed world of J Edgar Hoover's
America - only to wake up eight years later on Bernadine Dohrn's futon, soaked in Bill Ayers' bodily
fluids. For Denton, the post-60s cultural shock came on all at once - as sudden and as jarring as,
well, the shock so many Blue State Americans experienced when Donald Trump won the election last
November.
Sex, immorality & military defeat-these were inseparable in Denton's mind, and in a lot of reactionaries'
minds. Attributing all of America's social convulsions of the previous 15 years to immorality and
a Kremlin disinformation plot was a neat way of avoiding the complex and painful realities - then,
as now.
"No nation can survive long unless it can encourage its young to withhold indulgence in their
sexual appetites until marriage." - Jeremiah Denton
What hit Denton hardest was all the hippie sex and the pop culture glorification of hippie sex.
It's hard to convey just how deeply all that smug hippie sex wounded tens of millions of Americans.
It's a hate wound that's still raw, still burns to the touch. A wound that fueled so much reactionary
political fire over the past 50 years, and it doesn't look like it'll burn out any time soon.
Back in 1980, Denton blamed all that pop culture sex on Russian active measures, and he did his
best to not just outlaw it, but to demonize sex as something along the lines of treason.
Just as so many people today cannot accept the idea that Trump_vs_deep_state is Made In America-so Denton
and his Reagan Right constituents believed there had to be some alien force to explain why Americans
had changed so drastically, seeming to adopt values that were the antithesis of Middle America's
values in 1965. It had to be the fault of an alien voodoo beam! It had to be a Russian plot!
And so, therefore, it was a Russian plot.
A 1981 Time magazine profile of the freshman Senator begins, Denton believes that America is being destroyed by sexual immorality and Soviet-sponsored political
'disinformation'-and that both are being promoted by dupes, or worse, in the media. By the mid-1980s,
he warns, "we will have less national security than we had proportionately when George Washington's
troops were walking around barefoot at Valley Forge."
Sexual immorality -- it's a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years-whether the
sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts,
the hippie orgies of Denton's nightmares, or Trump's supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian
prostitutes in our current panic. . . .
To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security
and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators-Orrin Hatch, who's still haunting Capitol
Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great
service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office
in 1986.
Sen. East's staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis
- now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the
Senate's "Russia disinformation" witch hunt. Funny how that works - today's #Resistance takes its
core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers - is culturally
appropriated from the alt-Right's guru.
Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of
the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors.
I'll have to save John Rees for another post - he really belongs in a category by himself, proof
of Schopenhauer's maxim that this world is run by demons.
These were the people who first cooked up the "disinformation" panic. You can't separate the Sam
Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today's panic-mongering over disinformation - you
can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture's ruling factions that brings them
together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically
opposed on so many other issues. I don't think this is something as simple as hypocrisy - it's actually
quite consistent: Establishment faction wakes up to a world it doesn't recognize and loathes and
feels threatened by, and blames it not on themselves or anything domestic, but rather on the most
plausible alien conspiracy they can reach for: Russian barbarians. Anti-Russian xenophobia is burned
into the Establishment culture's DNA; it's a xenophobia that both dominant factions, liberal or conservative,
view as an acceptable xenophobia. When poorer "white working class" Americans feel threatened and
panic, their xenophobia tends to be aimed at other ethnics - Latinos and Muslims these days - a xenophobia
that the Establishment views as completely immoral and unacceptable, completely beyond the pale.
The thought never occurs to them that perhaps all forms of xenophobia are bad, all bring with them
a lot of violence and danger, it just depends on who's threatened and who's doing the threatening
The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution.
Those who opposed Reagan's plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled "dupes" of Kremlin
"active measures" and "disinformation" conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew
it or not. The panic incubated in Denton's subcommittee investigations provided political cover for
vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans.
Fighting Russian "active measures" grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against
Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, anyone
opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to
refugees from south of the border. The "active measures" panic even led to FBI secret investigations
into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret "FBI terrorist photo album".
I'll get to that "FBI Terrorist Photo Album" story later. There's a lot of recent "Kremlin disinformation"
history to recover, since it seems every last memory cell has been zapped out of existence.
After Reagan's inauguration (the most expensive, lavish inauguration ball in White House history),
Senator Denton sent a chill through the liberal and independent media world with all the talk coming
out of his committee about targeting activists, civil rights lawyers and journalists. Denton tried
to come off as reasonable some of the times; other times, he came right out and said it: "disinformation"
is terrorism: When I speak of a threat, I do not just mean that an organization is, or is about to be, engaged
in violent criminal activity. I believe many share the view that support groups that produce propaganda,
disinformation or legal assistance may be even more dangerous than those who actually throw the bombs.
Congratulations Mother Jones, you've come a long way, baby! Next post, I'll recover some of the early committee hearings, and the rightwing hucksters, creeps
and spooks who fed Denton's committee.
I think that John McCain may well be correct, if for the wrong reasons. 'Russia is a bigger
threat to America than Islamic State.' is almost certainly true. If one insists, as the US has
done, on standing at the border of the bears lair and poking it with a very short stick, then
there may well be consequences. On the other hand, Islamic State is no threat to the US in any
way, shape or form.
This is now, that was then. There is no comparison. The Cold War is over, so now the US
can reveal its truly feral nature. It seems both parties are struggling to bring back the
1960s with Cold War 2.0. We need to pull out of the Middle East, and invade Vietnam, again ;-(
And yes, probably even back then, Mother Jones was controlled opposition. They just don't bother
hiding it anymore.
@Disturbed Voter – Dontcha know. We just signed deals with Viet Nam that will bring "billions
of dollars" to the U.S. Trump said so last week after meeting with the Vietnamese Prime Minister,
so it must be true. They're safe for now. :-)
American slogan Violence R Us. Not judging, just being honest. We were no more interested
in the common good of the Vietnamese back then, any more than we are interested in the common
good of the Syrians today.
Our nation worries about other countries' problems but we never care about ours! It's always
'Russia this, Russia that', how we're going to bring democracy to some other part of the world,
how some country's leader is a dictator. These are excuses we can do reverse Robin Hood wherever
we can and enrich the 1%.
Magazines (tabloids) and (fake)news organization are cheer leaders to this effort because they
cash in on the chant du jour.
Thank you so much for exposing in such great detail the hypocrisy regarding MJ s recent
neo-Red Scare leanings. If only the editorial staff at dear MJ would educate themselves
not only about their own organization's history, but history in general, they might avoid looking
like complete fools and enemies to their own institution's founding principles when we collectively
reminisce on this bizarre era at some point in the future.
It's my duty to point out that the glaring similarities in this brand of cold war Russophobia
with that of pre-WW2 anti-Comintern material coming out of Nazi Germany (or even the anti-Semitic
material from the early 1900s) are no coincidence.
Among the Nazi intelligence officers and scientists we spirited away before the Russians could
get their hands on them [
Operation Paperclip
] were a few sly operators who immediately started filling our elected leaders' ears with
stories of Reds under the bed. One of these reps was Senator Joe McCarthy and the rest, as they
say
American-produced historical documentaries tell it like we were united as a country in support
of Stalin against Hitler. This reluctance is usually credited to not wanting to get into another
bloodbath like WW1 but let's be straight- about half the country (proto-deplorables?) wanted nothing
to do with helping the commies beat the Nazis and actually thought the Germans weren't the bad
guys. Anti-communism, big brother to anti-unionism and first cousin to anti-Semitism, was all
the rage before we helped Uncle Joe beat Hitler, making it all the easier to revive after the
war was over and it looked like the only threat to US world domination was a war-weakened Soviet
Union.
As a kid in the 80s I remember MJ being singled out as a leftist commie rag by Reaganites
of the day. Through college this was about all I knew about the magazine– as an epithet for what
hippie commie liberals read before trying to ruin our country. Despite it leaning to my political
inclinations, I never paid it any attention.
A few years ago, with the advent of internet freeness, I'd added MJ to my news stream.
Once Sanders- then later Trump- started looking like an actual threat to the Clinton campaign,
their headlines started turning snippy and trite toward her opposition. I turned them off my feed
last year, so the only exposure to their drivel is thanks to the links here at NC . Now
with the advent of twitter, their staff have taken the extra step of proving how twisted their
personal Russophobian views really are. Between just Corn and Jeffery, there's enough material
to make any McCarthyite proud.*
[* – I was going to close with ' and make Adam Hochschild roll in his grave' but then I googled
him and discovered that he's still alive. Wonder what he thinks about this current turn at the
magazine he co-founded?]
Reposting a comment that IMV, snapshots the reality of Russophobia far better than Ames (it
was in response to a Ray McGovern article on Trump's visit to NATO HQ) :
"Ray has written well to the general audience, bridging the information gap for those heavily
propagandized. He has properly shown the expansion of NATO as an act of calculated betrayal, a
policy of aggression in the face of zero threat.
It is sensible but really too polite to say that NATO expanded because "that is what bureaucracies
do and it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their 'toughness.'" To expand a bureaucracy
by subversion of Ukraine and false reports of Russian aggression, to show toughness by aggression
rather than defense, requires the mad power grasping of tyrants in the military, the intel agencies,
the NSC, the administration, Congress. and the mass media.
They are joined in a tyranny of inventing foreign monsters, to pose falsely as protectors,
and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty, as Aristotle warned. This is the domestic political
power grab of tyrants, a far greater danger.
Tyranny is a subculture, a groupthink of bullies who tyrannize each other and compete for the
most radical propositions of nonexistent foreign threats. They fully well know that they are lying
to the people of the United States to serve a personal and factional agenda that involves the
murder of millions of innocents, the diversion of a very large fraction of their own and other
nations' budgets from essential needs, and they have not an ounce of humanity or moral restraint
among them. Those who waver are cast aside, and the worst of the bullies rise to the top. This
is why the nation's founders opposed a standing military, and they were right.
Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to
wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it
should be. Any treaty becomes part of the Supreme Law of the land, and must be rigorously restricted
to defense, with provisions for international resolution of conflicts. NATO has been nothing but
an excuse for warmongering since 1989.
Let us hope that Trump pulls the plug on NATO interventionism, accidentally or otherwise. The
Dem leaders have now joined the Reps in their love of bribes for genocide, but at the least the
Reps still don't like paying for it. Perhaps the last duopoly imitation of civilization."
I think this is much closer to the mark than the association of the anti-russia fearmongering
with sincere xenophobia. Russia is the go-to foreign enemy because there is such a huge and convenient
stockpile of propaganda material lying around in stockpiles, but left unused because of the tragic
and abrupt end of Cold War 1.0. And Russia is a great target because it is distant, and has a
weird alphabet. Anyone who knows enough about Russia to contradict the disinformation (like by
mentioning that they are not commies, but US-style authoritarian oligarchs) is suspicious
ipso facto .
Having lived in Kansas for 60 some years which is the poster-child for trickle-down necromancy
and a land heavily infused with rural, German-Catholic sensibilities, I can vouch for the deeply
felt attitudes towards sex as a primary issue. "Family Values" being the code word for the whole
sex and reproductive moral prism.
Like Cuba with its 50s autos, the conservatives have never given up their 60s conception of
the Democrats as the party of free love, peace-nicks (soft on commies hard on guns) and tax and
spend bleeding hearts coddling dependent malingerers.
The GOP here campaigns against a democrat party that no longer exists (if it ever did). They
seem oblivious to the fact that the democrats have become the moderate republicans of yore.
Both parties being pro wall street deficit and war hawks differing in perhaps degree .with
the Demos supporting a more generous portion of calf's foot jelly being distributed to peasants
of more varied hue as they also support privatization, more subtle tax cuts and deregulation for
the rich, R2P wars, and globalization's race to the bottom. People seem to inhabit their own Plato's
Cave each opposing their own particular artfully projected phantom menace.
Brilliant, as Ames usually is. Especially the point that this is a manifestation of consistent
anti-left sentiment within the establishment whether R or D. The confounding of Putin's Russia
with some imagined communist threat always amazes me. D's got to keep up the hippie-punching at
all times though!
This is a great piece. The Russophobia is stuck on an endless loop. I wish they'd at least
come up with new lies or some fresh enemy for us all to fear. Tell me about why South African
dupes are causing all the problems in society, tell me that the people of the Maldives each own
a nuclear capable artillery piece and are burning American flags.
Thanks for this post down memory lane. I assumed MJ was liberal. And Jane Fonda was a conservative.
And by 1981 I was completely confused about where the media stood on any given issue. And now
finally the mask is coming off and we can see (Phillip K. Dick style) that left is right and right
is left. And we are all fascists. Will the real Atilla please stand up? #Resistance is a little
over the top and so is putintrump. But what looks like actual progress is the fact that Bernie
was not completely destroyed by the state paranoia. There has to be a certain bed-rock decency
that can rise above this eternal crap. Just a note of interest on the young Orrin Hatch being
on the SST as a freshman senator. Orrin was the subject of local rumors that claimed he had been
put in the senate by the mafia (some mormon-mafia connection in las vegas) and the fact that they
did use entrapment with a hooker to disgrace his opponent was mafia-enough to make the story convincing.
The story died out fast. But we should all remember that the mafia was involved in its own anti-commie
terrorist tactics for decades.
file under Too Weird: 15 minutes after I posted the above I got a call from Orrin Hatch's robo-computer
inviting me to a local discussion call me paranoid.
@Susan the other – It's not paranoia if someone really is out to get you. Or, to get all of
us. Or, demonstrates that they have the ability to do so at will.
Only 16% of people surveyed are very worried about climate change.
Corporate news is consumed with covering the Trump/Russia affair, but whatever the truth of
all this turns out to be, it pales in significance to the real existential threat that is upon
us. Largely due to a lack of coverage by corporate television news, there is a dangerous lack
of public awareness of it.
land of the free and home of the brave you have to be brave to live in this free-for-all.
Just want to pass on this killer quote from Discover Magazine: "It is sometimes argued that the
illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can't adequately judge all possible moves with
the result that our choices are based on imperfect or impoverished information." what a nightmare
world.
"It is sometimes argued that the illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can't adequately
judge all possible moves with the result that our choices are based on imperfect or impoverished
information."
Accepting that premise does not rule out the possibility of free will, it only suggests that
our free will is likely mired in a blind stumbling, darkness of unknowing.
Hallelujah.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to
hear.
George Orwell. Every one has that 'right', right or wrong! But it is your right & duty to develop 'critical' thinking to DISCERN the difference
Without defending Trump, it is wrong of the Dems to push this stuff when Ukrainians helped
Clinton's campaign and Clinton approved Uranium One getting 20% of US uranium when they gave $100
million to the Foundation. The book "Shattered" says her campaign did internal polling which found
Uranium One was the most damaging line to use against Clinton so she decided to get her retaliation
in first and use the Russia charge at every opportunity. And on election night when they realised
they had been defeated they decided to blame Russia again. What has Trump done for Russia so far?
He's kept up sanctions and bombed their client state Syria. Whereas Clinton had a pattern of arms
sales to Foundation donors. Prefer Clinton? Fine, but not over this.
Obama did spied on his political opponents... He really was a well connected to intelligence
agencies wolf in sheep's clothing.
Notable quotes:
"... For some of President Trump's staunchest allies, reports that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was under U.S. surveillance are nothing short of vindication of the president's widely-dismissed claims that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. ..."
"... Surveillance experts are skeptical of that suggestion. For one thing, it is illegal for investigators to "reverse target" a U.S. person by spying on a person with whom they know their true target to be in communication. ..."
For some of President Trump's staunchest allies, reports that former campaign chairman Paul
Manafort was under U.S. surveillance are nothing short of vindication of the president's
widely-dismissed claims that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.
... ... ...
Longtime advisor Roger Stone has gleefully circulated a segment from Tucker Carlson's show
on Fox News in which the host says "all those patronizing assurances that nobody is spying on
political campaigns were false" and "it looks like Trump's tweet may have been right."
... ... ...
A spokesperson for Manafort, Jason Maloni, has characterized the court orders as an abuse of
power by the Obama administration, which he says wanted to spy on a political
opponent.
"It's unclear if Paul Manafort was the objective," Maloni told The Journal.
"Perhaps the real objective was Donald Trump."
Surveillance experts are skeptical of that suggestion. For one thing, it is illegal for
investigators to "reverse target" a U.S. person by spying on a person with whom they know their
true target to be in communication.
If the president were in fact the oblique target of government surveillance - either as a
candidate or as the president-elect - both Eddington and Shedd say, it would have been so
explosive that it would have almost certainly been leaked to the press.
... ... ...
The disclosure of the warrants targeting Manafort have drawn legitimate
scrutiny as a violation of Manafort's civil liberties and a possible criminal leak - the mere
existence of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, warrant is classified.
House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who first raised alarm about
the practice of "unmasking" the names of Americans caught up in government surveillance, is
currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegedly exposing classified
information when he disclosed his findings to reporters.
"... Our willingness to place eternal faith in an earth-straddling company that oversees the largest collection of information ever assembled was doomed to end in a bitter divorce from the start. After all, each corporation, just like humans, has their own political proclivities, and Google is certainly no exception. But we aren't talking about your average car company here. ..."
"... Schmidt's grandiose vision, where there is just "one answer to every question," sounds like a chapter borrowed from Orwell's dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, where omnipresent Big Brother had an ironclad grip on history, news, information, everything. In such a intensely controlled, nightmarish world, individuals - as well as entire historical events - can be 'disappeared' down the memory hole without a trace. Though we've not quite reached that bad land yet, we're plodding along in that direction. ..."
"... Just before Americans headed to the polls in last year's presidential election, WikiLeaks delivered a well-timed steaming dump, revealing that Eric Schmidt had been working with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as early as April 2014. ..."
"... The implications of the CEO of the world's most powerful company playing favorites in a presidential race are obvious, and make the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s resemble a rigged game of bingo at the local senior citizens center by comparison. Yet the dumbed-down world of American politics, which only seems to get excited when Republicans goof up, continued to turn on its wobbly axis as if nothing untold had occurred. ..."
"... Back to the 2016 campaign. Even CNN at the time was admitting that Google was Donald Trump's "biggest enemy." Indeed, not only was Schmidt apparently moonlighting for the DNC, his leftist company was actively shutting down information on the Republican front runner. At one point when Google users typed in a query for 'presidential candidates,' they got thousands of results for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Missing in action from the search results, however, was, yes, Donald Trump. ..."
"... When NBC4 reached out to Google about the issue, a spokesperson said a "technical bug" was what caused Trump to disappear into the internet ether. Now, where have we heard the word "bug" before? It is worth wondering if this is what Eric Schmidt had in mind when he expressed his vision of a "one answer" Google search future? ..."
"... The fact that Trump - in direct contradiction to what the polls had been long predicting - ended up winning by such a huge margin, there is a temptation to say the polls themselves were 'fake news,' designed to convince the US voter that a Clinton landslide victory was forthcoming. This could have been a ploy by the pollsters, many of whom are affiliated with left-leaning news corporations, by the way, for keeping opposition voters at home in the belief their vote wouldn't matter. In fact, statisticians were warning of a "systemic mainstream misinformation" in poll data favoring Clinton in the days and weeks before Election day. Yet the Leftist brigade, in cahoots with the Googlers, were busy nurturing their own fervent conspiracy theory that 'fake news' - with some help from the Russians, of course - was the reason for Hillary Clinton's devastating defeat. ..."
"... Just one month after Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States, purportedly on the back of "fake news," Google quietly launched Project Owl, the goal of which was to devise a method to "demote misleading, false and offensive articles online," according to a Bloomberg report . The majority of the crackdown will be carried out by machines. Now here is where we enter the rat's nest. After all, what one news organization, or alternative news site, might consider legitimate news and information, another news group, possibly from the mainstream media, would dismiss as a conspiracy theory. And vice versa. ..."
"... With this masterly sleight of hand, did you notice what happened? We are no longer talking about the whereabouts of Clinton's estimated 33,000 deleted emails , nor are we discussing how the DNC worked behind the scenes to derail Bernie Sanders' chances at being a presidential candidate. Far worse, we are not considering the tragic fate of a young man named Seth Rich, the now-deceased DNC staffer who was gunned down in Washington, DC on July 10, 2016. Some news sites say Rich was preparing to testify against the DNC for "voter fraud," while others say that was contrived nonsense. ..."
"... "In the months since his murder, Rich has become an obsession of the far right, an unwilling martyr to a discredited cause," Newsweek commented . "On social media sites like Reddit and news outlets like World Net Daily, it is all but an article of faith that Rich, who worked for the Democratic National Committee, was the source who gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks, for which he was slain, presumably, by Clinton operatives. If that were to be true!and it very clearly isn't!the faithful believe it would invalidate any accusations that Donald J. Trump's campaign colluded with Russia in tilting the election toward him." ..."
"... Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ..."
"... Unsurprisingly, Mr. Pichai and his increasingly Orwellian company already stand accused of censorship, following the outrageous decision to bar former Congressman Ron Paul and his online news program, Liberty Report, from receiving advertising revenue for a number of videos which Paul recently posted. ..."
"... Dr. Ron Paul would never be confused as a dangerous, far-right loony. Paul is a 12-term ex-congressman and three-time presidential candidate. However, he is popular among his supporters for views that often contradict those of Washington's political establishment, especially on issues of war and peace. Now if squeaky clean Ron Paul can't get a fair hearing before the Google/YouTube tribunal, what are chances for average commentators? "We have no violence, no foul language, no political extremism, no hate or intolerance," Daniel McAdams, co-producer of the Ron Paul Liberty Report, told RT America. "Our program is simply a news analysis discussion from a libertarian and antiwar perspective." ..."
"... In light of this inquisition against free speech and free thought, it is no surprise that more voices are calling for Google, and other massive online media, like Facebook and Amazon, to become nationalized for the public good. ..."
"... "If we don't take over today's platform monopolies, we risk letting them own and control the basic infrastructure of 21st-century society," wrote Nick Srnicek, a lecturer in the digital economy at King's College London. ..."
Google has taken the unprecedented step of burying material, mostly from websites on the
political right, that it has deemed to be inappropriate. The problem, however, is that the
world's largest search engine is a left-leaning company with an ax to grind.
Let's face it, deep down in our heart of hearts we knew the honeymoon wouldn't last forever.
Our willingness to place eternal faith in an earth-straddling company that oversees the largest
collection of information ever assembled was doomed to end in a bitter divorce from the start.
After all, each corporation, just like humans, has their own political proclivities, and Google
is certainly no exception. But we aren't talking about your average car company here.
The first sign Google would eventually become more of a political liability than a public
utility was revealed in 2005 when CEO Eric Schmidt (who is now executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc , Google's parent
company) sat down with interviewer Charlie Rose, who asked Schmidt to explain "where the future
of search is going."
Schmidt's response should have triggered alarm bells across the free world. "Well, when you
use Google, do you get more than one answer," Schmidt asked rhetorically, before answering
deceptively: "Of course you do. Well, that's a bug. We have more bugs per second in the world.
We should be able to give you the right answer just once... and we should never be wrong."
Really?
Think about that for a moment. Schmidt believes, counter-intuitively, that getting multiple
possible choices for any one Google query is not the desirable prospect it should be (aren't
consumers always in search of more variety?), but rather a "bug" that should be duly squashed
underfoot. Silly mortal, you should not expect more than one answer for every question because
the almighty Google, our modern-day Oz, "should never be wrong!" This is the epitome of
corporate hubris. And it doesn't require much imagination to see that such a master plan will
only lead to a colossal whitewashing of the historic record.
For example, if a Google user performs a search request for - oh, I don't know - "what
caused the Iraq War 2003," he or she would be given, according to Schmidt's algorithmic wet
dream, exactly one canned answer. Any guesses on what that answer would be? I think it's safe
to say the only acceptable answer would be the state-sanctioned conspiracy theory
that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction, an oft-repeated claim we now
know to be patently false . The
list of other such complicated events that also demand more than one answer - from the Kennedy
assassination to the Gulf of Tonkin incident - could be continued for many pages.
Schmidt's grandiose vision, where there is just "one answer to every question," sounds like
a chapter borrowed from Orwell's dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, where omnipresent Big
Brother had an ironclad grip on history, news, information, everything. In such a intensely
controlled, nightmarish world, individuals - as well as entire historical events - can be
'disappeared' down the memory hole without a trace. Though we've not quite reached that bad
land yet, we're plodding along in that direction.
That much became disturbingly clear ever since Donald Trump routed Hillary Clinton for the
presidency. This surprise event became the bugle call for Google to wage war on 'fake news'
outlets, predominantly on the political right.
'Like being gay in the 1950s'
Just before Americans headed to the polls in last year's presidential election, WikiLeaks
delivered a well-timed steaming dump, revealing that Eric Schmidt had been
working with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as early as April 2014. This news came
courtesy of a leaked email from John Podesta, former
chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, who wrote:
I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he's ready to fund, advise recruit
talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn't pushing to run
through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn't seem
like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going...
The implications of the CEO of the world's most powerful company playing
favorites in a presidential race are obvious, and make the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s
resemble a rigged game of bingo at the local senior citizens center by comparison. Yet the
dumbed-down world of American politics, which only seems to get excited when Republicans goof
up, continued to turn on its wobbly axis as if nothing untold had occurred.
Before continuing our trip down memory lane, let's fast forward a moment for a reality
check. Google's romance with the US political left is not a matter of conjecture. In fact, it
has just become the subject of a released internal memo penned by one James
Damore, a former Google engineer. In the 10-point memo, Damore discussed at length the extreme
liberal atmosphere that pervades Google, saying that being a conservative in the Silicon Valley
sweat shop was like "being gay in the 1950s."
"We have... this monolithic culture where anyone with a dissenting view can't even express
themselves. Really, it's like being gay in the 1950s. These conservatives have to stay in the
closet and have to mask who they really are. And that's a huge problem because there's open
discrimination against anyone who comes out of the closet as a conservative."
Beyond the quirky, laid back image of a Google campus, where "Googlers"
enjoy free food and foot massages, lies a "monolithic culture where anyone with a
dissenting view can't even express themselves," says Damore, who was very cynically fired
from Google for daring to express a personal opinion. That is strange.
Although Google loudly trumpets its multicultural diversity in terms of its hiring policy,
it clearly has a problem dealing with a diversity of opinion. That attitude does not seem to
bode well for a search engine company that must remain impartial on all matters - political or
otherwise.
Back to the 2016 campaign. Even CNN at the time was admitting
that Google was Donald Trump's "biggest enemy." Indeed, not only was Schmidt apparently
moonlighting for the DNC, his leftist company was actively shutting down information on the
Republican front runner. At one point when Google users typed in a query for 'presidential
candidates,' they got thousands of results for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Green Party
candidate Jill Stein. Missing
in action from the search results, however, was, yes, Donald Trump.
When NBC4 reached out to Google about the issue, a spokesperson said a "technical bug"
was what caused Trump to disappear into the internet ether. Now, where have we heard the word
"bug" before? It is worth wondering if this is what Eric Schmidt had in mind when he expressed
his vision of a "one answer" Google search future?
In any case, this brings to the surface another disturbing question that is directly linked
to the 'fake news' accusations, which in turn is fueling Google's crackdown on the free flow of
news from the political right today.
In the run up to the 2016 presidential election, poll after poll predicted a Clinton
landslide victory. Of course, nothing of the sort materialized, as even traditional Democratic
strongholds , like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan pulled the lever for Trump. As the
Economist reported
:
On the eve of America's presidential election, national surveys gave Hillary Clinton a lead
of around four percentage points, which betting markets and statistical models translated
into a probability of victory ranging from 70 percent to 99 percent.
The fact that Trump - in direct contradiction to what the polls had been long
predicting - ended up winning by such a huge margin, there is a temptation to say the polls
themselves were 'fake news,' designed to convince the US voter that a Clinton landslide victory
was forthcoming. This could have been a ploy by the pollsters, many of whom are affiliated with
left-leaning news corporations, by the way, for keeping opposition voters at home in the belief
their vote wouldn't matter. In fact, statisticians were
warning of a "systemic mainstream misinformation" in poll data favoring Clinton in the days
and weeks before Election day. Yet the Leftist brigade, in cahoots with the Googlers, were busy
nurturing their own fervent conspiracy theory that 'fake news' - with some help from the
Russians, of course - was the reason for Hillary Clinton's devastating defeat.
Who will guard us against the Google guardians?
Just one month after Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States,
purportedly on the back of "fake news," Google quietly launched Project Owl, the goal of which
was to devise a method to "demote misleading, false and offensive articles online," according
to a Bloomberg
report . The majority of the crackdown will be carried out by machines. Now here is where
we enter the rat's nest. After all, what one news organization, or alternative news site, might
consider legitimate news and information, another news group, possibly from the mainstream
media, would dismiss as a conspiracy theory. And vice versa.
In other words, what we have here is a battle for the misty mountain top of information, and
Google appears to be paving the way for its preferred candidate, which is naturally the
mainstream media. In other words, Google has a dog in this fight, but it shouldn't. Here is how
they have succeeded in pushing for their crackdown on news and information.
The mainstream media almost immediately began peddling the fake news story as to why Hillary
Clinton lost to Donald Trump. In fact, it even started before Clinton lost the election after
Trump jokingly told a rally: "I will tell you this, Russia: If you're listening, I hope you're
able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing... I think you will probably be rewarded
mightily by our press." The Democrats, of course, found no humor in the remark. Indeed, they
began pushing the fake news story, with
help from the likes of Amazon-owned Washington Post, that it was Russians who hacked the
DNC email system and passed along the information to WikiLeaks, who then dumped it at the most
inopportune time for the Democrats.
With this masterly sleight of hand, did you notice what happened? We are no longer
talking about the whereabouts of Clinton's estimated 33,000
deleted emails , nor are we discussing how the DNC worked behind the scenes to derail
Bernie Sanders' chances at being a presidential candidate. Far worse, we are not considering
the tragic fate of a young man named Seth Rich, the now-deceased DNC staffer who was gunned
down in Washington, DC on July 10, 2016. Some news sites say Rich was preparing to testify
against the DNC for "voter fraud," while others say that was contrived nonsense.
According to the mainstream media, in this case, Newsweek, only batshit crazy far-right
conspiracy sites could ever believe Seth Rich leaked the Clinton emails.
"In the months since his murder, Rich has become an obsession of the far right, an
unwilling martyr to a discredited cause," Newsweek commented . "On social media sites like Reddit
and news outlets like World Net Daily, it is all but an article of faith that Rich, who worked
for the Democratic National Committee, was the source who gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks, for
which he was slain, presumably, by Clinton operatives. If that were to be true!and it very
clearly isn't!the faithful believe it would invalidate any accusations that Donald J. Trump's
campaign colluded with Russia in tilting the election toward him."
Blame Russia
The reality is, we'll probably never know what happened to Mr. Rich, but what we do know is
that Russia has become the convenient fall guy for Clinton's emails getting hacked and dumped
in the public arena. We also know Google is taking advantage of this conspiracy theory (to this
day not a thread of proof has been offered to prove Russia had anything to do with the release
of the emails) to severely hinder the work of news sites - most of which sit on the right of
the political spectrum.
Last November, just two weeks after Trump's victory, Sundar Pichai, the chief executive of
Google, addressed the
question of 'fake news' in a BBC interview, and whether it could have swayed the vote in
Trump's favor.
"You know, I think fake news as a whole could be an issue [in elections]. From our
perspective, there should just be no situation where fake news gets distributed, so we are all
for doing better here. So, I don't think we should debate it as much as work hard to make sure
we drive news to its more trusted sources, have more fact checking and make our algorithms work
better, absolutely," he said.
Did you catch that? Following the tiresome rigmarole, the Google CEO said he doesn't think
"we should debate it as much as we work hard to make sure we drive news to its more trusted
sources..."
That is a truly incredible comment, buried at the sea floor of the BBC article. How can the
head of the largest search engine believe a democracy needn't debate how Google determines what
information, and by whom, is allowed into the public realm, thus literally shaping our entire
worldview? To ask the question is to answer it...
"Just in the last two days we announced we will remove advertising from anything we identify
as fake news," Pichai said.
And how will Google decide who the Internet baddies are? It will rely on "more than 15
additional expert NGOs and institutions through our Trusted Flagger program, including the
Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue,"
to determine what should be flagged and what should not.
Feeling better yet? This brings to mind the quaint Latin phrase, Quis custodiet ipsos
custodes? -- Who will guard the guards themselves? -- especially since these groups also
have their own heavy political axes to grind.
Unsurprisingly, Mr. Pichai and his increasingly Orwellian company already stand accused of
censorship, following the outrageous decision to bar former Congressman Ron Paul and his online
news program, Liberty Report, from receiving advertising revenue for a number of videos which
Paul recently posted.
Dr. Ron Paul would never be confused as a dangerous, far-right loony. Paul is a 12-term
ex-congressman and three-time presidential candidate. However, he is popular among his
supporters for views that often contradict those of Washington's political establishment,
especially on issues of war and peace. Now if squeaky clean Ron Paul can't get a fair hearing
before the Google/YouTube tribunal, what are chances for average commentators? "We have no violence, no foul language, no political extremism, no hate or intolerance,"
Daniel McAdams, co-producer of the Ron Paul Liberty Report, told
RT America. "Our program is simply a news analysis discussion from a libertarian and antiwar
perspective."
McAdams added that the YouTube demonetization "creates enormous financial burdens for the
program." Many other commentators have also been affected by the advert ban, including left-wing
online blogger Tim Black and right-wing commentator Paul Joseph Watson. Their videos have
registered millions of views.
"Demonetization is a deliberate effort to stamp out independent political commentary –
from the left or the right," Black
told the Boston Globe's Hiawatha Bray. "It's not about specific videos... It's about
pushing out the diversity of thought and uplifting major news networks such as CNN, Fox News,
and MSNBC."
In light of this inquisition against free speech and free thought, it is no surprise that
more voices are calling for Google, and other massive online media, like Facebook and Amazon,
to become nationalized for the public good.
"If we don't take over today's platform monopolies, we risk letting them own and control the
basic infrastructure of 21st-century society,"
wrote Nick Srnicek, a lecturer in the digital economy at King's College London.
It's time for Google to take a stroll beyond its isolated Silicon Valley campus and realize
there is a whole world of varying political opinion out there that demands a voice. Otherwise,
it may find itself on the wrong side of history and time, a notoriously uninviting place known
as 1984.
"... In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief
executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet
states." ..."
"... But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose interests
may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently than Russia?
..."
"... After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been pulling the U.S. government into their sectarian wars with
the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the region, to the growth of Al Qaeda,
and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe. ..."
"... Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with
Israel's new regional ally, Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Israel's influence over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the
Israel Lobby's conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and announced that he was
not there to "pander" and then pandered his pants off. ..."
"... And, if you want a historical review, throw in the British and German propaganda around the two world wars; include how the
South Vietnamese government collaborated with Richard Nixon in 1968 to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Paris peace talks; take a
serious look at the collusion between Ronald Reagan's campaign and Iran thwarting President Jimmy Carter's efforts to free 52 American
hostages in Tehran in 1980; open the books on Turkey's covert investments in U.S. politicians and policymakers; and examine how authoritarian
regimes of all stripes have funded important Washington think tanks and law firms. ..."
"... But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country
to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a sense
of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic
means to a political end. ..."
"... As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match. ..."
The core absurdity of the Russia-gate frenzy is its complete lack of proportionality. Indeed, the hysteria is reminiscent of Sen.
Joe McCarthy warning that "one communist in the faculty of one university is one communist too many" or Donald Trump's highlighting
a few "bad hombres" raping white American women.
It's not that there were no Americans who espoused communist views at universities and elsewhere or that there are no "bad hombre"
rapists; it's that these rare exceptions were used to generate a dangerous overreaction in service of a propagandistic agenda. Historically,
we have seen this technique used often when demagogues seize on an isolated event and exploit it emotionally to mislead populations
to war.
Today, we have The New York Times and The Washington Post repeatedly publishing front-page articles about allegations that some
Russians with "links" to the Kremlin bought $100,000 in Facebook ads to promote some issues deemed hurtful to Hillary Clinton's campaign
although some of the ads ran after the election.
Initially, Facebook could find no evidence of even that small effort but was pressured in May by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia.
The Washington Post
reported that Warner, who is spearheading the Russia-gate investigation in the Senate Intelligence Committee, flew to Silicon
Valley and urged Facebook executives to take another look at possible ad buys.
Facebook responded to this congressional pressure by scouring its billions of monthly users and announced that it had located
470 suspect accounts associated with ads totaling $100,000 – out of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue.
Here is how the Times
described
those findings: "Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by
a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election
campaign." (It sometimes appears that every Russian -- all 144 million of them -- is somehow "linked" to the Kremlin.)
Last week, congressional investigators urged Facebook to expand its review into "troll farms" supposedly based in Belarus, Macedonia
and Estonia – although Estonia is by no means a Russian ally; it joined NATO in 2004.
"Warner and his Democratic counterpart on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, have been increasingly
vocal in recent days about their frustrations with Facebook," the Post
reported
Facebook Complies
So, on Thursday, Facebook succumbed to demands that it turn over to Congress copies of the ads, a move that has only justified
more alarmist front-page stories about Russia! Russia! Russia!
In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief
executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet
states."
So, it appears that not only are all Russians "linked" to the Kremlin, but all former Soviet states as well.
But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose
interests may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently
than Russia?
After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been
pulling the U.S. government
into their sectarian wars with the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the
region, to the growth of Al Qaeda, and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe.
And, let's not forget the 8,000-pound gorilla in the room: Israel. Does anyone think that whatever Russia may or may not have
done in trying to influence U.S. politics compares even in the slightest to what Israel does all the time?
Which government used its pressure and that of its American agents (i.e., the neocons) to push the United States into the disastrous
war in Iraq? It wasn't Russia, which was among the countries urging the U.S. not to invade; it was Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu.
Indeed, the plans for "regime change" in Iraq and Syria can be traced back to the work of key American neoconservatives employed
by Netanyahu's political campaign in 1996. At that time, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other leading neocons unveiled a seminal
document entitled "
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," which proposed casting aside negotiations with Arabs in favor of simply
replacing the region's anti-Israeli governments.
However, to make that happen required drawing in the powerful U.S. military, so after the 9/11 attacks, the neocons inside President
George W. Bush's administration set in motion a deception campaign to justify invading Iraq, a war which was to be followed by more
"regime changes" in Syria and Iran.
A Wrench in the Plans
Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with
Israel's new regional ally,
Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
As Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren
explained , the goal was to shatter
the Shiite "strategic arc" running from Iran through Syria to Lebanon and Israel's Hezbollah enemies.
How smashing this Shiite "arc" was in the interests of the American people – or even within their consciousness – is never explained.
But it was what Israel wanted and thus it was what the U.S. government enlisted to do, even to the point of
letting sophisticated U.S. weaponry
fall into the hands of Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate.
Israel's influence
over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the Israel Lobby's conference
of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and
announced that he was not there
to "pander" and then pandered his pants off.
And, whenever Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to show off his power, he is invited to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress
at which Republicans and
Democrats compete to see how many times and how quickly they can leap to their feet in standing ovations. (Netanyahu holds the
record for the number of times a foreign leader has addressed joint sessions with three such appearances, tied with Winston Churchill.)
Yet, Israeli influence is so engrained in the U.S. political process that even the mention of the existence of an "Israel Lobby"
brings accusations of anti-Semitism. "Israel Lobby" is a forbidden phrase in Washington.
However, pretty much whenever Israel targets a U.S. politician for defeat, that politician goes down, a muscle that Israel flexed
in the early 1980s in taking out
Rep. Paul Findley and Sen. Charles Percy , two moderate Republicans whose crime was to suggest talks with the Palestine Liberation
Organization.
So, if the concern is the purity of the American democratic process and the need to protect it from outside manipulation, let's
have at it. Why not a full-scale review of who is doing what and how? Does anyone think that Israel's influence over U.S. politics
is limited to a few hundred Facebook accounts and $100,000 in ads?
If such an effort were ever proposed, you would get a sense of how sensitive this topic is in Official Washington, where foreign
money and its influence are rampant. There would be accusations of anti-Semitism in connection with Israel and charges of conspiracy
theory even in well-documented cases of collaboration between U.S. politicians and foreign interests.
So, instead of a balanced and comprehensive assessment of this problem, the powers-that-be concentrate on the infinitesimal case
of Russian "meddling" as the excuse for Hillary Clinton's shocking defeat. But the key reasons for Clinton's dismal campaign had
virtually nothing to do with Russia, even if you believe all
the evidence-lite accusations
about Russian "meddling."
The Russians did not tell Clinton to vote for the disastrous Iraq War and
play endless footsy with the neocons
; the Russians didn't advise her to set up a private server to handle her State Department emails and potentially expose classified
information; the Russians didn't lure Clinton and the U.S. into
the Libyan fiasco nor
suggest her ghastly joke in response to Muammar Gaddafi's lynching ("We came, we saw, he died"); the Russians had nothing to do with
her greedy decision to accept millions of dollars in Wall Street speaking fees and then try to keep the speech contents secret from
the voters; the Russians didn't encourage her husband to become a serial philanderer and make a mockery of their marriage; nor did
the Russians suggest to Anthony Weiner, the husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, that he send lewd photos to a teen-ager on a
laptop also used by his wife, a development that led FBI Director James Comey to reopen the Clinton-email investigation just 11 days
before the election; the Russians weren't responsible for Clinton's decision not to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan; the Russians
didn't stop her from offering a coherent message about how she would help the struggling white working class; and on and on.
But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country
to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a
sense of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic
means to a political end.
As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. ..."
"... We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? ..."
"... Can you see why Washington gave up on Putin? The speech identifies the United States reckless behavior as the single greatest threat to global security today. Putin says that the unipolar world-model which operates from "one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making" is unacceptable, has no "moral foundation", and "plunges the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." The speech is a straightforward repudiation of Washington's lunatic ambition to rule the world, which is why Putin is presently on America's list of enemies. ..."
"... Putin's domestic vision also conflicts with US policy, which is dominated by neoliberal, trickle-down, austerity-crazed, deficit hawkery that transfers the nations wealth to the 1 percent plutocrats at the top of the economic foodchain. The Russian president has made great strides in reducing poverty, eliminating illiteracy, improving healthcare, and raising the standard of living for millions of working people. Here's an excerpt from a speech by Putin that outlines his domestic priorities: ..."
"... "Russia is a social welfare state .Social policy has many objectives and many dimensions. It entails providing support for the poor and those who are unable to earn a living for valid reasons. It means implementing social mobility and providing a level playing field for every person on the basis of his or her capabilities and talents. The effectiveness of social policy is measured by whether popular opinion believes the society we live in is a just one or not. ..."
"... The glaring income disparity is unacceptably high. Every eighth Russian citizen still lives below the official poverty line . ..."
"... People, primarily the "middle class," well-educated and well-paid individuals, are dissatisfied with the level of social services on the whole. The quality of education and healthcare is still quite low, despite higher budgetary allocations. Services that you have to pay for in these areas are still rife. The goal of creating a comfortable living environment is still a long way off ..."
"... The decline in the national workforce and an increasingly ageing population means the efficiency of social spending has to be increased. We simply have no choice, if we want to preserve and improve the situation . ..."
"... Every country looks upon its teachers, doctors, scientists and cultural workers as the backbone of the "creative class", as the people who contribute to the sustained development of society and serve as the pillar of public morality . ..."
"... I believe that healthcare and education reforms are only possible when they guarantee decent pay for public sector professionals. A doctor, teacher or professor should be able to earn enough on their basic jobs not to have to seek outside earnings. If we fail to fulfill this condition our efforts to change the organisation of the economic mechanisms and renew the material base of these sectors will come to nothing . ..."
"... Starting on September 1, we will raise the pay of lecturers in state educational establishments – up to the average salary for the region. In the course of 2013-2018, the average salary of professors and lecturers will be gradually increased twofold to double the average in the economy .In the case of doctors and researchers, the target for 2018 is the same as for higher school lecturers – 200% of the average pay across the region .. ..."
"... Together with the trade unions we have to consider legislation to broaden the participation of workers in the management of enterprises. This kind of participation is practiced, for example, in Germany in the form of what are known as works councils . ..."
"... In the next few years, we must create a system to help every disabled person who is able and willing to learn and work find their educational and professional niche in life: from specialised educational programmes to jobs adapted to an individual's specific requirements . ..."
"... While incomes are growing, the gap between the richest and the poorest population groups is decreasing too slowly. Income disparity in Russia is comparable to that in the Untied States but is considerably higher than in Western Europe. A certain degree of income differentiation is logical for a mature market economy, but too large a gap can be seen as inequality and can fuel social tensions. Hence our priority is to reduce material inequality by making social policy more targeted and effective, but above all by giving people an opportunity to earn enough to ensure a desirable level of income ..This will allow us to perceive Russia as a more equitable country where everyone earns his or her income with their own labour and talent . ..."
"... And the government will provide targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income or are too young to work . ..."
"... The government is taking measures to support families' desire to have two or more children . ..."
"... It is absolutely unacceptable for the birth of a child to bring a family to the edge of poverty. A national goal for the next three or four years is to make this totally impossible. Today the regional governments approve the size of most child benefits, and it should be said that they are scandalously small in many regions .However, such assistance should not be provided to families with high incomes (Read the whole speech here: http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18071/ ..."
"... Sure, it's a political speech, but when was the last time you heard Obama talk about "social mobility" or "support for the poor" or "glaring income disparity" or "healthcare and education reforms" (that didn't involve privatization) or "decent pay for public sector professionals" or strengthening unions or doubling the "salary of professors and lecturers" or increasing "child benefits and education" or "creating a system to help every disabled person" or "providing targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income or are too young to work" etc etc etc. On every issue, Putin's platform is more progressive than Obama's, and yet, idiot Americans still think President Hopium is working for them. Right. ..."
"... Putin's motto is: "Each rouble spent in the social sphere must 'produce justice.'" That alone proves that he'd make a better president than Obama. ..."
"... MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion . He can be reached at [email protected] ..."
"Every rouble spent in the social sphere should 'generate justice.' An equitable social and
economic system is the main requirement for ensuring our sustained development during these years."
– Russian President Vladimir Putin
Is Vladimir Putin really the "KGB thug" the US media makes him out to be?
Take a look at this except from a book review in the New York Times and see what you think.
"A decade ago it was possible to imagine two inner Putins wrestling for his soul: the K.G.B.
thug versus the modernizer. Sadly, events since then suggest that the inflexible misanthrope we
see is the only Putin we get
Even the most casual Putin-watcher has marveled at his narcissism, manifested in his odd habit
of inviting cameras to record him bare-chested on horseback, swimming the butterfly stroke in
a Siberian river, scuba diving and collecting skin samples from whales, among other stunts. Gessen
traces his self-absorption back to his youth.
Putin's childhood ambition was to be a spy in the K.G.B., but Gessen reveals that his actual
experience was more Walter Mitty than James Bond. He was basically a paper-pusher, collecting
press clippings in Dresden while the East German Stasi did the real dirty work of recruiting informers
and policing dissent .Putin soon hitched himself to the first of a series of flawed, small-d democrats,
who would propel him to power." ("Reclaiming the Kremlin", Bill Keller, New York Times)
Read enough?
Okay, so according to the Times, Putin is an ass-kissing, paper-pushing, self-adsorbed, autocratic
thug who has dreams of greatness. Did we miss something? Oh yeah, he's also a misanthropic slacker
who let's everyone else do the heavy lifting.
Is that what they call objective journalism at the NYT? Its worth noting that this laughable bit
of propaganda was written by the Times editor himself, Bill Keller! Can you believe it? I mean, wouldn't
you think that the editor of the nation's number 1 newspaper would make some effort to hide his bias?
But, no, when it comes to serving the folks in power, Keller is just as willing to run his credibility
through the mud as the next guy. And, so he has, but what does that tell us about Putin?
It tells us that Putin is despised by powerful members of the US policy establishment. That's
what it tells us. After all, it's their views that are reflected in the mainstream media via propagandists
like Keller.
But, why? Putin is not a fiery leftist like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. He's a right-of-center
nationalist who's not particularly ideological, confrontational, or unreasonable. so, what's the
problem? Besides, Putin has bent over backwards to accommodate the US on everything from nuclear
disarmament to the War on Terror. So why the hostility?
It's because Putin wants to be a partner on global issues, particularly security issues. But the
US doesn't want partners; it wants lackeys and puppets who will follow orders. And that's why the
NY Times and the others in the moron media are ganging up on him, because–in Washington's eyes–if
your not a lackey, your the enemy. It's that simple.
If you want to know why Russian-US relations have steadily deteriorated, you might want to read
this excerpt from an article by Pat Buchanan who asks "Doesn't Putin Have a Point?"
"Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern Europe voluntarily, and Moscow
felt it had an understanding we would not move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only
did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and virtually the
whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother Russia's front porch. Now, there is a scheme
afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin.
Second, America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia
to Turkey, to bypass Russia.
Third, though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old Soviet republics for the
liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem hell-bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.
Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as directed at rogue states like North Korea, we now
learn we are going to put anti-missile systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom are they
directed?
Fifth, through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and Democratic auxiliaries, and
tax-exempt think tanks, foundations, and "human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed
by ex-CIA director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime change in Eastern Europe, the
former Soviet republics, and Russia herself.
U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia, but failed in Belarus.
Moscow has now legislated restrictions on the foreign agencies that it sees, not without justification,
as subversive of pro-Moscow regimes.
Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the crime of fighting to hold on
to her rebellious province, Kosovo, and for refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her
territory to take over that province. Mother Russia has always had a maternal interest in the
Orthodox states of the Balkans.
These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point?"
There it is in a nutshell. The world's biggest troublemaker (guess who?) has broken its promises,
surrounded Russia with military bases, put NGOs on the ground to incite revolution in all the former
Soviet states (and Russia), and now wants to situate nuclear missile sites a few hundred miles from
Moscow. This is how Washington strengthens ties with its former adversaries, by poking a thumb in
their eye at every opportunity.
The Obama administration has assured Putin that its anti-ballistic missile defense system, which
will be deployed in former Warsaw pact countries in E Europe, is strictly defensive and will only
be aimed at Iran. But it isn't true. In fact, the system will be aimed at Russia and poses a direct
threat to Russian national security. Everyone knows this, even though the media continues to soft-peddle
the dangers of the proposed system. The Washington Post even characterized it as "a small missile
defense system" which has set off "waves of paranoia about domestic and foreign opponents".
Sure, what's a few nuclear weapons among friends?
Naturally, Putin has seen through this ruse and protested. Here's what he at a press conference
6 years ago:
"Once the missile defense system is put in place it will work automatically with the entire
nuclear capability of the United States. It will be an integral part of the US nuclear capability.
"For the first time in history there will be elements of the US nuclear capability on the European
continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security ..Of course, we
have to respond to that."
Putin is right. The "so-called" defense system is actually an expansion (and integration) of America's
existing nuclear weapons system which will now function as one unit. The dangers of this are obvious.
The US (under Bush and Obama) wants to achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle,
calls the "longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia". That's what missile defense
is all about.
In Boyle's article "US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to First Strike Threat" he states:
"By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces would be taken out. Namely,
the United States Government believes that with the deployment of a facially successful first
strike capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."
By "compellence" Boyle means that first strike capability will allow the US to force Moscow to
meet its demands or face certain annihilation.
So what should Putin do? Should he sit back on his haunches and wait for the US to come to its
senses or threaten to remove the new installations by force? The issue remains unresolved.
As for the US NGOs, it's long been known that they're up to no good, and that they function as
the civilian component of a larger military strategy to rule the world. There was an interesting
piece by Paul Craig Roberts in
CounterPunch
on Thursday which fleshes out the activities of these groups and their real purpose. Here's an excerpt
from the article:
"The Russian government has finally caught on that its political opposition is being financed
by the US taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy and other CIA/State Department fronts
in an attempt to subvert the Russian government and install an American puppet state in the geographically
largest country on earth, the one country with a nuclear arsenal sufficient to deter Washington's
aggression ..
Much of the Russian political opposition consists of foreign-paid agents .. The Itar-Tass News
Agency reported on July 3 that there are about 1,000 organizations in Russia that are funded from
abroad and engaged in political activity .
The Washington-funded Russian political opposition masquerades behind "human rights" and says
it works to "open Russia." What the disloyal and treasonous Washington-funded Russian "political
opposition" means by "open Russia" is to open Russia for brainwashing by Western propaganda, to
open Russia to economic plunder by the West, and to open Russia to having its domestic and foreign
policies determined by Washington."
That sums it up pretty well, doesn't it? Of course, any action taken by Putin to impede the the
activities of foreign spies (and agents for global capital) is denounced in the media as an attack
on civil liberties and democracy.
Talk about hypocrisy? Do we really need to hear the world's biggest civil rights abuser scold
Russia for defending itself from foreign invasion? When was the last time Putin bombed a wedding
party in Pakistan or blew up one of its own citizens in a drone attack or incarcerated and tortured
mere "suspects" without charging them with a crime? Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?
Did you know that the Bush administration thought they could co-opt Putin and bring him into the
imperial fold like America's other puppets around the world?
It's true. Bush actually liked Putin and tried to get him to fall in line. But then something
happened at a Conference on Security Policy in Munich in February 2007, where all the top brass in
the administration and the far-right think tanks realized that Putin couldn't be co-opted; that he
was ferociously nationalistic and would not do their bidding. So the entire strategy was scrapped
and the demonisation began. Here's a clip from the speech that Putin gave in Munich that turned things
around. It's a rather long because I wanted you to get a sense of the man, his sincerity, his earnestness,
and his genuine desire for fundamental change in US-Russian relations:
"Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge
strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.
This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the
international community's and the world's agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us
with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double
standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.
The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place.
The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to
world supremacy. And what hasn't happened in world history?
However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the
day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one
centre of decision-making.
It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is
pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because
it destroys itself from within.
And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is
the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.
Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason
those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.
I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's
world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today's – and precisely
in today's – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What
is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can
be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.
Along with this, what is happening in today's world – and we just started to discuss this –
is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of
a unipolar world.
And what have the results been?
Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they
have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars
as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. And no less people perish in these
conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!
Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in
international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.
As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of
these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law.
And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's
legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped
its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational
policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?
In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according
to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.
And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I
want to emphasise this ! no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is
like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.
The force's dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass
destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have
appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.
I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about
the architecture of global security." (Russian President Vladimir Putin, Conference on Security
Policy in Munich in February 2007)
Can you see why Washington gave up on Putin? The speech identifies the United States reckless
behavior as the single greatest threat to global security today. Putin says that the unipolar world-model
which operates from "one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making"
is unacceptable, has no "moral foundation", and "plunges the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts."
The speech is a straightforward repudiation of Washington's lunatic ambition to rule the world, which
is why Putin is presently on America's list of enemies.
Putin's domestic vision also conflicts with US policy, which is dominated by neoliberal, trickle-down,
austerity-crazed, deficit hawkery that transfers the nations wealth to the 1 percent plutocrats at
the top of the economic foodchain. The Russian president has made great strides in reducing poverty,
eliminating illiteracy, improving healthcare, and raising the standard of living for millions of
working people. Here's an excerpt from a speech by Putin that outlines his domestic priorities:
"Russia is a social welfare state .Social policy has many objectives and many dimensions.
It entails providing support for the poor and those who are unable to earn a living for valid
reasons. It means implementing social mobility and providing a level playing field for every person
on the basis of his or her capabilities and talents. The effectiveness of social policy is measured
by whether popular opinion believes the society we live in is a just one or not.
The glaring income disparity is unacceptably high. Every eighth Russian citizen still lives
below the official poverty line .
People, primarily the "middle class," well-educated and well-paid individuals, are dissatisfied
with the level of social services on the whole. The quality of education and healthcare is still
quite low, despite higher budgetary allocations. Services that you have to pay for in these areas
are still rife. The goal of creating a comfortable living environment is still a long way off
The decline in the national workforce and an increasingly ageing population means the efficiency
of social spending has to be increased. We simply have no choice, if we want to preserve and improve
the situation .
Every country looks upon its teachers, doctors, scientists and cultural workers as the
backbone of the "creative class", as the people who contribute to the sustained development of
society and serve as the pillar of public morality .
I believe that healthcare and education reforms are only possible when they guarantee decent
pay for public sector professionals. A doctor, teacher or professor should be able to earn enough
on their basic jobs not to have to seek outside earnings. If we fail to fulfill this condition
our efforts to change the organisation of the economic mechanisms and renew the material base
of these sectors will come to nothing .
Starting on September 1, we will raise the pay of lecturers in state educational establishments
– up to the average salary for the region. In the course of 2013-2018, the average salary of professors
and lecturers will be gradually increased twofold to double the average in the economy .In the
case of doctors and researchers, the target for 2018 is the same as for higher school lecturers
– 200% of the average pay across the region ..
Together with the trade unions we have to consider legislation to broaden the participation
of workers in the management of enterprises. This kind of participation is practiced, for example,
in Germany in the form of what are known as works councils .
In the next few years, we must create a system to help every disabled person who is able
and willing to learn and work find their educational and professional niche in life: from specialised
educational programmes to jobs adapted to an individual's specific requirements .
While incomes are growing, the gap between the richest and the poorest population groups
is decreasing too slowly. Income disparity in Russia is comparable to that in the Untied States
but is considerably higher than in Western Europe. A certain degree of income differentiation
is logical for a mature market economy, but too large a gap can be seen as inequality and can
fuel social tensions. Hence our priority is to reduce material inequality by making social policy
more targeted and effective, but above all by giving people an opportunity to earn enough to ensure
a desirable level of income ..This will allow us to perceive Russia as a more equitable country
where everyone earns his or her income with their own labour and talent .
And the government will provide targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income
or are too young to work .
The government is taking measures to support families' desire to have two or more children
.
It is absolutely unacceptable for the birth of a child to bring a family to the edge of
poverty. A national goal for the next three or four years is to make this totally impossible.
Today the regional governments approve the size of most child benefits, and it should be said
that they are scandalously small in many regions .However, such assistance should not be provided
to families with high incomes (Read the whole speech here:
http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18071/
Sure, it's a political speech, but when was the last time you heard Obama talk about "social
mobility" or "support for the poor" or "glaring income disparity" or "healthcare and education reforms"
(that didn't involve privatization) or "decent pay for public sector professionals" or strengthening
unions or doubling the "salary of professors and lecturers" or increasing "child benefits and education"
or "creating a system to help every disabled person" or "providing targeted assistance to those who
cannot earn an income or are too young to work" etc etc etc. On every issue, Putin's platform is
more progressive than Obama's, and yet, idiot Americans still think President Hopium is working for
them. Right.
Putin's motto is: "Each rouble spent in the social sphere must 'produce justice.'" That alone
proves that he'd make a better president than Obama.
"... Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy. ..."
"... NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessary platform for future wars . Another Sarin gas? Another Harriri death? Another picture of beheadings ? Another story of North Korean supplying nukes ? Wrongful consequences from falsehood will not cost NYT excepting a correction years later somehere in the 5 th page. A conspiracy to hatch is something that has no consequences for the plotters . ..."
"... NYT will be there claiming for the right to crow – how it has prepared the ground. All are done openly. When resistance is mounted, Bernie Sander supporters are sent home with flowers and a reminder to vote for Clinton because in this age all over the world America is the exception that has heard them. With that satisfaction they can go home and vote as expected. They are not allowed to know how the campaign marginalized Sander's chances from the get go. ..."
"HANGZHOU, China : The image of a 5-year-old Syrian boy, dazed and bloodied after being
rescued from an airstrike on rebel-held Aleppo, reverberated around the world last month, a
harrowing reminder that five years after civil war broke out there, Syria remains a charnel
house.
But the reaction was more muted in Washington, where Syria has become a distant disaster
rather than an urgent crisis. President Obama's policy toward Syria has barely budged in the
last year and shows no sign of change for the remainder of his term. The White House has faced
little pressure over the issue,
That frustrates many analysts because they believe that a shift in policy will come only
when Mr. Obama has left office. "Given the tone of this campaign, I doubt the electorate will
be presented with realistic and intelligible options, with respect to Syria," said Frederic
C. Hof, a former adviser on Syria in the administration."
Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy.
The world we see are not festooned with the morbid pictures and the world has not one echo
chamber among its 7 billions that are reverberating with his sad cry .
No American taxpayer is piling pressure on Obama.
Tone of the election doesn't and shouldn't provide option on Syria . Electorates are not asking
to know what America should do.
Next president will introduce something that he wont share w and making them known before the
voters will destroy his chances. Someone shared and was evisecrated by NYT and other as Putin's
Trojan horse .
NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessary platform for future wars . Another
Sarin gas? Another Harriri death? Another picture of beheadings ? Another story of North Korean
supplying nukes ? Wrongful consequences from falsehood will not cost NYT excepting a correction
years later somehere in the 5 th page. A conspiracy to hatch is something that has no consequences
for the plotters .
If Dulles were hanged for role in all the illegal things he had done in Guatemala and Iran, may
be Kennedy would have survived. But his earlier political escapades were also built on something
that were way earlier . Conspiracy keeps on coming back begging for one more round ,for one more
time .
NYT will be there claiming for the right to crow – how it has prepared the ground. All are
done openly. When resistance is mounted, Bernie Sander supporters are sent home with flowers and
a reminder to vote for Clinton because in this age all over the world America is the exception
that has heard them. With that satisfaction they can go home and vote as expected. They are not
allowed to know how the campaign marginalized Sander's chances from the get go.
Neither NYT explains how reckless Trump with nuclear code will start a nuclear war with Putin's
Russia despite being his co conspirator .
Chalabi s daughter exclaimed in early part of 2004 – We are heroes in mistakes. She won't say
it now . Conspirators would love to get the credit and be recognized . It all depends on the success
. First Iraq war, if went bad from beginning, Lantos wouldn't have been reelected . But again
who knows what media can deliver. They delivered Joe Liberman .
"... Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's office said on Thursday he wrote to Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray asking whether the agency provided "defensive briefings" to Trump's team given its ongoing investigation of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager. ..."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has asked the FBI
whether it warned Donald Trump's presidential campaign about alleged attempts by Russia to
infiltrate the campaign.
Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's office said on Thursday he wrote to Federal Bureau of
Investigation Director Christopher Wray asking whether the agency provided "defensive
briefings" to Trump's team given its ongoing investigation of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign
manager.
"If the FBI did provide a defensive briefing or similar warning to the campaign, then that
would raise important questions about how the Trump campaign responded," Grassley wrote in the
letter dated Sept. 20.
If the FBI did not alert the campaign, Grassley said, that would raise "serious questions
about what factors contributed to its decision and why it appears to have been handled
differently in a very similar circumstance involving a previous campaign."
The senator said that according to press reports, U.S. intelligence had raised similar
concerns with John McCain during the Republican senator's 2008 presidential campaign.
"... One possible explanation would simply be that they have all gone nuts. But since this cannot possibly be the case, this leaves just one other explanation: Russiagate itself is a clever but sinister hoax intended to make it look like our political and media class have lost their marbles, therefore undermining our democracy, our values and our way of life ..."
The Russians may have developed the capability to create elaborate hoaxes that turn the US
into a laughing stock in the eyes of outsiders Russell O'Phobe
90
For almost a year, Russia's meddling in last year's election, along with collusion with the
Trump campaign, have dominated the political and media landscape. But an explosive new
classified report produced by US intelligence may be about to blow apart the narrative, and
reveal an even bigger story that has been missed in all the commentary so far.
The report was set up to try to answer two questions: firstly, why is it that after nearly a
year, there still hasn't been a single piece of hard evidence to prove either the hacking or
the collusion? And secondly, given this lack of credible evidence, how is it that the US media
and political classes have been talking about nothing else for months and months without any
sign of letting it go, to the point of giving the impression of being obsessed with the
issue?
The report, which was signed off by all 17 agencies ! that's the DIA, CIA, FBI and NSA !
reaches a conclusion which is nothing short of sensational:
"If there hasn't actually been any hard evidence presented of meddling or collusion, we
must ask the question of how and why the entire political and media class have been talking
about nothing else for months.
One possible explanation would simply be that they have all gone nuts. But since this
cannot possibly be the case, this leaves just one other explanation: Russiagate itself is a
clever but sinister hoax intended to make it look like our political and media class have
lost their marbles, therefore undermining our democracy, our values and our way of life."
"... So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight. ..."
"... People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority". ..."
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media"
in which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure
than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known to be experts
in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips and
E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda or news
management.
@Lot Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret
because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected
those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered,
such as Watergate and Iran Contra. Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most
of them will be crazy.
A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in
secret because they already are in control.
Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed
would have damaging repercussions for them.
For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe
even more so than Johnson.
It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites. After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy
vis a vis Israel was completely reversed under Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out
to dry.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered,
such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
@Chief SeattleSo, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better
recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention.
The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election
to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in
the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling
its proponents to take off their tin foil hats. Note also that the allegations immediately become
"fact" because they were reported by someone else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid
mounting evidence of Russia's involvement in the hack of the Democratic National Committee ,"
without any specificity whatsoever as to what that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple
reports in other media) never mind that the article goes on to quote James Clapper, " we are not
quite ready yet to make a call on attribution." WTF! Here, read it yourself:
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7
Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence
US elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines.
You can't make this s ** t up.
...In the corporate world, it often seems that upper management spends a bulk of their time
conspiring against one another or entering into secret talks to sell the company to a rival, unbeknownst
to the employees or shareholders.
@Alfred1860 I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy
theories, so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about
what are obviously very sacred cows.
People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you
do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have
taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority".
In Dispatch 1035-960 mailed to station chiefs on April 1, 1967, the CIA laid out a series of
"talking points" in its memo addressing the "conspiracy theorists" who were questioning the Warren
Commission's findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They include the following:
Claim that it "would be impossible to conceal" such a large-scale conspiracy.
Claim that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.
Claim that "no significant new evidence has emerged"
Accuse theorists of falling in love with their theories.
Claimed conspiracy theorists are wedded to their theories before the evidence was in.
Accuse theorists of being politically motivated.
Accuse theorists of being financially motivated.
I have found numerous examples of these exact points being made in televised news segments,
newspapers, magazines and even some academic articles and scholarly books.
Additionally, some of the most influential and frequently-cited authors who are the most critical
of "conspiracy theorists", both academic and lay people, have very direct ties to government,
foundations and other institutions of authority.
While we can't know if the CIA was primarily responsible for the creation of the pejorative,
but what we do know from the Church Committee hearings, was that the Agency did have paid operatives
working inside major media organizations as late as the 1970s. In fact, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper
has acknowledged ties to the CIA
With recent lifting of restrictions on the government's use of domestic propaganda with the
Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization
Act, I think reasonable people would expect this type of pejorative construction to resume if
in fact, it ever ceased.
Literally every article I've ever read about conservatives and/or the conservative movement
within the pages of the New Yorker – and I've read going back decades, unfortunately – has judiciously
referenced 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics'.
I mean, EVERY SINGLE article regarding Republicans, conservatives and/or opposition to leftism
has the Hofstadter quote somewhere – it must be a staple on the J-School syllabi.
It seems Prof. Hofstadter was something of an adherent to the Frankfurt School nonsense – Marxism-meets-dime-store-Freud
being every New Yorker writer's stock in trade, of course
@biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret
network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed
conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
"... Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House. ..."
Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was 'unmasking' at such a rapid pace in the final months of
the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 - and even sought information in the
days leading up to President Trump's inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News.
Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced
in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days
of the Obama White House.
Not least of which is the remarkable inactivity of the FBI: for example "The FBI has never
questioned Assange [he
confirms that] or Murray" and neither has it ever looked at the DNC servers.
Nonetheless, every time you think the hysteria has gone as far as it can, it goes a bit
farther: Morgan Freeland joins the
circus.
President Trump's speech yesterday at the United Nations got rave reviews from neocons like
John Bolton and Elliot Abrams. The US president threatened North Korea, Venezuela, Syria,
Yemen, and Iran. At the same time he claimed that the US is the one country to lead by example
rather than by violating the sovereignty of others. Are the neocons on a roll as they push for
more war? Have they "won" Trump?
"... In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California. ..."
"... Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story. ..."
"... Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats". ..."
"... US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China. ..."
"... The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth. ..."
"... The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect. ..."
"... In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site. ..."
There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged flag-waving
"patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and able to make mischief.
For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet
states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews also
emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400 thousand
Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent) hail from Ukraine.
Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the nations of Russia or Ukraine,
and quite capable of all manner of mischief.
A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's parents
were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979 when their
son was five years old.
Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns
YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.
In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military contractors like SAIC,
Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.
Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and make
it universally accessible and useful".
In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey
Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of bias: "We
believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not
only to the information people pay for you to see."
The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully reworded
version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing evil".
This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and engaging
in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for you.
Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.
In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded Organised
Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New York City. Google
Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song and dance via their
YouTube page.
Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing imagery
in Google Earth.
Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses satellite images provided
by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of Defense (DoD) with deep connections
to both the military and intelligence communities.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under the
United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States Intelligence
Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital Globe as "a true
mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of Directors of Digital
Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA.
Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy" scandal,
it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload data, including
personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical addresses, and a conversation
between two married individuals planning an extra-marital affair were all cited by the FCC. In
a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for
overriding privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty
the Federal Trade Commission had ever imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as
little more than symbolic for a company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.
Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA. In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel invested
"under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded. The company
developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter accounts.
In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily
invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California.
Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.
Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior Fellow
at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank. Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high
confidence" it was "Russian hackers". "But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted
in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post interview.
Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative
US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against
"threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".
The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive
operations.
Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications Headquarters
(GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military operations. US military
cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose commander is also the head
of the NSA.
US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting
public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create
a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China.
The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have
been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations
are purely defensive is a myth.
Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating uncertainty
and concern within the American government and population.
The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring
communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect.
In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in
tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics
of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded
by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives (DNI).
Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in news verification".
In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man" now
busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins' role
as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.
Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of disinformation
operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their "online investigations".
The Atlantic Council donors list includes:
– US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army, US Marines.
– The NATO military alliance
– Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon,
BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips, and Dow Chemical
– Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at least $1 million),
Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland, Embassy of Latvia, Estonian
Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia
– Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),
Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of New America Foundation),
Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security), Center for Middle East Policy at
Brookings Institution.
Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and was
principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.
Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a
co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster anti-Russian
propaganda:
Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And none
of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been pioneered
by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use social media
forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)
However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by government
sources is an obvious lie.
Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a set
of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the
Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian government official
Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.
Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western intelligence's
"hybrid war" against Russia.
The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his service
to the Atlantic Council:
"an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international alliance
of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped inaugurate open-source
and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of data uploaded constantly on
to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed extraordinary findings, including
linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia, uncovering details about the August 21st 2013
Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian
conflict. Recently he has worked with the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight",
which used open source information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."
While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to mention
that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.
King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a Senior
Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author of the April
2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.
The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from
September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and Director
of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian political
transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the Special Coordinator
for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the Special Envoy for Middle East
Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had been a Resident Senior Fellow in
the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East since November 2012, and assumed
the position as Director in May 2016.
There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the
"regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.
Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake "citizen
investigative journalist" Higgins.
"... add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people. ..."
"... "It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus." ..."
"... one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA ..."
"... Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012) ..."
"... The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program: ..."
"... Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS). ..."
"... Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet. ..."
"... But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives ..."
"... I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well ..."
"... What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy. ..."
"... Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan. ..."
"... As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/ ..."
"... While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around. ..."
"... That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable. ..."
"... Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back). ..."
"... I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. ..."
"... Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal. ..."
"... His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo ..."
"... John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads. ..."
"... WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria. ..."
"... The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government. ..."
"... Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. ..."
"... b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners. ..."
"... NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. ..."
"... Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks. ..."
Rasheed Al Jijakli,[the CEO of a check-cashing business who lives in Walnut,] along with three
co-conspirators, allegedly transported day and night vision rifle scopes, laser boresighters used
to adjust sights on firearms for accuracy when firing, flashlights, radios, a bulletproof vest,
and other tactical equipment to Syrian fighters.
...
If Jijakli is found guilty, he could face 50 years in prison . Jijakli's case is being prosecuted
by counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys. An FBI investigation,
in coordination with other agencies, is ongoing.
CIA director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old
effort to arm and train Syrian rebels
...
Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs [...] and reports that some of the
CIA-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda
...
In the summer of 2012, David H. Petraeus , who was then CIA director, first proposed a covert
program of arming and training rebels
...
[ Mr. Obama signed] a presidential finding authorizing the CIA to covertly arm and train small
groups of rebels
-...
John O. Brennan , Mr. Obama's last CIA director, remained a vigorous defender of the program
...
When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Where are the counterintelligence
and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys prosecuting them? Those three men engaged in the
exactly same trade as Mr. Jijakil did, but on a much larger scale. They should be punished on an
equally larger scale.
*Note:
The NYT story is largely a whitewash. It claims that the CIA paid "moderate" FSA rebels stormed
Idleb governate in 2015. In fact al-Qaeda and Ahrar al Sham were leading the assault. It says
that costs of the CIA program was "more than $1 billion over the life of the program" when CIA
documents show that it was over $1 billion
per year and likely much more than $5 billion in total. The story says that the program started
in 2013 while the CIA has been providing arms to the Wahhabi rebels since at least fall 2011.
Posted by b on August 3, 2017 at 05:15 AM |
Permalink
India and Pakistan spends insane amounts of money because Pakistan arms "rebels" both countries
could use that money for many other things. Especially Pakistan which has a tenth the economy
of India. BUT Pakistan is controlled by the military or MIC so arming terrorists is more important
than such things as schools and power supplies etc. Their excuse is India is spending so much
on arms. Which India says is because in large part due to Pakistan. US says well move those 2
million troops to attack China instead. Everyone is happy except the population in those 3 countries
which lack most things except iphones. Which makes US extremely happy.
It would interesting to get to the truth about Brennan. Is he an islamist himself? Did he actually
convert to islam in Saudi Arabia? Lots of stories out there.
Has he been acting as a covert agent against his own country for years?Selling out the entire
west and every christian on the planet. Time to find this out, methinks.
Is treason in the USA
a death penalty issue?. Its certainly what he deserves.
"a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels."
A four year effort to arm the f**kers? Doubtful it was an effort to arm them, but training
them to act in the hegemon's interests... like upholders of democracy and humanitarian... headchopping
is just too much of an attraction
"7,000 Syrian refugees and fighters return home from Lebanon"
The 'al-Qaeda linked' fighters are mostly foreigners, paid mercenaries. They have been dumped
in Idlib along with the other terrorists. In the standard reconciliation process, real Syrians
are given the option of returning home if they renounce violence and agree to a political solution.
Fake Syrians are dumped in with the foreigners. The real Syrian fighters who reconcile have to
join the SAA units to fight against ISIS etc.
ISIS fighters were encouraged to bring their families with them (for use as human shields and
to provide settlers for the captured territory). ISIS documents recovered from Mosul indicate
that unmarried foreign mercenaries fighting with them were provided with a wife (how does that
work? do the women volunteer or are they 'volunteered'?), a car and other benefits. These families
and hangers-on would probably be the 'Syrian refugees'.
On a side note, the Kurds have released a video showing the training of special forces belonging
to their allies, the 'Syrian Defense Force' (composed largely of foreigners again). The SDF fighters
fly the FSA flag, ie they are the carefully vetted moderate head chopping rebels beloved of the
likes of McCain.
"It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable
as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's
choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change
one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what
were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan
consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness
to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the
perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus."
My own addition to the Brennan record:
Brennan was station chief for the CIA in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the planning period for
9/11. The Saudi rulers do not use the US embassy as their first point of contact with Washington,
they use the CIA Brennan moved back to the US some time in (late?) 1999. The first 9/11 Saudi
hijackers arrived on US shores in January 2000. Brennan was made CIA chief of staff to Director
Tenet in 1999 and Deputy Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001.
The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades long relationship
between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured
through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan
and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert.
In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities.
... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the
extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial
support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen
current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most
spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.
From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.
...
The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was
known as the "Safari Club" -- a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France -- that
ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings
over years of abuses.
...
Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the
administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut
off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through
a Cayman Islands bank account.
When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom
kept its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by Lawrence
E. Walsh, the independent counsel.
In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences
and commitments, like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."
one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh
is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats
recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The
Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy
Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA
Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were
either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change
purposes (as in Libya and Syria):
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012)
In particular:
A fourth trend is that the Arab Spring has become a springboard for playing great-power geopolitics.
Syria, at the center of the region's sectarian fault lines, has emerged as the principal
battleground for such Cold War-style geopolitics. Whereas Russia is intent on keeping its only
military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus, the U.S.
seems equally determined to install a pro-Western regime in Damascus.
This goal prompted Washington to set up a London-based television station that began broadcasting
to Syria a year before major protests began there. The U.S. campaign, which includes
assembling a coalition of the willing, has been boosted by major Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and
UAE help, including cross-border flow of arms into Syria and the establishment of two new petrodollar-financed,
jihad-extolling television channels directed at Syria's majority Sunni Arabs.
The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis
(c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines,
air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon
Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program:
Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton
also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe,
Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone
damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS).
Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq,
claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have
their own separate charge sheet.
Send the lot to Scheveningen
Prison - for the most notorious war criminals. Pretty luxurious as prisons go, by all accounts.
But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy
to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks
so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see:
'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives
Within the Outlaw US Empire alone, there're several thousand people deserving of those 5,000 year
sentences, not just the three b singled out. But b does provide a great service for those of us
who refuse to support terrorists and terrorism by not paying federal taxes by providing proof
of that occurring. I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially
the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic
law as well. Thanks b!
it's the usa!!!! no one in gov't is held accountable.. obama wants to move on, lol... look forward,
not backward... creating a heaping pile of murder, mayhem and more in other parts of the world,
but never examine any of it, or hold anyone accountable.. it is the amerikkkan way...
What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks?
Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK
since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired
mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit.
Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread
the joy.
Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes
that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing
plan.
As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis
that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal
activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would
be brought to light.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/
While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes
for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's
probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around.
That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head
into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable.
At least with Trump, we can clearly witness his idiocy and grasp the level of at least some
of his damage.
Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly
or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth
suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing.
Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to
see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's
doofus back).
Agree with b. NYT is worthless. Limited hangout for sure.
I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. He'll
bring it down without going true believer on us, a la Clinton and ilk who were busy scheduling
the apocalypse.
Trump has not been tested yet with a rapidly deteriorating economy which as we all know is
coming. Something is in the air and Trump will have to face it sooner or later. The weight of
the anger of millions will be behind it...will it be too late? Will Trump finally go MAGA in what
he promised: Glas-Steagall, making trade fair for US interests, dialing back NATO...etc. etc.
I fear he can not articulate the issues at hand, like Roosevelt or Hitler. He is too bumbling.
I guess really we can only hope for an avoidance of WW. Will the world even weep for a third world
USA?
Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria
has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies
would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.
John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington
for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would,"
McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition
in Syria.
"We certainly did that in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we provided
them with surface-to-air capability. It'd be nice to give people that we train and equip and send
them to fight the ability to defend themselves. That's one of the fundamental principles of warfare
as I understand it," McCain said.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201510201028835944-us-stingers-missiles-syrian-rebels-mccain/
They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland
to the list of criminals hiding under their position.
The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador
to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief
architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of
the Syrian government.
Ford assured us that those taking up arms to overthrow the Syrian government were simply moderates
and democrats seeking to change Syria's autocratic system. Anyone pointing out the obviously Islamist
extremist nature of the rebellion and the foreign funding and backing for the jihadists was written
off as an Assad apologist or worse.
Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting
moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington
was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates
he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. Witness this incredible Twitter exchange
with then-ex Ambassador Ford:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/you-wont-believe-what-former-us-ambassador-robert-s-ford-said-about-al-qaedas-syrian-allies/5504906
Specially Petraeus. A US Army General, and director of the CIA You don't get more 'pillar'
of the State than that! And off he goes doing illegal arms trades, in the billions, see for ex.
Meyssan, as an ex.:
In other countries / times, he'd be shot at dawn as a traitor. But all it shows really is that
the USA does not really have a Gvmt. in the sense of a 'political structure of strong regulatory
importance with 'democratic' participation..' to keep it vague.. It has an elaborate public charade,
a kind of clumsy theatre play, that relies very heavily on the scripted MSM, on ritual, and various
distractions. Plus natch' very vicious control mechanisms at home.. another story.
Meanwhile, off stage, the actors participate and fight and ally in a whole other scene where
'disaster capitalism', 'rapine', 'mafia moves' and the worst impulses in human nature not only
bloom but are institutionalised and deployed world-wide! Covering all this up is getting increasingly
difficult -Trump presidency - one would hope US citizens no not for now.
The other two of course as well, I just find Petraeus emblematic, probably because of all the
BS about his mistress + he once mis-treated classified info or something like that, total irrelevance
spun by the media, which works.
"They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron
and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position."
I humbly disagree, and they sincerely believe they are helping the Syrians (plus other states)
- freedom and democracy against the brutality of Dr. Assad. I believe all these murderers are
sincere doing god works and will all go to heaven. That is one of the reasons why I refuse to
go to heaven even if gods beg me. Fuck it!
My apologies if I offend you or anyone. It's about time we look carefully beside politic and
wealth, what religion does to a human?
b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never...
Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice,
for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners.
You can include ALL the POTUS's
and their minions, since the turn of the century. " It's just business, get over it."
6 Look for signs of instigating violent behavior. As children some sociopaths torture defenseless
people and animals. This violence is always instigating, and not defensive violence. They will
create drama out of thin air, or twist what others say. They will often overreact strongly
to minor offenses. If they are challenged or confronted about it, they will point the finger
the other way, counting on the empathic person's empathy and consideration of people to protect
them, as long as they can remain undetected. Their attempt to point the finger the other way,
is both a smokescreen to being detected, and an attempt to confuse the situation.
The link is a pretty good summary. It is easy to find more respectable psychological sources
for the disorder on the internet.
NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation)
that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird.
It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and
manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives.
/s
" Here, evolution had hit on the sweetest of solutions. Such perceptions were guaranteed
to produce a faith-dependent species that believed itself to be thoroughly separate from the rest
of the animal kingdom, ...."
Interesting article, but stop reading years ago when struggled to raise a family, make a living
to survive. Debatable Is "sociopath" (Antisocial Personality Disorder) or the genes make humanly
so brutally? Very often hard to fathom the depth of human suffering be it USA, Syria or elsewhere.
Thanks sharing you thought.
What most of the msm and the echo chamber seem to be deliberately missing is all intentional.
The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime
change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians
hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo
antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever
turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the
free world ,debunked.
Hence I expect that the western oligarchs along with their pressitute
and compromised politicians will be bying up alot of bleach. They will be whitewashing for the
next three months all semblance of anything related to their fraudulent existence.
Nurenberg 2, the Hague would be to soft for these vile criminals of humanity. Look how they
had to back track on the Milosevic conviction mind u post death.
Just another day in the office for these criminals of humanity. Gee can't wait until this petro-dollar
ponzi scheme crashes hopefully we can get back o being human again. The emperor has no clothes.
43 The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their
regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the
Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion
of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come
out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading
and hacking the free world,debunked.
Optimistic. Has Trump been instrumental in these? Perhaps. This would be a good reason for
Zionists to hate him. But how is it that Trump is such a bumbling idiot? Now the Senate has ratfcked
him with recess appointments. And he signed that stupid Russia Sanctions bill.
Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived
and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks.
The key problem with the "official" story of DNS hack is the role of Crowdstrike and
strangely coincident murder of Seth Rich. Que bono analysis here might also help: the
main beneficiary of "Russian hack" story was Hillary camp as it allowed them to put a smoke screen
shadowing allegation that they nefariously has thrown Sanders under the bus. A very serious
allegation which has substantial supporting evidence. In a way they were fighting for their
lives. Also Imran Awan
story is omitted from the official narrative. Was not this another proved large scale hacking case?
They also have a motive and opportunity in DNC case.
Notable quotes:
"... The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't involved. There's nothing more to it than that. ..."
"... As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks with the DNC emails. ..."
"... He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders' ..."
"... Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists." . ..."
"... Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election. ..."
"... 'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that." ..."
"... Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year now. ..."
"... But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case? ..."
"... Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump? How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator called "The crime of the century"? ..."
"... "It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden) ..."
"... What the author is saying is that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple. ..."
"... But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists. Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers? ..."
"... The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense. ..."
"... "The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access. ..."
"... 4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ." ..."
"... The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious doubt on their conclusions? ..."
"... It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people. ..."
"... "Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. – That information has never been disclosed." ..."
"... What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg. ..."
"... Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest. ..."
"... Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.) and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome. Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global rival. ..."
"... Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations. Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016. The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance." In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers were hacked from Romania.) ..."
"... "There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation) ..."
"... Read the whole report here: " Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge ", Skip Folden, Word Press. ..."
A new report by a retired IT executive at IBM, debunks the claim that Russia interfered in the
2016 presidential campaign by hacking Democratic computers and circulating damaging information about
Hillary Clinton. The report, which is titled "
The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian
Hacking Charge ", provides a rigorous examination of the wobbly allegations upon which the hacking
theory is based, as well as a point by point rejection of the primary claims which, in the final
analysis, fail to pass the smell test. While the report is worth reading in full, our intention is
to zero-in on the parts of the text that disprove the claims that Russia meddled in US elections
or hacked the servers at the DNC.
Let's start with the fact that there are at least two credible witnesses who claim to know who
took the DNC emails and transferred them to WikiLeaks. We're talking about WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange and WikiLeaks ally, Craig Murray. No one is in a better position to know who actually took
the emails than Assange, and yet, Assange has repeatedly said that Russia was not the source. Check
out this clip from the report:
Assange has been adamant all along that the Russian government was not a source; it was a
non-state player.
ASSANGE: Our source is not a state party
HANNITY (Conservative talk show host): Can you say to the American people unequivocally that
you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails -- can you tell the American
people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia
ASSANGE: Yes.
HANNITY: or anybody associated with Russia?
ASSANGE: We -- we can say and we have said repeatedly over the last two months, that our source
is not the Russian government and it is not a state party
("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
Can you think of a more credible witness than Julian Assange? The man has devoted his entire adult
life to exposing the truth about government despite the risks his actions pose to his own personal
safety. In fact, he is currently holed up at the Ecuador embassy in London for defending the public's
right to know what their government is up to. Does anyone seriously think that a man like that would
deliberately lie just to protect Russia's reputation?
No, of course not, and the new report backs him up on this matter. It states: "No where in the
Intelligence Community's Assessment (ICA) was there any evidence of any connection between Russia
and WikiLeaks." The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't
involved. There's nothing more to it than that.
As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks
with the DNC emails. Check out this except from an article at The Daily Mail:
(Murray) "flew to Washington, D.C. for emails. He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near
American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust
at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field
against Bernie Sanders'
Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside
leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks
published did not come from that,' Murray insists." .
Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was
given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S.
presidential election.
'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they
must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC,
the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that."
(EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide
Clinton emails", Daily Mail)
Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible
witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish
whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already
done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year
now.
But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI
has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's
like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case?
Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed
political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't
that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump?
How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator
called "The crime of the century"?
Here's something else from the report that's worth mulling over:
"It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back
to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the
ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent
Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
This is a crucial point, so let's rephrase that in simple English. What the author is saying is
that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple.
But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that
connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists.
Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence
that Russia hacked the DNC servers?
Why? Why this conspiracy of silence on a matter that is so fundamental to the case that the NSA
and the other Intel agencies are trying to make?
The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why
else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense.
According to the media, Intelligence agents familiar with the matter have "high confidence' that
Russia was involved.
Okay, but where's the proof? You can't expect to build a case against a foreign government and
a sitting president with just "high confidence". You need facts, evidence, proof. Where's the beef?
We already mentioned how the FBI never bothered to question the only eyewitnesses in the case.
That's odd enough, but what's even stranger is the fact that the FBI never seized the DNC's servers
so they could conduct a forensic examination of them. What's that all about? Here's an excerpt from
the report:
"The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC
server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access.
The apparent single source of information on the purported DNC intrusion(s) was from Crowdstrike.
3. Crowdstrike is a cyber security firm hired by the Democratic Party.
4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only
picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ."
( "The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge)
Have you ever read anything more ridiculous in your life? The FBI's negligence in this case goes
beyond anything I've ever seen before. Imagine if a murder was committed in the apartment next to
you and the FBI was called in to investigate. But when they arrive at the scene of the crime, they're
blocked at the door by the victim's roommate who refuses to let them in. Speaking through the door,
the roommate assures the agents that the victim was shot dead with a single bullet to the head, and
that the smoking gun that was used in the murder is still on the floor. But "don't worry", says the
obstructing roommate, "I've already photographed the whole thing and I'll send you the pictures as
soon as I get the chance."
Do you really think the agents would put up with such nonsense?
Never! They'd kick down the door, slap the roommate in handcuffs, cordon-off the murder scene,
and start digging-around for clues. That's what they'd do. And yet we are supposed to believe that
in the biggest case of the decade, a case that that allegedly involves foreign espionage and presidential
treason, that the FBI has made no serious effort to secure the servers that were allegedly hacked
by Russia?
The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within
their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can
trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious
doubt on their conclusions?
It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to
"stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole
Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are
all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.
Here's another interesting clip from the report:
"Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged
email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and
May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. –
That information has never been disclosed."
("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
Read that excerpt over again. It's mind boggling. What Carter is saying is that, they have nothing,
no evidence, no proof, no nothing. If you don't have a disk image, then what do you have?
You have nothing, that's what. Which means that everything we've read is 100 percent conjecture,
not a shred of evidence anywhere. Which is why the focus has shifted to Manafort, Flynn, Trump Jr
and the goofy Russian lawyer?
Who gives a rip about Manafort? Seriously? The investigation started off with grave allegations
of foreign espionage and presidential collusion (treason?) and quickly downshifted to the illicit
financial dealings of someone the American people could care less about. Talk about mission creep!
What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia
to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year
of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg.
A few words about the ICA Report
Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to
provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The
media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment
and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest.
Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated
in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.)
and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director
hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome.
Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention
was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global
rival. And the report was moderately successful in that regard too, except for one paradoxical
disclaimer that appeared on page 13. Here it is:
"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.
Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well
as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
What the authors are saying is that, 'Everything you read in this report could be complete baloney
because it's all based on conjecture, speculation and guesswork.'
Isn't that what they're saying? Why would anyone waste their time reading a report when the authors
openly admit that their grasp of what happened is "incomplete or fragmentary" and they have no "proof"
of anything?
Gregory Copley, President, International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA) summed it up best
when he said: "This is a highly politically motivated and a subjective report which was issued by
the intelligence community. does not present evidence of successful or even an attempt to actually
actively manipulate the election process."
Like we said, it's all baloney.
Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations.
Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016.
The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance."
In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they
were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence
that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers
were hacked from Romania.)
The Nation summed it up perfectly in this brief paragraph:
"There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not
by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed
locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside
job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last
Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation)
Bingo.
Bottom line: A dedicated group of independent researchers and former Intel agents joined forces
and produced the first hard evidence that "the official narrative implicating Russia" is wrong. This
is a stunning development that will, in time, cut through the fog of government propaganda and reveal
the truth. Skip Folden's report is an important contribution to that same effort.
In related news, Craig Murray is now being sued for libel in the UK over specious accusations
stemming from the Jeremy Corbyn 'anti-Semitism' scandal. Murry writes:
I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Jake Wallis Simons, Associate
Editor of the Daily Mail Online. Mr Wallis Simons is demanding Ł40,000 in damages and the High
Court has approved over Ł100,000 in costs for Mark Lewis, Mr Wallis Simons' lawyer. I may become
liable for all of this should I lose the case, and furthermore I have no money to pay for my
defence. I am currently a defendant in person. This case has the potential to bankrupt me and
blight the lives of my wife and children. I have specifically been threatened by Mr Lewis with
bankruptcy.
Britain is notorious for having libel laws with a reversed burden of proof , meaning
that the defendant (in this case, Murray) must prove himself innocent! Some shady plaintiffs,
when jurisdiction-shopping for a libel case, have been known to try and file libel charges in
Britain for this very reason.
The ICA report was a joke to anyone with rudimentary internet skills. It had a page of infographics
featuring the iconic hacker-in-a-hoodie, a short list of perps ("hairyBear69″ etc etc) and the
rest of it looked like a generic corporate PowerPoint on good cyber security practices. The media
of course acted like it was all damning evidence of collusion.
Reading Unz Review you will be better off replacing the word "Jew" with the term "the member
of financial oligarchy". That's also will be more correct as tribal interests of financial oligarchy
are the same as attributed to Jews in Protocols of Zion Elders...
The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part
in the assessment and that it's (sic) conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis
of America's finest.
Well, at the time, I, and probably most other people of moderate intelligence, said: "It is
highly unlikely that all seventeen intelligence agencies have carried out independent investigations
and come to identical conclusions without any of them being able to produce hard evidence. So
this can safely be dismissed as bullshit."
People are not stupid, just like almost no one believed in Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Apparently Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were the only people who were fooled. And Hillary
Clinton also believed that she came under fire in Serbia, having been sent as First Lady to a
place where it was too dangerous for the President to go, even though he had been there in person
only a few months earlier.
The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand
down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole
Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media
are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.
I'm not sure that the FBI and CIA operatives are having a good laugh. To some extent they ARE
the American people, and will have some basic ideas of justice and honesty. Their political masters
can bribe and coerce them but there are limits to the efficiency of a (US) system run on fear
and greed.
Despite the massive amount of evidence exposing the fraudulent nature of the story the media
keeps going along based on the assumption that the lies are facts. Many if not most of those who
consume the media propaganda continue to believe this crap. It is a sort of 21st century iteration
of Goebbels propaganda but with the risk of nuclear war.
Until recently, people believed. They believed in The System (and the System's Narrative) more
fervently than did their 14th Century European ancestors believe in Christianity.
They believed we could all get rich by Government and corporations issuing more and more and
more debt. They believed that a promise to pay future cash flows, from Social Security or a Teacher's
Pension or a Treasury Bond maturing, it was ALL as certain as if the money was already sitting
on a table in front of their eyes.
Every institution in the West is being destroyed from within by the very people who staff it
and who count on it for financial income. Those working in The News make stuff up out of whole
cloth, apparently believing that a public that sees their output as fiction will continue to fund
the channel that accrues to their paycheck. The same holds true of FB and social media. Government
officials can't keep their lies straight anymore, and everywhere we look we see a wave of awakening,
as members of the public each come to reframe that which they can see.
We are past apogee on the wave of pathological trust. The path ahead is of growing distrust,
and while healthy in part, it will likely overshoot a better place by as much on the downside
as it trust overshot wisdom on the upside.
View everything with distrust and suspicion; by doing so now, you'll be the rush.
It's exasperating but the strategy from the beginning has been psychological, not evidence-based,
and it has been working.
All they have to do is keep repeating the three words Russia, Trump, and Hacking in close proximity
to one another. They got the vast majority of people to believe Saddam Hussein did 9/11. I visit
my mother in a retirement home and the mainstream television media has them completely in their
grip.
I occasionally check in with the nauseating mainstream press or talking head shows, and watched
a gaggle of clowns devolve into a shouting match over Trump/Russia. It was perfectly choreographed
to make sure no coherent sentence, no complete thought was ever uttered. It was just noise – which
is what the CIA is paying for and the producers are serving up.
In the meantime the Awan spy ring in Congress is being investigated by citizen journalists
and studiously ignored by both Congress and the media. Does that tell you anything? They're mostly
either safely blackmailed or paid off. The FBI can't find a crime being committed right in front
of them in broad daylight so long as the criminal is helping out the country with weapons deliveries
to Al Qaeda and ISIS, opium from Afghanistan, and other charitable efforts.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker walk into
the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because that
is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it
was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods
to Murray.
"There is no credible doubt that Russia attacked our election infrastructure in 2016," said
Gillibrand. "We need a public accounting of how they were able to do it so effectively, and
how we can protect our country when Russia or any other nation tries to attack us again. The
clock is ticking before our next election, and these questions are urgent. We need to be able
to defend ourselves against threats to our elections, our democracy, and our sacred right to
vote. I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation to create a 9/11-style Commission
to defend our democracy and protect ourselves against future attacks on our country."
Lying and not realising you created the problem in the first place (Closed-source Diebold QUALITY
machines etc.)
@CalDre Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this
article does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker
walk into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because
that is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed
it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods
to Murray.
This just doesn't advance the ball one iota.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against.
Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you
come from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.
Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind
the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
@El Dato I can't remember hearing much about Sibel Edmond's revelations either recently.
That story disappeared faster than Oswald exiting a bookstore.
At least she's still alive. So true, El Dato. Even after the 29 pages came out and pointed
to Saudi Arabian involvement like suspected, it was just dropped.
Or any number of other ghastly acts like Fast and Furious, the IRS and other organs of government
being used to harass and suppress. We overthrew Ukraine and the mockingbird media made it sound
like it was a Russian invasion, the story could not have been more backwards.
It's the Church Committee, Iran-Contra, and the Rosenberg's except bigger. Judicial Watch keeps
digging out pay-to-play emails. A person would have to be brain dead not to see Comey obstructed
investigations and let them destroy evidence. It is clear Congressmen are implicated directly,
both parties, Clinton and McCain represent all the worst of our corruption. Aiding Al Qaeda and
ISIS.
We have whole shipping containers at a time going to and fro from our ports under diplomatic
immunity. Talk about a grotesque corruption of the diplomatic "pouch" immunity. The USSR did its
industrial and defense espionage through diplomatic immunity, read Major Jordan's Diaries on the
ratline through Alaska via the Lend-Lease program. But now instead of brief cases, it is international
shipping containers.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against.
Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you come
from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.
Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the
hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
You want us to reverse the burden of proof
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second,
it's not reversing the burden of proof – in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of
proof" only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden
of proof submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead,
you know.
in 1947 the national security act was passed which meant politicians can lie to the
American
public as long as the lie is to protect national security. everything is a national security issue
now. Not that politicians weren't liars before the act. but today they have cover. Remember james clapper's lies on tv?
But he also lied to congress. Congress has no balls or they would have prosecuted him. they have
given up their power, of which they have much. particularly when it comes to war. congress declares
it; congress funds it; congress can end it. The bums we elect just know to do one thing – hold out their hands.
I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell it is,
but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth Rich
(?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the DNC's
skivvies.
@JackOH I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell
it is, but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth
Rich (?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the
DNC's skivvies. Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew,
being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.
Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand
him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even
posthumous to be effective.
Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim
Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that
because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate
the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me.
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second, it's
not reversing the burden of proof - in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of proof"
only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden of proof
submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you
know.
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it.
In a technical sense, you are right. Whitney did once above use (or misuse, actually) the word
'disprove' to mean that the other side had failed to prove it's case. But in our legal system,
simply showing that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case is quite sufficient to get your
man acquitted. You don't have to have proof positive of your man's innocence, so long as the prosecution
has no proof of his guilt. Why? Because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Whitney's
semantic gaffe here doesn't change that fundamental fact.
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead,
you know.
He confirmed having met the leaker in person inside the US, though it's true he never mentions
Rich by name. Wikileaks strives to protect the anonymity of their sources wherever possible. However–and
rather tellingly–Assange did offer a cash reward for information leading the arrest of Rich's
murderer(s). Again, Assange did not come out and say plainly that Rich was the source, but it's
hard to imagine him offering a reward for just anybody out there in world with no connection to
Wikileaks whatsoever.
And while Craig Murray may still be alive, as I pointed out above in comment #1, he is now
facing a potentially ruinous trial in Britain. A bit like the mysterious Swedish rape allegations
against Assange, one could argue that this is all just some remarkably timed coincidence; but
then again, it could just as well be the system's way of signalling its displeasure with Murray
for cooperating with Wikileaks.
Microchip, a Twitter user who uses several different accounts and is routinely banned from
the site, told POLITICO the pro-Trump rooms help him spread racist and otherwise controversial
material. His dual aims are to prod the left and entice the media into covering the latest
online controversy he helped stoke.
Microchip said he started several rooms in November 2015. A handful of people in other rooms
confirmed that he was an "early player." But he has been blocked from many rooms because of
his "wild claims," one said, as well as anti-Semitic and inflammatory remarks.
[...] But Microchip, who described himself as an "atheist liberal that just hates immigration"
and transgender people, has open contempt for most of Trump's base.
"Conservatives are generally morons," he said. "It's like herding cats."
He's just as frank about what he's peddling to Trump supporters.
"You know how I know they're spreading lies?" Microchip asked one die-hard this week. "Because
I do the same thing, it's fake news and spin."
[...]
Lotan said Microchip's claims explain the link between the boomer generation in the mainstream
rooms and the younger meme producers on 4chan and reddit.
"The boomers are there, thirsty for ammunition. And 4chan is so good at generating ammunition,"
Lotan said. "But the boomers will not go to 4chan."
People in the mainstream pro-Trump rooms said Microchip had not been active there for many
months. In turn, Microchip said he maintains pseudonymous accounts to hide his identity
from "brain dead" Trump supporters.
@CalDre Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew,
being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.
Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand
him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even
posthumous to be effective.
Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim
Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that
because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate
the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me. CalDre, thanks. This whole
story stinks badly, and the "Russian hack" blather put out on the TV blab shows by Washington
gamesmen just seems to me self-serving careerism.
We're asked to believe that Russian intelligence has gathered damaging information on Hillary
Clinton, then the front-runner among Democrat candidates, by hacking the DNC's computers. Then,
instead of reserving this information to blackmail a future President Hillary Clinton, they turn
the information over to Julian Assange. Why in hell would I, i. e ., Russian intelligence,
squander good leverage over President Hillary? Are we expected to believe Russian intelligence
actually thought it could swing an election by using Assange as a sort of sub-contractor?
Seth Rich, on the other hand, is an idealistic, low-level guy who has a strong motive to hurt
the organization that's betrayed him.
As I mentioned, my knowledge of the story is pretty superficial, but it really does seem to
me a pile of horse dung.
Even if Russia tried to interfere in USA elections, what is it in comparison with the CIA organising
the murder of Allende, or Soros trying to change Hungarian law ?
This is great news. The fraudulent stories about Russia and Trump are great news. The other
deep state and shadow government false propaganda are great news. This is because the level of
this false propaganda is so low, so poor, so unbelievable, that sane people wake up and withdraw
any allegiance to the sources of this misinformation. It is great news, because many of the politically
insane citizens are becoming sane due to the misinformation being so obviously a pack of lies,
that even they have to think differently.
By the way, Great Article!
@Seamus Padraig Forgive me if I am out of date but to say that there is a reverse burden of
proof in libel cases in Britain (sic – Scotland too?) is BS according to my recollection. (I set
aside the possibility that you S P are confusing a civil tort action with a criminal prosecution
although your use of the wňrd "innocence" suggests that you may be).
Here's how it was for at least 150 years. Once the court decided that the words complained
of were defamatory so at least some general damages were possibly claimable (maybe a farthing
which meant the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant's costs) the defendant had several possible
avenues of defence. One was that the words were true. If you call a man a thief you have committed
an assault on his reputation and you had better have some justification for that. Are you really
complaining about that? Complain all you like about so-called "stop writs" where a (typically)
rich plaintiff starts proceedings which he suspects the defendant will not have the means to defend
properly, and then just sits on the cade having achieved intimidation.
Then there is the defense of "fair comment on a matter of public interest" which is available
to the defendant even if he can't prove the truth of his libel. Logically that can't succeed if
the defendant is found to have been actuated by malice.
Finally, without pretending to cover the whole subject, the defendant can contend and provide
evidence that the plaintiff had no good reputation to lose.
Having read the link I see that it does look like a move to shut him up. If the plaintiff wanted
real compensation he would be suing Sky Television which didn't cut the defamatory remarks. Or
has that been settled by an apology – which wouldn't be usual for Sky would it?
I am intrigued by the Ł100,000 costs approved by the court. Presumably this is some procedural
innovation which was introduced well after I learned about libel actions and which could be justified
.. except it surely leaves the law looking like an ass if the damages clImed are only Ł40,000!
Finally .can you tell us what the actual libel was? What did Murray say? This is a US site
so the First Amendment should look after us.
The most interesting thing in your Comment is what you claimed to have found
by your "background checks" on the new Senator Obama. What can you tell us to substantiate the
novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA What sources? What relationships?
What facts?
All signs of sophisticated false flag operation, which probably involved putting malware into DNC servers and then
detecting and analyzing them
Notable quotes:
"... 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. ..."
"... The Smoking Gun ..."
"... I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. ..."
"... Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source. ..."
"... Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/ ..."
"... I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents. ..."
"... It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out ..."
"... Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect"). ..."
"... Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money. ..."
"... One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet? ..."
"... Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post: ..."
"... His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on. ..."
"... The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia. ..."
"... None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak. ..."
Notwithstanding the conventional wisdom that Russia hacked into the DNC computers, downloaded emails and a passed the stolen missives
to Julian Assange's crew at Wikileaks, a careful examination of the timeline of events from 2016 shows that this story is simply
not plausible.
Let me take you through the known facts:
1. 29 April 2016 , when the DNC became aware its servers had been penetrated (https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f).
Note. They apparently did not know who was doing it. 2, 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian
presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of
the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The
hacking apparently continues unabated. 3. 25 May 2016. The messages published on Wikileaks from the DNC show that 26 May 2016
was the last date that emails were sent and received at the DNC. There are no emails in the public domain after that date. In other
words, if the DNC emails were taken via a hacking operation, we can conclude from the fact that the last messages posted to Wikileaks
show a date time group of 25 May 2016. Wikileaks has not reported nor posted any emails from the DNC after the 25th of May. I think
it is reasonable to assume that was the day the dirty deed was done. 4. 12 June 2016, CrowdStrike purged the DNC server of all malware.
Are you kidding me? 45 days after the DNC discovers that its serve has been penetrated the decision to purge the DNC server is finally
made. What in the hell were they waiting for? But this also tells us that 18 days after the last email "taken" from the DNC, no additional
emails were taken by this nasty malware. Here is what does not make sense to me. If the DNC emails were truly hacked and the malware
was still in place on 11 June 2016 (it was not purged until the 12th) then why are there no emails from the DNC after 26 May 2016?
an excellent analysis of Guccifer's role : Almost immediately after the one-two punch of the Washington Post article/CrowdStrike
technical report went public, however, something totally unexpected happened -- someone came forward and took full responsibility
for the DNC cyber attack. Moreover, this entity -- operating under the persona Guccifer 2.0 (ostensibly named after the original
Guccifer , a Romanian hacker who stole the emails of a number of high-profile celebrities and who was arrested in 2014 and sentenced
to 4 ˝ years of prison in May 2016) -- did something no state actor has ever done before, publishing documents stolen from the DNC
server as proof of his claims.
Hi. This is Guccifer 2.0 and this is me who hacked Democratic National Committee.
With that simple email, sent to the on-line news magazine,
The Smoking
Gun , Guccifer 2.0 stole the limelight away from Alperovitch. Over the course of the next few days, through a series of
emails, online posts and
interviews
, Guccifer 2.0 openly mocked CrowdStrike and its Russian attribution. Guccifer 2.0 released a number of documents, including a massive
200-plus-missive containing opposition research on Donald Trump.
Guccifer 2.0 also directly contradicted the efforts on the part of the DNC to minimize the extent of the hacking,
releasing the very donor lists
the DNC specifically stated had not been stolen. More chilling, Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be in possession of "about 100 Gb of data"
which had been passed on to the online publisher, Wikileaks, who "will publish them soon." 7. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016.
I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter,
was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them
from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered
$20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails
starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over
the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred.Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion
that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative.Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible.
That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from
a Russian source.
Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich.
In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found
a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national
cybersecurity:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/
Seth Rich's family have pleaded, and continue to plead, that the conspiracy theorists leave the death of their son alone and have
said that those who continue to flog this nonsense around the internet are only serving to increase their pain. I suggest respectfully
that some here may wish to consider their feelings. (Also, this stuff is nuts, you know.)
"We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking
you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth's memory and legacy for their own
political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare."
"Wheeler, a former Metropolitan Police Department officer, was a key figure in a series of debunked stories claiming that Rich
had been in contact with Wikileaks before his death. Fox News, which reported the story online and on television, retracted it
in June."
I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly
says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents.
It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow
the truth to come out.
Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same
organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council
- are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect").
Take note how Alperovitch coded the names of the supposed hackers: "Russian intelligence services hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computer network and accessed opposition research on Donald Trump, according to the Atlantic Council's Dmitri Alperovitch.
Two Russian groups ! codenamed FancyBear and CozyBear ! have been identified as spearheading the DNC breach." Alperovitch
is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money.
The DNC hacking story has never been about national security; Alperovitch (and his handlers) have no loyalty to the US.
PT, I make a short exception. Actually decided to stop babbling for a while. But: Just finished something successfully.
And since I usually need distraction by something far more interesting then matters at hand. I was close to your line of thought
yesters.
But really: Shouldn't the timeline start in 2015, since that's supposedly the time someone got into the DNC's system?
One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and
pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet?
But nevermind. Don't forget developments and recent events around Eugene or Jewgeni Walentinowitsch Kasperski?
The Russia thing certainly seems to have gone quiet.
Bannon's chum says the issue with pursuing the Clinton email thing is that you would end up having to indict almost all of
the last administration, including Obama, unseemly certainly. Still there might be a fall guy, maybe Comey, and obviously it serves
Trump's purposes to keep this a live issue through the good work of Grassley and the occasional tweet.
Would be amusing if Trump pardoned Obama. Still think Brennan should pay a price though, can't really be allowed to get away
with it
Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack.
You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post:
Also, the article Carr references is very important for understanding the limits of malware analysis and "attribution". Written
by Michael Tanji, whose credentials appear impressive: "spent nearly 20 years in the US intelligence community. Trained in both
SIGINT and HUMINT disciplines he has worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National
Reconnaissance Office. At various points in his career he served as an expert in information warfare, computer network operations,
computer forensics, and indications and warning. A veteran of the US Army, Michael has served in both strategic and tactical assignments
in the Pacific Theater, the Balkans, and the Middle East."
His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches.
Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation,
and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on.
The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of
an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt
to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which
everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that
Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia.
None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally
anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks
email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak.
And Russiagate depends primarily on BOTH alleged "facts" being true: 1) that Russia hacked the DNC, and 2) that Russia was
the source of Wikileaks release. And if the latter is not true, then one has to question why Russia hacked the DNC in the first
place, other than for "normal" espionage operations. "Influencing the election" then becomes a far less plausible theory.
The general takeaway from an infosec point of view is that attribution by means of target identification, tools used, and "indicators
of compromise" is a fatally flawed means of identifying, and thus being able to counter, the adversaries encountered in today's
Internet world, as Tanji proves. Only HUMINT offers a way around this, just as it is really the only valid option in countering
terrorism.
"... Soros you say. I wondered why it reminded me of the "Color Revolutions" of eastern Europe. I suppose they'd be banging pots and pans together except their utensils of choice are Styrofoam take-out containers. ..."
"... "Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media," Sanders said in a statement. "People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer." ..."
"... Listen to this final Trump ad. Except for the illegal immigration sentence, this is vintage Sanders ..."
"... I don't think Trump really matters at the moment. What happened to the Borg (my first use of this term, still not sure) is what is important. It doesn't matter if Trump is a Sheldon Adelson lap dog, the MSM has been shamed, the Anglo-Zionists have coped a reversal, and the American people have woken from a long slumber. Stop following the bouncing ball, the world has caught up to itself is a giant leap, the future is no longer written. ..."
"The Art of the Deal?" revisited on 6 September 2017 I posted this just after DJT became president. In light of today's DJT
agreement with the Democrats over McConnell and Ryans' heads it seems of continued relevance.
pl
**************
"First, the President-elect must make a stab at uniting the country, after
a scorched-earth campaign in which he consciously tore at the nation's gender, racial and
economic fault lines to build a movement to win power. He's practicing some unusual humility.
"I pledge to every citizen of our lands that I will be the president for the American people,"
Trump said in his victory speech Tuesday. "For those who have chosen not to support me in the
past, for which there were a few people, I'm reaching out to you for your guidance and your
help so we can work together and unify our great country." But his challenges were on clear
display Wednesday as protests
broke out from Boston to Los Angeles." ------------- The crazies with their foreheads
painted "not my president" don't bother me. They can march around the big cities all they want.
Rain will come. Snow and wind will come and they will go home. The progressive cause has taken
a mighty hit but it will re-assert itself.
There are two real question facing the US as to what sort of president will Trump be.
1. Thus far he looks to me to be a man who will play a dominan role deciding major issues
himself and will make deals with whomever has the power to entable him to reach his goals.
IMO that means that the Republicans in Congress will either go along with Trump's
legislative proposals or see Trump go across the aisle to seek votes.
A good example would be whatever it is that Trump decides that he wants to do about the
obvious failure that is the ACA, presently sinking under the weight of far higher costs than
expected and smaller enrollments. Democrats understand that the law must be modified for it to
survive and to preserve the increase in health care coverage that it has brought. The hardline
Republicans in both Houses of Congress want to destroy Obamacare and they have no realistic
alternative other than the usual blather about private health accounts. Trump will not want to
alienate his working class followers. Why would Trump not make a deal with the Democrats to get
what he wants and needs?
2. There is also a danger that the neocon faction among Trump's advisers will succeed in
achieving power in his cabinet. The appointment of John Bolton to State, would be ,IMO, an
unmitigated disaster. pl
I have a bit of soft spot for Gingrich: I've found him, at least in his Congressional career,
to be very unprincipled in a good way, meaning that he is willing to negotiate and cut deals
when he feels is necessary, rather than hold on to his "principles" like a madman to the end,
and ironically, is willing to pay a high personal price for the sake of compromise. That,
plus, his usually good read of the political terrain can make him a very good advisor,
although his total lack of tact and uncanny ability to stuff both feet into his mouth make
for a bad front man.
I realized this during the Clinton impeachment fight: he basically lost speakership
because he tried to go behind other Republican leaders' backs to work out a compromise for
censure with the Democratic leaders, rather than go ahead with the impeachment vote. Other
Republican leaders did not take kindly to it and ousted him, but, however much that act of
spite--the impeachment vote supported only by Republicans--might have satisfied their
self-righteousness, it did the Republicans no good, while a bipartisan censure might have
carried real political bite in the long term.
With Move On on the move, it seems that America could ironically be experiencing its very own
Color Revolution. The Last Color Revolution on Earth! Which I suppose is poetic justice.
As for the progressives, Bernie already seems to be putting the message out. And after
their major defeat, I doubt if the neo-con and neo-liberal Clintonistas will have much sway
within the party. Bernie's chosen successor and Elizabeth Warren would both be serious
challengers.
Being still on some of the so called democratic organization mailing list, last night I got
an email for move on asking supporters to attend anti-Trump demonstrations all over the
country.
They even had a zip code link to where you could find. Demonstration/ gathering near you some
in private residences. Their agenda and Is to pressure Trump early on, from what I learned on
how Trump beat them on the poles, I don't think or hope they can succeed.
Soros you say. I wondered why it reminded me of the "Color Revolutions" of eastern Europe.
I suppose they'd be banging pots and pans together except their utensils of choice are
Styrofoam take-out containers.
There are probably many powerful people who believe they won't be able to manipulate our
president-elect. I suspect that Tel Aviv would much rather deal with Mike Pense than the
Donald. I'm not a religious person but I think I'll start praying for Trump's health.
I remember Nixon supposedly saying he selected Agnew as his vice president because no one
would try to assassinate him because they'd get Spiro.
Seeing the winner of his first
presidential campaign getting shot probably made him much more aware of that possibility than
the average citizen. I don't know if he chose Spiro for that reason but it was interesting
that Agnew was removed just before his administration came to an end.
No- they were spontaneous after the election- the kid of a friend of mine at one of the
California universities reported that.
The Colonel is spot on about Bolton -- appointing him to State would be an unmitigated
disaster. Check his history- in addition to being an incompetent manager -- he is one of those who puts the interests of
another country ahead of the USA...
There's a natural tendency to over extrapolate on the state of the progressive cause or
liberalism in America from the election result. The election was lost by the democratic
establishment which, while it has its liberal or progressive elements, is firmly a
corporatist, statist organization. The presidency and the senate, though probably not the
house, were lost by an ingrown and complacent party bent on crowning their seriously flawed
queen. We will never know for sure - but if they had put up Biden instead of shoving him
aside, we'd still be talking about the fate of the republican party. Bernie would have been a
wild card, but the primaries showed him getting lots of votes in the places that put Trump
into the whitehouse.
It will be interesting to see how positive everyone remains once the Republicans own the
show for a few years. Will everyone on this board still be so glowing with what appears to be
their apparent full embrace of Israel's priorities? If we pull the Iran deal and start the
air campaign? When those manufacturing and coal mining jobs don't come flooding back?
It was a devil's choice and not the outcome I would have wanted, however half heartedly,
so I'm keeping an open mind. Trump has no fixed core beliefs and revels in pissing up
anyone's leg whenever he feels like it, and that might be a feature not a bug. At this
juncture, I'm more concerned with the people to whom he's going to delegate so much. Those
guys we've seen in action for long enough to be very worried....
"Sanders: I'm 'Prepared To Work With' Trump On Economic Issues
"Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired
of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media," Sanders said
in a statement. "People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent
paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal
income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while
the very rich become much richer."
"To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of
working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To
the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will
vigorously oppose him," Sanders added."
God, I honestly hope that kind of cooperation works out--Democratic deplorables working
together with the Republican deplorables, for the betterment of the country. The stage is set
for that kind of enterprise, now that both parties' elites lie in wreck humbled.
I don't think Trump really matters at the moment. What happened to the Borg (my first use of
this term, still not sure) is what is important. It doesn't matter if Trump is a Sheldon
Adelson lap dog, the MSM has been shamed, the Anglo-Zionists have coped a reversal, and the
American people have woken from a long slumber. Stop following the bouncing ball, the world
has caught up to itself is a giant leap, the future is no longer written.
None of the commenters understand that CIA (which is more of Wall Street agency then
state agency) has also reasons to interfere in elections. And Russian interference can be a
very convenient smoke screen. JFK assassination proved this long ago. Remember Oswald
(who probably was of CIA payroll) Russian trace.
Notable quotes:
"... When it comes to our nation's security Congress spares no expense, no matter how large, to ensure we have the best military systems in the world. But when it comes to securing the most fundamental structure of our democratic process, our electoral process, nothing but crickets! Why is that? ..."
"... That we choose not to conduct fair elections suggests that for enough of those responsible for conducting an election the outcome of an election still is too important to be left to the voters. I don't expect a change. ..."
"... Stop e-voting and return to paper ballot only! ..."
"... Our national elections are exercises in deception. We spend billions tilting the playing field -- on things ranging from gerrymandering to swift-boating. ..."
In Oregon, we have vote by mail for all elections. A ballot arrives in the mail weeks
before the election and you have plenty of time to research the issues and candidates if you
haven't already. You can return your ballot by US mail or at the local library or voting
office. No election day lines, no election day work issues. There is a paper trail for
ballots. Not sure why the other states don't adopt this method...oh, wait, maybe I do.
angfil, Arizona 1 day ago
With all of the voting problems in federal elections, why aren't federal elections
conducted by the feds?Maybe that would help to keep voting fair. Or is that too much to
expect from the feds? Especially in the present circumstances.
Jean, Montclair, VA 1 day ago
1. I work elections, have for years, and I implore every citizen to confirm their
registration before every election.
Having someone mysteriously disappear from the rolls is upsetting for all of us involved in
the process--but especially for the spurned voter.
2. If spurned, vote provisionally when offered.
3. Do not rely on the DMV for address changes or registration. ALWAYS confirm that you are
properly registered before each election.
medianone, usa 1 day ago
If this isn't a clarion call for suspending e-voting and returning to paper only balloting
until a new cyber secure platform is designed and implemented, I don't know what is.
The security firewall across thousands of local precincts is porous and susceptible to
foreign state actors, or domestic hackers operating at levels light years ahead of them.
When it comes to our nation's security Congress spares no expense, no matter how
large, to ensure we have the best military systems in the world. But when it comes to
securing the most fundamental structure of our democratic process, our electoral process,
nothing but crickets! Why is that?
Republicans show zero interest in securing our elections. Maybe the Democrats should make
this a top priority in the upcoming budget battles next month. Dollar for dollar parity
spending on a new secure voting system to match against Trump's border wall project.
It would do more to safeguard American democracy than a few miles of fence.
Doug Karo, Durham, NH 23 hours ago
The excuse of not knowing how to conduct a fair and effective election no longer is worth
much. We know how to conduct much fairer and effective elections and it is not that hard.
That we choose not to conduct fair elections suggests that for enough of those responsible
for conducting an election the outcome of an election still is too important to be left to
the voters. I don't expect a change.
Zoned, NC 23 hours ago
I have decided to change my party affiliation to Independent as a safeguard against
partisan political chicanery.
Even with mail in ballots and a paper trail, there is a point at which votes are counted
by a machine that can be tampered with. That is why we need a new Congress in the next
election that will make the popular vote and federal safeguards part of their platform and
follow through.
It is an embarrassment in front of the world that our country's judiciary allows
gerrymandering and our votes are tampered with. Who are we to monitor third world country
elections when our own election are no better?
Lisa, Canada 20 hours ago
Stop e-voting and return to paper ballot only!
Option one: Walk (or drive) to the voting booth located in your neighborhood's voting
office.
Option two: Vote by postal mail for all elections. You can return your ballot by US mail or
at the local library or voting office.
No election day lines, no election day work issues. There is a paper trail for ballots.
Simple and more difficult to hack that way!
Tell your State's constituency to only use or adopt these methods.
No e-voting anymore.
Our national elections are exercises in deception. We spend billions tilting the playing field -- on things ranging from gerrymandering to
swift-boating.
Who's chiefly responsible for this sorry state? Four culprits are:
Our two-party system. It breeds polarization, disgust, cynicism, apathy.
The media -- namely, it's superficiality. "Horse race" coverage focuses on campaigning.
Why policy matters gets ignored.
The length of our national campaigns. They should take three months, start to
finish.
Us (the vast majority of us). We like the superficiality, the mess, the stupidity.
Let's admit it.
The presidential election is not the only thing that matters in election integrity. We
vote for governors, senators and representatives, both state and federal as well as local
officials. If hacking is systematically reducing some peoples' ability to vote, by
interfering with registration rolls, giving false information about polling places or
altering the counts even in a small way, like 1 or 2 per cent, the effect on our government
would be enormous. It's not all and only about Trump.
We better get control over this problem, and make no mistake it is a problem, and we
better do it before the next election.
Interference in the management of valid voter roles, weak security of the ballot, and
gerrymandering are perhaps the biggest threats our democracy has ever faced.
I'm not so sanguine that reverting to paper is the panacea that other commenters seem to
think. I do believe that we must take steps immediately to verify our voter roles in an
inclusive fashion. I'd rather see a single invalid voter included, that have many valid
voters excluded.
We should all strongly support any attempts to secure the ballot through means of
technology, physical ballot or follow-up verification. The electorate might have more faith
in the process if the got a receipt so they were positive their vote had been properly and
accurately tallied.
As far as gerrymandering ... tough problem. A lasting non-partisan solution is what we
need, and this repeated recourse to the courts is only a bandaid fix. Maybe if we went to a
strictly numerical population and geographic based technique, one that would remove all
politics from the equation, we'd have a more fair way of setting electoral districts.
Unfortunately that would most likely make everyone unhappy.
NYT = neocon/neolib fear mongering and neo-McCarthyism.
If we assume that Russians can control election machine, the question arise about the CIA
role in the US elections. They are much more powerful and that's their home turf. And they
can pretend to be Russians of Chinese at will. Then they can cry "Thief" to divert
attention. Does this that promoting Russia hacking story
they implicitly reveal to us that elections are controlled by Deep State and electronic voting
machines and voter rosters are just a tool to this end. They allow to get rid of human vote counting
and that alone makes hijacking of the election results really easy. machine magically calculates the
votes and you are done. As Stalin said it doesn't matter how people are voting, what matters is
who is calculating the votes.
Dems should concentrate on removing neoliberal/Clinton wing of the Party from the leadership and
making it at lease "A New Deal" Party, not sold to Wall Steer bunch of fear
mongering neocons.
Anti-Russian campaign is designed to sabotage those efforts.
Notable quotes:
"... All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various innocent causes ..."
"... Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems: ..."
"... The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by the editors of the New York Times. ..."
"... The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services) ..."
"... The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence for them. In many cases they hide behind " intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments" of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and not reported at all. ..."
"... "Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this. ..."
"... At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines, and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian hacking"! ..."
"... The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians? ..."
The last piece
pointed out that the NYT headline "
U.N. Peacekeepers in Lebanon Get Stronger Inspection Powers for Hezbollah Arms " was 100% fake
news. The UNIFIL U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon were not getting any stronger inspection powers. The
relevant UN Security Resolution, which renewed UNIFIL's mandate, had made no such changes. No further
inspection powers were authorized.
Today we find another similarly
lying headline in the New York Times.
Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny
By NICOLE PERLROTH, MICHAEL WINES and MATTHEW ROSENBERGSEPT. 1, 2017
The piece is about minor technical election trouble in a district irrelevant to the presidential
election outcome. Contradicting the headline it notes in paragraph five:
There are plenty of other reasons for such breakdowns -- local officials blamed human error and
software malfunctions -- and no clear-cut evidence of digital sabotage has emerged, much less a
Russian role in it
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with
computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state,"
said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House.
"If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research
and investigation, and you may not find out even then."
...
the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book
software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.
All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more
reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various
innocent causes. The officials handling these systems deny that any "Russian hacking" was involved.
Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general
election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:
Despite the disruptions, a record number of votes were cast in Durham, following a pattern there
of overwhelming support for Democratic presidential candidates , this time Hillary Clinton.
The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference
and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically
irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to
paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by
the editors of the New York Times.
This scheme is the gist of ALL reporting about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S. presidential
election. There exists zero evidence that Russia was involved in anything related to it. No evidence
-none at all- links the publishing of DNC papers or of Clinton counselor Podesta's emails to Russia.
Thousands of other circumstances, people or political entities might have had their hands in the
issue. There is
zero evidence that Russia was involved at all.
The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic
partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services)
to:
cover up for Hillary Clinton's and
the DNC's failure in the election and to
build up Russia as a public enemy to justify unnecessary military spending and other imperial
racketeering.
The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence
for them. In many cases they hide behind "
intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments"
of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and
not reported at all.
Posted by b on September 1, 2017 at 11:26 PM |
Permalink
Look at what happened today in San Francisco - after ordering the Russians to shut down their
embassy there in an unreasonably short timeframe, they then had the fire department respond to
smoke coming out of the chimney of the building. Conveniently this brings attention to the situation
and continues the narrative of 'ongoing conflict' to the American people.
The end of this story
has already decided. It didn't matter who won the election, it doesn't matter that the people
chose the candidate who wanted peace, and it doesn't matter that there wasn't any Russian election
hacking.
"Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against
the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly
hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this.
At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines,
and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian
hacking"!
The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what
they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are
loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians?
Yes, of course.....thats the plan.....is it working?
If not, invade Venezuela on some pretext and claim ownership of their oil....someone has to
make Israel look reasonable.
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with
computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state,"
said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House.
"If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research
and investigation, and you may not find out even then."
...
the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book
software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.
They don't even know what happened. Best blame it on the Russians anyway.
B of course realizes that the headline of an article is almost never written by author but by
an editor.
Such as blatant nonsense at NYT and elsewhere I think is possible when author wanting to get
published on good NYT page would lie to editor about its contents.
Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does
not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure
{actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations
however baseless.
...
Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does
not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure
{actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations
however baseless.
Posted by: Kalen | Sep 2, 2017 3:22:15 AM | 6
I like the theory that NYT's sub-editors are too lazy/busy/careless to read the articles they're
paid to summarise and add an appealing headline. It's certainly food for thought when pondering
possible Chain Of Command issues within the MSM.
When I was a regular lurker at What's Left, one notable aspect was the frequency with which
Gowans' most stunning revelations were sourced from the nether regions of articles published in
the NYT, WaPo et al.
What this all speaks of is ineptitude and malfeasance at all levels of government. Lies covering
more lies. The only things that gets done in Washington iare covering asses and those, like their
wars without end, are complete and utter failures. That the Clinton mob are sore losers and press
on with delegitimization of a clown president who, unlike the wicked witch of the West, feigned
disinterest in war and won what's left of a hollowed out presidency is theatre of the absurd par
excellence. Build the fence around the beltway and keep the psychopaths in the asylum in.
Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general
election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:
Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...
yeah - more stories on pussy riot.. a story like how pussy riot ate george soros, or putins breakfast
would be good..... when i read the nyt, i want a story filled with lies and deception... i'm running
away from reality and heading straight for the nyt, lol..
...
Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...
Posted by: doug | Sep 2, 2017 10:44:46 AM | 10
It would only be a logical fallacy if it said... "Moreover, there was no chance that these
troubles in more than one district would have effected the general election." ...but
it doesn't, so it isn't.
"... The portal purports to use "600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence efforts online" to prove how Moscow is trying to sow seeds of doubt in the Western political system, via the social network. However, the creators won't reveal the users concerned, and results seem to suggest they are mostly members of the US alt-right and alt-left. Meaning this is yet another attempt to pass off American dissent as some Kremlin "Psy-op." Which is beyond ridiculous. ..."
"... Furthermore, the names behind AFSD betray the project's real purpose: to shift blame from internal American and European factors to the convenient Russian bogeyman. Which, of course, suits its financial backers , including the State Department, NATO, and the ubiquitous weapons maker Raytheon. All of whom benefit commercially and politically from strained ties between Moscow and Washington. ..."
"... To achieve these goals they've hired the usual roll call of reliably anti-Russia blowhards. Including Estonian-American politician Ilves Toomas and rent-a-quote talking head Michael McFaul, the 'Mother Theresa of the Russia beat.' Those two are joined by neoconservative windbag William Kristol and ex-CIA chief Michael Morell. ..."
"... The dashboard itself is helmed by a chap named J.M. Berger , who was apparently an expert on ISIS and the Middle East, before discovering the Russia-bashing gravy train this summer. This week, he's taken to the pages of Politico to explain his plaything. What follows is best described as an inept and ignorant form of thrift-store McCarthyism. ..."
"... The examples become ever stranger. Berger bemoans "conspiracy theories seeking to discredit Bana al-Abed, a young girl in Syria who tweeted about the civil war." But it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest the then seven-year-old was manipulated to serve a propaganda effort. Especially after a press interview revealed how the child couldn't understand even rudimentary English, despite issuing hundreds of perfectly crafted tweets in the language. ..."
"... America's state broadcaster's RFE/RL and VOA do in Russia where they laboriously detail the travails of nationalist politicians like Alexei Navalny and their leftist counterparts, such as Sergei Udaltsov. This is what alternative media does in every market, but it seems to be only unusual when "the Russians" are involved. ..."
"... But, not content with mulching around the bottom of the barrel, he reaches into the depths when he states "while the alt-right has a very real base of support in the United States, it also enjoys deep and undisputed ties to Russia, many of which can be found offline in the real world." Amazingly, the link he uses to justify his contention is a Daily Beast article on how American white supremacist Richard Spencer was married to an ethnic Russian. The lady involved has no profile in Russia, doesn't live in the country and is a follower of a fringe philosopher called Alexander Dugin. Who is so far outside the Russian mainstream that he can't even hold down a job in Moscow. ..."
Since the German Marshall Fund of the United States unveiled its "Alliance For Securing
Democracy (AFSD)," I've resisted commenting, simply because the lobby group's "Hamilton 68
dashboard" is too preposterous to merit serious analysis.
It has rightly been ridiculed by journalists and activists who never tire of
knocking the Kremlin.
The portal purports to use "600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence efforts
online" to prove how Moscow is trying to sow seeds of doubt in the Western political system,
via the social network. However, the creators won't reveal the users concerned, and results
seem to suggest they are mostly members of the US alt-right and alt-left. Meaning this is yet
another attempt to pass off American dissent as some Kremlin "Psy-op." Which is beyond
ridiculous.
Furthermore, the names behind AFSD betray the project's real purpose: to shift blame
from internal American and European factors to the convenient Russian bogeyman. Which, of
course, suits its financial backers , including the State Department, NATO, and the
ubiquitous weapons maker Raytheon. All of whom benefit commercially and politically from
strained ties between Moscow and Washington.
To achieve these goals they've hired the usual roll call of reliably anti-Russia
blowhards. Including Estonian-American politician Ilves Toomas and rent-a-quote talking head
Michael McFaul, the 'Mother Theresa of the Russia beat.' Those two are joined by
neoconservative windbag William Kristol and ex-CIA chief Michael Morell.
Convert zeal
The dashboard itself is helmed by a chap named J.M. Berger , who was apparently an expert on ISIS and the
Middle East, before discovering the Russia-bashing gravy train this summer. This week, he's
taken to the pages of Politico to explain his plaything. What follows is best described as an
inept and ignorant form of thrift-store McCarthyism.
Berger tells us how his dashboard displays "the near-real-time output of Russian Influence
Operations on Twitter." Something he calls RIOT, for short. And he cites things like RT's
coverage of Vladimir Putin's recent pike fishing trip, a jaunt also prominently
featured in The New York Times,
The Daily Mail and The Sun, which incidentally described Putin as a "beefcake." Meaning,
either Paul Dacre and Rupert Murdoch are Russian agents, or this contention is just
farcical.
The lobbyist also frets over this network's widely-shared report on Oliver Stone's Facebook
post "condemning US sanctions against Russia and claiming US intelligence agencies are engaged
in a 'false flag' war against Russia." Which exposes a total lack of comprehension of how news
works. Because Stone is one of Hollywood's most famous figures and his name attached to a
perspective like this was bound to attract plenty of attention, regardless of the messenger.
It's also worth pointing out (for the really obtuse) that RT obviously doesn't control Stone's
Facebook and was merely bringing to a wider audience the American writer and director's
personal beliefs.
The examples become ever stranger. Berger bemoans "conspiracy theories seeking to discredit
Bana al-Abed, a young girl in Syria who tweeted about the civil war." But it doesn't seem
unreasonable to suggest the then seven-year-old was manipulated to serve a propaganda effort.
Especially after a press interview revealed how the child couldn't
understand even rudimentary English, despite issuing hundreds of perfectly crafted tweets in
the language.
Rock Bottom
Our hero descends further into hogwash when observing how "the most retweeted Russia Today
stories recorded by the dashboard involved scaremongering videos appearing to show refugees
swarming into Spain." But, two weeks ago, a boatful of migrants
did land on a Spanish tourist beach, near Cadiz, and quickly scattered to evade police
detection. And numerous outlets, including The
New York Times ,
The Guardian and the
BBC prominently reported the story. But apparently, it's only an issue when RT gives it
coverage.
But the garrulous quack isn't finished, asserting how RT "treads relatively carefully in
their flirtation with the far right, and they devote a significant amount of space to the far
left as well." Hardly news, given how the channel openly admits offering a platform for
alternative voices, regardless of their political compass. Incidentally, a mirror image of what
America's state broadcaster's RFE/RL and VOA do in Russia where they laboriously detail the
travails of nationalist
politicians like Alexei Navalny and their leftist counterparts, such as Sergei Udaltsov. This
is what alternative media does in every market, but it seems to be only unusual when "the
Russians" are involved.
Berger does concede one salient point: "it is important to note here again that we are not
asserting Russia is responsible for creating or shaping this content," he writes. Which
suggests he fully understands how his project is geared to smear anybody who opposes US policy
as working for Moscow's interests.
Yellow press
But, not content with mulching around the bottom of the barrel, he reaches into the depths
when he states "while the alt-right has a very real base of support in the United States, it
also enjoys deep and undisputed ties to Russia, many of which can be found offline in the real
world." Amazingly, the link he uses to justify his contention is a Daily Beast article
on how American white supremacist Richard Spencer was married to an ethnic Russian. The lady
involved has no profile in Russia, doesn't live in the country and is a follower of a fringe
philosopher called Alexander Dugin. Who is so far outside the Russian mainstream that he can't
even hold down a job in Moscow.
The fact Berger has to descend to such irrelevant tittle-tattle to score a few points tells
us all we need to know about the moral bankruptcy of the Alliance For Securing Democracy. This
is pathetic, miserable and feeble stuff and the German Marshall Fund of the United States
should be ashamed of themselves for financing this sort of muck.
Israel Shamir has some terrific but sadly likely-only-dream-world recommendations for
Donald Trump, asking him to be the man whom voters hoped he was how beautiful it would be
indeed, for Trump to end the Mid-East & South Asian wars, close Guantánamo, let
hundreds of thousands of non-violent black & other offenders / railroaded innocents out
of US prison (as Vladimir Putin did for hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners) this last
an especially brilliant suggestion by Shamir, as that one Lincolnesque act would be a total
trumping of the 'racist' slurs against Trump & his voters
But the question is Can we really hope that the USA 'Tsar' will or could act well &
honourably for his people? Was Trump just the Master New York Salesman all along?
Or is it that Trump in his heart really wanted to do some good with that high office he
was able to win Trump who trumpeted to the world the great truth that the News is Fake but a
Trump who is in fact now in part a hostage under the direst threats, not only against himself
but all his family?
Welcome to the NWO Comrade. The USA will become the USSA, please report to your nearest
FEMA Gulag for
reeducation
NOW! Don't
force
us to kick down your door at 3
am.
What do we know about RAM? [An offshoot of Antifa] Well, according to their website:
"The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement is a political movement dedicated to freeing
people from bondage and building resistance in the United States."
Just like every other Antifa group, they oppose white supremacy, racism, and bigotry.
Seems reasonable, right? But read a little further into their "Political Foundation" and
you will find a few things that aren't so reasonable.
They advocate for the abolition of gender:
They advocate for the expropriation of good, lands, and tools:
And finally, just like every other Antifa group, they oppose capitalism and are open
proponents of communism.
This article is an accurate indictment of forces at work in America that don't bode well
for our future as a great power. So be it. We have never demonstrated an affinity for world
leadership.
The same tendencies that led to the schism the preceded our Civil War have risen again in
global affairs. The materialism and cupidity that so rankled the South in 1861 became the
m.o. of the victors and shape us today. This won't do. Eurasia has had enough and is turning
away from US influence as rapidly as feasible considering the tendency for rabid violence we
exhibit.
Zionists are good for one thing. They are excellent for revealing the hidden Jewish
racism.
True. They're also good at presenting themselves as something they're not, (just like
Trump, btw). They present themselves as victims, while the opposite is more accurate. They
present themselves as Semites, while Palestinians are probably much more "Semitic" than they
are. Zionists, in fact, are among the most anti-Semitic characters around. They present
themselves as Jews, and i'd like to know by what standard. Most are likely not even
religious. They present themselves as sane and "intelligent," but their actions don't show
it. We're told that they are moral; I'd like to know how. They are good for showing the world
what crazed narcissism looks like.
"Only recently did the "collusion with Russia" nonsense suddenly die down."
My short letter to the editor of The New Yorker (see last sentence):
Raffi Katchadourian ("Julian Assange, a man without a country," Aug. 21, 2017) didn't mention Wikileak's Vault 7 release
includes revelation of CIA capability to allow it to misdirect the attribution of cyber attacks. According to Wikileaks, the
U.S. false-flag technology consists of "leaving behind the 'fingerprints' of the very groups that the attack techniques were
stolen from."
Karchadourian's omission belies his assertion: "Whatever one thinks of Assange's election disclosures, accepting his contention
that they shared no ties with the two Russian fronts requires willful blindness."
His article, of near-record length for the magazine, exhaustively attempts to resuscitate speculation about a Russian cyber
connection to the Clinton meltdown.
"Only recently did the "collusion with Russia" nonsense suddenly die down."
My short letter to the editor of The New Yorker (see last sentence):
Raffi Katchadourian ("Julian Assange, a man without a country," Aug. 21, 2017) didn't mention Wikileak's Vault 7 release
includes revelation of CIA capability to allow it to misdirect the attribution of cyber attacks. According to Wikileaks, the
U.S. false-flag technology consists of "leaving behind the 'fingerprints' of the very groups that the attack techniques were
stolen from."
Karchadourian's omission belies his assertion: "Whatever one thinks of Assange's election disclosures, accepting his contention
that they shared no ties with the two Russian fronts requires willful blindness."
His article, of near-record length for the magazine, exhaustively attempts to resuscitate speculation about a Russian cyber
connection to the Clinton meltdown.
This is the key question: if there are instances of meddling in the USA elections
while not to investigate them all, why to select Russia who is probably a monor
player in this game.
Notable quotes:
"... Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company. ..."
"... I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review: ..."
"... The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.) ..."
"... Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and likely also by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region, and fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite ..."
"... Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; ..."
The investigation of Russia's meddling in our politics dominates the liberal
press; and for my part, I believe everything The New York Times and MSNBC
are suspicioning about Donald Trump and the Russians. I bet that the Russians
have something on Trump personally, possibly involving money or sex; and that
the Russians meddled in our election. (Not that the meddling changed the outcome;
no, Hillary Clinton did a great job of losing it on her own.)
But as someone who focuses on Israel policy, what stands out to me is that
conduct that is Watergate-worthy when it comes to Russia is hunky-dory when
it comes to Israel. Just yesterday, for instance, Trump adviser Jared Kushner
was on the hot seat in Congress over his contacts with a Russian official last
year. But no one has a hearing about the fact that Kushner's family, out of
devotion to Israel, financed illegal Israeli settlements that have undermined
the two-state solution, thereby nullifying longtime U.S. policy. I think that's
a real problem. MSNBC doesn't.
Just in the last week there have been two other expressions of Israel's active
interests in our politics that the liberal media have failed to say boo about.
First, there's the Israel Anti-Boycott Act in the House and Senate. Israel
regards the Boycott movement (BDS) as an existential threat; and so the Israel
lobby group AIPAC produced legislation that scores of Senators and Congresspeople,
including many liberal heroes, signed on to that trashes the First Amendment
by making it a possible crime to support boycott of Israel. By the way, AIPAC
has a mission to insure that there is "no daylight" between the Israeli government
and the U.S. government. In the 1960s despite the best efforts of Senator Fulbright,
AIPAC escaped designation as an agent of a foreign government. That ought to
be a scandal, but everyone walks on by.
Then there's Israel's unhappiness with the Syrian ceasefire deal that Donald
Trump reached with Russia. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
says that the deal fails to limit Iran's presence in Syria or to prevent
weapons getting to Israel's enemy, Hezbollah; and Israel supporters in the U.S.
duly echoed Netanyahu's view.
Can the deal be restructured to Isr's satisfaction? US-Russia dynamic makes
that difficult & worrisome. But effort needs to be made.
Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his
Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest?
In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy
vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position
in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East.
But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its
hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company.
I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United
States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends
in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on
the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions
that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb
on our scale. Let's review:
Israel has put more than 600,000 settlers in the West Bank and East
Jerusalem, thereby violating the Geneva Convention and destroying the two-state
solution, which was U.S. policy. The United States has suffered enormously
for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated
in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and
its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the
settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop
settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky
has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not
the other way round.)
Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy
in the 60s, and likely also
by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through
a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this
from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception–
and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region,
and
fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite .
Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform
the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee
you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The
leading
Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing
American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring
democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; as did liberals such
as Tom Friedman, Israel's onetime promoter, who said we should go to war
against Iraq because terrorists were blowing up pizza parlors in Tel Aviv.
Whether the voice given to Israel's interest was determinative or not in
our decision to invade Iraq (I say it was), this is an influence that clearly
should have been exposed and investigated, beyond the efforts of John Mearsheimer
and Stephen Walt in their groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby. But the
media shut down that conversation, in part through the vociferous efforts
of Jeffrey Goldberg, who formerly emigrated to Israel and served in its
armed forces.
Neoliberalism logically leads to the establishment on military junta or some variation of
centralized control of the state. This also makes possible to suppress or at least deflect the
wave of right wing nationalism that is swiping all Western countries and which also is the
restion to the failure of neoliberalism as a social system The USA is just a little bit ahead of
EU countries in this respect
Notable quotes:
"... Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the Trump administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the military, and Trump recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal Bureau of Prisons. [...] the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the senior staff. ..."
"... Western society is awash in propaganda, and we dare make fun of the North Koreans. ..."
"... The political directorate has basically become a group of surrogates for corporate/banking interests, while the military elite have moved into the political space along with the banksters. ..."
"... The third element of non-democratic rule in the US is the judiciary front men/women who are essentially putting the interests of the corporate elite into their interpretations of statuatory law. ..."
"... This was written before the inauguration - during the transition: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500 A good dissection of Mad Dog ..."
"... on the first part, i quote you "But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless." i fully agree with what you say here.. However, i think this has probably already happened and will happen again. ..."
"... But I'm optimistic that He's still got a few tricks up his sleeve. I've never watched The Apprentice but EVERY real CEO has a stool pigeon or two, or more, within the organisation. The CEO of Oz Branch of the last multinational corp I worked for had 4 (according to the Credit Manager(!?) who gave me a list of their names). Trump was a CEO. There's no way he would take a CEO job without making sure that he could install his own stoolies. Imo. ..."
"... I now think this is about old big money/values versus new (past 40 years) upstart money/values. But what we are seeing are the troops/puppets.....and that is internally. Internationally, the internal conflict is focused, like Bannon says, around trying to contain the China/Russia axis and maintain global private finance control versus haggling about LGBT issues. ..."
"... Interesting that 20 years ago USA Americans were taught that "The Evil Red Soviet Union" committed these horrible acts (state propaganda and domestic surveillance) and that because of these things its people were not FREE like USA Americans. ..."
"... Goldman Sachs and Military Hunta are just plain Evil ..."
"... "Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals through their organizations...... The Generals are held captive by that big $ welded, and promised to them for their "second lives" in various MIC corporations after their "retirements". ..."
"... As, let's not forget, Trump's cloudy common sense, his semi-isolationist nationalist attitude, trade protectionism (etc.) actually appealed to voters, which is unbearable to the PTB, out of bounds, leading to covert hysteria, burning up the wires. The sheeples are supposed to vote as the Media Spin ordains, not ever for their own interests or for a disgusting deplorable person like pussy-grabbing Trump. Unthinkable! that the PTB would ever be bothered by 'voter' crap. The Gore-Bush II standoff was splendiferous, a tight contest, etc. and who won might be suspense but not more, policies would be in the 'same system.' Arguments about Supreme Court decisions, yeah, only evidence a genuine 'rule of law' method.. ..."
"... The no.1. faction that can dominate Trump, also many others, is the Military. (Second are the banks, third Big Corps.) For now their position is shadowed and ambiguous, but a military Junta is perhaps not so fanciful. Thing is, a Junta solves many problems for many ppl, so in certain conditions it is embraced. ..."
"... I think Trump may have so deeply surrounded (embedded may be the better word) himself primarily to protect himself from the intelligence community. JFK was not a one off in my opinion and probably not in Trump's. ..."
"... The new troops may be a Pentagon face saving measure ... Or they may be a sop to the CIA, those poppy fields won't guard themselves:) ..."
According to a 1950s political theory
The Structure of Power in
American Society
is mainly build on three
elite
groups, the high military, the
corporation executives and the political directorate. (The "political directorate" can best be
described as the bureaucracy, the CIA and their proxies within Congress.)
On election day I noted that only the military had supported
The Not-Hillary
President
. The corporate and executive corners of the triangle had pushed for Hillary
Clinton and continued to do so even after Trump had won. (Only recently did the "collusion with
Russia" nonsense suddenly die down.) I wrote:
The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet.
Inside the White House, meanwhile, generals manage Trump's hour-by-hour interactions and
whisper in his ear -- and those whispers, as with the decision this week to expand U.S.
military operations in Afghanistan, often become policy.
At the core of Trump's circle is a seasoned trio of generals with experience as
battlefield commanders: White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. The three men have carefully cultivated
personal relationships with the president and gained his trust.
...
Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the
Trump administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy
Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the
military, and Trump recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal
Bureau of Prisons. [...] the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the
senior staff.
With the firing of the renegade Flynn and various other Trump advisors, the Junta has
already removed all independent voices in the White House. It is now
attaching
more
control wires to its "salesperson" marionette:
The new system, laid out in two memos co-authored by [General] Kelly and Porter and
distributed to Cabinet members and White House staffers in recent days, is designed to ensure
that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos, agency
reports, and even news articles that haven't been vetted.
Trump has a weakness for the military since he attended a New York military academy during
his youth. But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He will then
find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless.
The political directorate has basically become a group of surrogates for
corporate/banking interests, while the military elite have moved into the political space
along with the banksters.
The third element of non-democratic rule in the US is the
judiciary front men/women who are essentially putting the interests of the corporate elite
into their interpretations of statuatory law.
Meanhwhile NATO join Sweden in tremendous military exercise next month. But western outlet
propaganda journalists wont tell you about that...
Exercise: "Aurora 17"
"Is a planned military exercise that will take place in Sweden during a three-week period,
from 11 through 29 September 2017.[1] It is expected to be the largest military exercise in
20 years to take place on Swedish soil.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_17
on the first part, i quote you "But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt
one day. He will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless." i fully
agree with what you say here.. However, i think this has probably already happened and will
happen again.
point 2 - israel wants a war with iran.. they will dream up anything they can to keep the
usa military on alert for whatever hairbrained warmongering act they have in mind next..
point 3.. more bullshit to sprinkle with what is not bullshit - nato war exercises as @4
anonymous points out...
The new system, laid out in two memos co-authored by [General] Kelly and Porter and
distributed to Cabinet members and White House staffers in recent days, is designed to
ensure that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos,
agency reports, and even news articles that haven't been vetted.
Trump has a weakness for the military since he attended a New York military academy
during his youth. But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He
will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless.
...
I agree it's beginning to LOOK grim for Trump, b.
But I'm optimistic that He's still got a few tricks up his sleeve. I've never watched The
Apprentice but EVERY real CEO has a stool pigeon or two, or more, within the organisation.
The CEO of Oz Branch of the last multinational corp I worked for had 4 (according to the
Credit Manager(!?) who gave me a list of their names).
Trump was a CEO. There's no way he would take a CEO job without making sure that he could
install his own stoolies. Imo.
That said, again the private finance folk are not included in your analysis. The private
finance folk are certainly part of Trump's inner circle and none of them have been ejected.
Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals through their
organizations......
I now think this is about old big money/values versus new (past 40 years) upstart
money/values. But what we are seeing are the troops/puppets.....and that is internally.
Internationally, the internal conflict is focused, like Bannon says, around trying to contain
the China/Russia axis and maintain global private finance control versus haggling about LGBT
issues.
Western Society is awash in propaganda as it is enveloped in a Homeland Security/Domestic
Surveillance Police State - New World Order - Juggernaut.
Interesting that 20 years ago USA Americans were taught that "The Evil Red Soviet Union"
committed these horrible acts (state propaganda and domestic surveillance) and that because
of these things its people were not FREE like USA Americans.
(Homeland Security is budgeted such that airport security personnel are hired not out of
necessity, but simply to soak up the funding.
Thanks b, I would agree that a military Junta has the reins and Trump's ear, but, as
psycho @ 14 said..
"Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals
through their organizations...... The Generals are held captive by that big $ welded, and promised to them for their "second
lives" in various MIC corporations after their "retirements".
The raucous clamor painting Trump as a Russkie collaborator has now sputtered, frizzled out,
to be replaced by the equally lame 'Trump is a neo-nazi fascist racist mysoginist' as his
supporters 'mow down ppl', etc. or whatever. All these elements were present before he was
elected. (Trump is less racist than Obama..not that it matters..)
As, let's not forget, Trump's cloudy common sense, his semi-isolationist nationalist
attitude, trade protectionism (etc.) actually appealed to voters, which is unbearable to the
PTB, out of bounds, leading to covert hysteria, burning up the wires. The sheeples are
supposed to vote as the Media Spin ordains, not ever for their own interests or for a
disgusting deplorable person like pussy-grabbing Trump. Unthinkable! that the PTB would ever
be bothered by 'voter' crap. The Gore-Bush II standoff was splendiferous, a tight contest,
etc. and who won might be suspense but not more, policies would be in the 'same system.'
Arguments about Supreme Court decisions, yeah, only evidence a genuine 'rule of law'
method..
The no.1. faction that can dominate Trump, also many others, is the Military. (Second are
the banks, third Big Corps.) For now their position is shadowed and ambiguous, but a military
Junta is perhaps not so fanciful. Thing is, a Junta solves many problems for many ppl, so in
certain conditions it is embraced.
I think Trump may have so deeply surrounded (embedded may be the better word) himself
primarily to protect himself from the intelligence community. JFK was not a one off in my
opinion and probably not in Trump's.
re Trump info access
He has people who can and do provide him with info galore outside of the office, he is not as
isolated as you suggest, and he is out of the office a lot:)
re Wars
... ... ...
re Afghanistan
The new troops may be a Pentagon face saving measure ... Or they
may be a sop to the CIA, those poppy fields won't guard themselves:)
"... Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company. ..."
"... I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review: ..."
"... The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.) ..."
"... –Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and likely also by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region, and fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite . ..."
"... Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; ..."
The investigation of Russia's meddling in our politics dominates the liberal press; and for
my part, I believe everything The New York Times and MSNBC are suspicioning about
Donald Trump and the Russians. I bet that the Russians have something on Trump personally,
possibly involving money or sex; and that the Russians meddled in our election. (Not that the
meddling changed the outcome; no, Hillary Clinton did a great job of losing it on her own.)
But as someone who focuses on Israel policy, what stands out to me is that conduct that is
Watergate-worthy when it comes to Russia is hunky-dory when it comes to Israel. Just yesterday,
for instance, Trump adviser Jared Kushner was on the hot seat in Congress over his contacts
with a Russian official last year. But no one has a hearing about the fact that Kushner's
family, out of devotion to Israel, financed illegal Israeli settlements that have undermined
the two-state solution, thereby nullifying longtime U.S. policy. I think that's a real problem.
MSNBC doesn't.
Just in the last week there have been two other expressions of Israel's active interests in
our politics that the liberal media have failed to say boo about.
First, there's the Israel Anti-Boycott Act in the House and Senate. Israel regards the
Boycott movement (BDS) as an existential threat; and so the Israel lobby group AIPAC produced
legislation that scores of Senators and Congresspeople, including many liberal heroes, signed
on to that trashes the First Amendment by making it a possible crime to support boycott of
Israel. By the way, AIPAC has a mission to insure that there is "no daylight" between the
Israeli government and the U.S. government. In the 1960s despite the best efforts of Senator
Fulbright, AIPAC escaped designation as an agent of a foreign government. That ought to be a
scandal, but everyone walks on by.
Then there's Israel's unhappiness with the Syrian ceasefire deal that Donald Trump reached
with Russia. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
says that the deal fails to limit Iran's presence in Syria or to prevent weapons getting to
Israel's enemy, Hezbollah; and Israel supporters in the U.S. duly echoed Netanyahu's view.
Can the deal be restructured to Isr's satisfaction? US-Russia dynamic makes that difficult
& worrisome. But effort needs to be made.
Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the
real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear
that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could
be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the
Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips
in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company.
I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has
involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are
afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries
reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel
weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review:
–Israel has put more than 600,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem,
thereby violating the Geneva Convention and destroying the two-state solution, which was U.S.
policy. The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even
the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel
lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the
settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in
2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client
is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.)
–Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and
likely also
by pilfering
highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania.
There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they
all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race
around the region, and
fostered the U.S.
image as lying imperialist hypocrite .
–Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for
the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have
enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading
Israel
lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the
neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel
safer; as did liberals such as Tom Friedman, Israel's onetime promoter, who said we should go
to war against Iraq because terrorists were blowing up pizza parlors in Tel Aviv. Whether the
voice given to Israel's interest was determinative or not in our decision to invade Iraq (I say
it was), this is an influence that clearly should have been exposed and investigated, beyond
the efforts of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby.
But the media shut down that conversation, in part through the vociferous efforts of Jeffrey
Goldberg, who formerly emigrated to Israel and served in its armed forces.
Explore our updated, comprehensive Trump-Russia Timeline -- or select one of the central
players in the Trump-Russia saga to see what we know about them.
"... Exclusive: A cyber-warfare expert sees no technical evidence linking Russia to the Democratic email releases, but The New York
Times presses ahead with a new hope that Ukraine can fill the void, reports Robert Parry. ..."
"... "There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the DNC
attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian government," Carr said. ..."
"... Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards. The Ukrainian
government is fiercely anti-Russian and views itself as engaged in an "information war" with Putin and his government. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Times offered its readers almost no cautionary advice that – in the case of Russia-gate – Ukraine would have
every motive to send U.S. investigators in directions harmful to Russia, much as happened with the MH-17 investigation. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... At this point, Carr is right: There is NO publicly available, non-circumstantial, non-spoofable evidence that a DNC hack even
occurred, let alone that any hack that might have been done was done by Russians at all, let alone the Russian government. And all of
the alleged US intelligence "assessments" have provided NO additional evidence. ..."
Exclusive: A cyber-warfare expert sees no technical evidence linking Russia to the Democratic email releases, but The New
York Times presses ahead with a new hope that Ukraine can fill the void, reports Robert Parry.
The New York Times' unrelenting anti-Russia bias would be almost comical if the possible outcome were not a nuclear conflagration
and maybe the end of life on planet Earth.
A classic example of the Times' one-sided coverage was a front-page
article on Thursday expressing the wistful hope that a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was linked to the release of Democratic
National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016 could somehow "blow the whistle on Russian hacking."
Though full of airy suspicions and often reading like a conspiracy theory, the article by Andrew E. Kramer and Andrew Higgins
contained one important admission (buried deep inside the "jump" on page A8 in my print edition), a startling revelation especially
for those Americans who have accepted the Russia-did-it groupthink as an established fact.
The article quoted Jeffrey Carr, the author of a book on cyber-warfare, referring to a different reality: that the Russia-gate
"certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's GRU military intelligence service or Russia's FSB security agency lack a solid evidentiary
foundation.
"There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the DNC
attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian government," Carr said.
Yet, before that remarkable admission had a chance to sink into the brains of Times' readers whose thinking has been fattened
up on a steady diet of treating the "Russian hack" as flat fact, Times' editors quickly added that "United States intelligence agencies,
however, have been unequivocal in pointing a finger at Russia."
The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark although the Times had already declared
several times on page 1 that there was really no doubt about Russia's guilt.
"American intelligence agencies have determined Russian hackers were behind the electronic break-in of the Democratic national
Committee," the Times reported, followed by the assertion that the hacker's "malware apparently did" get used by Moscow and then
another reminder that "Washington is convinced [that the hacking operation] was orchestrated by Moscow."
By repeating the same point on the inside page, the Times editors seemed to be saying that any deviant views on this subject must
be slapped down promptly and decisively.
A Flimsy Assessment
But that gets us back to the problem with
the Jan. 6 "Intelligence
Community Assessment," which -- contrary to repeated Times' claims -- was not the "consensus" view of all 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies, but rather the work of a small group of "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies: the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal
Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency. And, they operated under the watchful eye of President Obama's political appointees,
CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who was the one who
called them "hand-picked."
Those analysts presented no real evidence to support their assessment, which they acknowledged was not a determination of fact,
but rather what amounted to their best guess based on what they perceived to be Russian motives and capabilities.
The Jan. 6 assessment admitted as much, saying its "judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something
to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation,
and precedents."
Much of the unclassified version of the report lambasted Russia's international TV network RT for such offenses as hosting a 2012
presidential debate for third-party candidates excluded from the Republican-Democratic debate, covering the Occupy Wall Street protests,
and reporting on dangers from "fracking." The assessment described those editorial decisions as assaults on American democracy.
But rather than acknowledge the thinness of the Jan. 6 report, the Times – like other mainstream news outlets – treated it as
gospel and pretended that it represented a "consensus" of all 17 intelligence agencies even though it clearly never did. (Belatedly,
the Times slipped in a correction
to that falsehood in one article although continuing to
use similar language in subsequent
stories so an unsuspecting Times reader would not be aware of how shaky the Russia-gate foundation is.)
Russian President Vladimir Putin and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have denied repeatedly that the Russian government was the
source of the two batches of Democratic emails released via WikiLeaks in 2016, a point that the Times also frequently fails to acknowledge.
(This is not to say that Putin and Assange are telling the truth, but it is a journalistic principle to include relevant denials
from parties facing accusations.)
Conspiracy Mongering
The rest of Thursday's Times article veered from the incomprehensible to the bizarre, as the Times reported that the hacker, known
only as "Profexer," is cooperating with F.B.I. agents inside Ukraine.
President Barack Obama and
President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine talk after statements to the press following their bilateral meeting at the Warsaw Marriott
Hotel in Warsaw, Poland, June 4, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards. The Ukrainian
government is fiercely anti-Russian and views itself as engaged in an "information war" with Putin and his government.
Ukraine's SBU security service also has been
implicated in possible
torture , according to United Nations investigators who were denied access to Ukrainian government detention facilities housing
ethnic Russian Ukrainians who resisted the violent coup in February 2014, which was spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other extreme nationalists
and overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych.
The SBU also has been the driving force behind the supposedly "Dutch-led" investigation into the July 17, 2014 shooting down of
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That inquiry has ignored evidence that a rogue Ukrainian force may have been responsible –
not even addressing a Dutch/NATO
intelligence report stating that all anti-aircraft missile batteries in eastern Ukraine on that day were under the control of
the Ukrainian military – and instead
tried to pin the atrocity
on Russia , albeit with no suspects yet charged.
In Thursday's article, the Times unintentionally reveals how fuzzy the case against "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" – the two alleged
Russian government hacking operations – is.
The Times reports: "Rather than training, arming and deploying hackers to carry out a specific mission like just another military
unit, Fancy Bear and its twin Cozy Bear have operated more as centers for organization and financing; much of the hard work like
coding is outsourced to private and often crime-tainted vendors."
Further, under the dramatic subhead – "A Bear's Lair" – the Times reported that no such lair may exist: "Tracking the bear to
its lair has so far proved impossible, not least because many experts believe that no such single place exists."
Lacking Witnesses
The Times' article also noted the "absence of reliable witnesses" to resolve the mystery – so to the rescue came the "reliable"
regime in Kiev, or as the Times wrote: "emerging from Ukraine is a sharper picture of what the United States believes is a Russian
government hacking group."
The Times then cited various cases of exposed Ukrainian government emails, again blaming the Russians albeit without any real
evidence.
The Times suggested some connection between the alleged Russian hackers and a mistaken report on Russia's Channel 1 about a Ukrainian
election, which the Times claimed "inadvertently implicated the government authorities in Moscow."
The Times' "proof" in this case was that some hacker dummied a phony Internet page to look like an official Ukrainian election
graphic showing a victory by ultra-right candidate, Dmytro Yarosh, when in fact Yarosh polled less than 1 percent. The hacker supposedly
sent this "spoof" graphic to Channel 1, which used it.
But such an embarrassing error, which would have no effect on the actual election results, suggests an effort to discredit Channel
1 rather than evidence of a cooperative relationship between the mysterious hacker and the Russian station. The Times, however, made
this example a cornerstone in its case against the Russians.
Meanwhile, the Times offered its readers almost no cautionary advice that – in the case of Russia-gate – Ukraine would have
every motive to send U.S. investigators in directions harmful to Russia, much as happened with the MH-17 investigation.
So, we can expect that whatever "evidence" Ukraine "uncovers" will be accepted as gospel truth by the Times and much of the U.S.
government – and anyone who dares ask inconvenient questions about its reliability will be deemed a "Kremlin stooge" spreading "Russian
propaganda."
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 3:39 pm
Can the United States, its mainstream media, and its intelligence services sink any deeper into the status of laughable but
also malicious clowns? Yes. They reach new lows with practically every edition of the NYT -- The only group maintaining any respectability
within these entities is the VIPS group.
Pathetic. Laughingstock of the world. But don't kick sand in these bullies' faces. They may nuke you --
You don't understand. The Times Co. Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the newspaper, wants the Golan Heights
for his pet project by any means and he is beyond himself that the bad, bad Russians stopped the slaughter of civilians in Syria
and thus stopped the dissolution of Syria.
The Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. hates, hates the idea of sovereign Syria. He wants Syria to become another Libya. Period.
And he wants to see Iran obliterated (some old grievances against the noble ancient civilization that used to provide the best
living place for Jews). And then, the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. wants to see profits, even if his profitable fake-news
business could lead to a nuclear conflict with Russain Federation. Like other super-wealthy imbeciles, the Chairman Arthur O.
Sulzberger Jr. is accustomed to a very special order when other people are always ready to clean his mess. He is not aware that
the Mess, which he is so eagerly inviting, could end up his comfortable life and make his relatives into shades on a hard surface.
Would not this planet be better without the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. and likes?
JWalters , August 18, 2017 at 7:02 pm
Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They
are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem.
At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media
and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.
Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it
is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns
of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.
j. D. D. , August 19, 2017 at 3:07 pm
The "Russiagate" hoax is in big trouble. thanks in large part to the V.I.P.S. memo to President Trump, first published on this
site on July 24. No surprise then that the Times has rushed to stem the bleeding, much the way the Post did in its threatening
message to The Nation editor Van den Heuvel to retract its coverage of that explosive report. So what now? Shift the tactic to
playing the race card, in an effort to oust this President, the methods, and in fact many of the same names employed in the staged
event in Charlottesville, being all too familiar to those who followed the coup which overthrew the elected government of Ukraine.
Randal Marlin , August 18, 2017 at 3:48 pm
I think your statement "Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative
standards" gets to the crux of the matter.
Note how the evidentiary question is not significantly altered when, say, expert Dutch investigators confirm a Russian-blaming
narrative regarding MH-17 when, and to the extent that, the Dutch experts form their opinion based on evidence selected by (anti-Russian)
Ukrainian authorities.
I've used the example before of salted gold-ore samples being given to experts for analysis. Those who fell for the Bre-X scam
some 20 years ago apparently failed to appreciate the disclaimer by SNC-Lavalin, who reported a rich find, that they had not done
an independent collection of the ore samples. There was a high reported price tag for the analysis and people may have just assumed
such an independent collection had taken place.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 6:03 pm
It is absurd that an admitted hacker in Ukraine, and its militantly anti-Russian government, are considered reliable sources
in the smoke-and-mirrors game of tracing international hacking. Their only "evidence" appears to be standard hacking scams of
simulating sources to throw off investigators. It is amazing that they can't even find a hacker somewhere else to make absurd
claims in a plea bargain. Obviously NYT does not believe this ridiculous story themselves. It is the greatest fool who believes
all others to be greater fools.
The Israelis appear afraid Trump will suddenly turn on them, just as he suddenly and totally disavowed all forms of racism,
white supremacism, KKK, alt-right, etc. (And Bannon did, too.) He had needed that support to wrest the GOP nomination away from
the Wall Street gang (who merely winked and nodded at the racists, a large and crucial part of their voting base.) Perhaps the
glaring, blaring racist crimes and atrocities of Israel will be called out next? "Netanyahu is silent for 3 days over neo-Nazi violence, while his son says Black Lives Matter and Antifa are the real threat"
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/netanyahu-violence-antifa/
"Charlottesville is moment of truth for empowered U.S. Zionists (who name their children after Israeli generals)" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/charlottesville-empowered-children/
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm
Interesting that you say that this is an Israeli operation. I once traced malware on my PC to three sources, one with an address
in Tel Aviv Israel, and two front companies in NYC run by people with Jewish names. Complete coincidence of course.
I also traced a complex web of internet copyright piracy, which included front companies, servers, and offices in Panama, Cayman
Islands, Barbados, Montreal, UK, and various piracy and tax evasion venues. One company "TzarMedia" (in English) claimed to have
its servers in Moscow, but it turned out that this was just one more false-flag: it was in Texas, and its servers could be anywhere.
So anti-Russia false-flags are standard practice.
Because some Ukrainian oligarchs are apparently Jewish with Israeli nationality and bitter anti-Russia views on both fronts,
it seems likely that they would be hiring Ukrainian hackers by the dozen to create false-flag hacks blamed on Russia. That must
be a real growth industry in Ukraine and Israel by now, not to mention Washington.
Peter Dyer , August 18, 2017 at 3:58 pm
This is sadly reminiscent of another instance of the willingness of the New York Times to publish "evidence" of malfeasance
on the part of the enemy du jour: the series of stories in 2001-02 by Judith Miller based on Ahmad Chalabi's "evidence" of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:57 pm
At least it ended her career with the NYT. Judith Miller was being fed stories from the office of VP Cheney, who would later
cite the NYT as evidence of his accusations of WMD, completing the circle. Similarly, Kwiatkowski went public with how DIA staff
were pressured by Sec of Defense and Cheney to stovepipe cherry picked intel to support WMD. The malfeasance germinated in the
mechanical heart of one Richard Cheney and the NYT and DIA were used and abused. Not faultless, but the bulk of the derision belongs
with that administration.
Bill , August 18, 2017 at 4:12 pm
There's a bigger story behind all of this. John Brennan was abusing his position as CIA Director to wage a war against Trump.
Comey and Clapper are also "in" on it. A conspiracy? Yes. Who told them to do it? By golly, it was President Obama.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:07 pm
Yes, but don't dream of tarnishing the halo St. Barry with perfectly reasonable suppositions as to who put this mess in motion
and, I reckon, continues to ride herd on it. He is "above the fray" (my a–). He is at the center of the fray. After Hillary's
ignoble loss to Obama in 2008, she ate crow and went to work for him. They must have made some kind of deal, reached some kind
of accommodation.
Richard Tarnoff , August 18, 2017 at 4:19 pm
It is depressing, but not surprising given their corporate ownership, that the entire MSM is unwilling to ask the same hard
questions as does Consortium News. It is also depressing that the Democratic Party is happy to jump on this risky band wagon in
their desperate desire to bring down Trump.
Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 4:25 pm
I find it bizarre and frustrating that the anti-Trump forces insist on focusing on the flimsy Russia-gate distraction when
there are so many objectively awful reasons to criticize the Trump administration.
*Resurgence of Civil-Asset Forfeiture? Check.
*Supporting the private prison industry? Check.
*Empowering federal prosecutors? Check.
*Working to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal? Check.
*Dismissing anthropogenic climate change? Check.
*Going out of his way to equate Nazis with anti-Nazi protestors? Check.
*Undermining net neutrality? Check.
*Subverting scientific independence at the EPA? Check.
*Sticking up for Wall Street and bad-mouthing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Check.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 5:38 pm
Trump's being criticized for all-of-the-above by virtually all of the leftist media and NGO's (Counterpunch, DemocracyNow,
FAIR, RealNewsNetwork, Free Press, Public Citizen, etc) that criticized Obama, Bush, Clinton, et al for their many shortcomings
and fuck-ups.
You need to get out more.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:09 pm
But it seems like the MSM is standing in for "leftish" (sic) forces, as they combine with neocons to bring Trump down.
Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Just because the MSM doesn't like Trump doesn't mean he's a good person.
Yes, but the DNC has put all their ammo into the straw man argument of Russia-gate. I believe this is what Drogon was saying,
and I also believe it's a valid point.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:52 pm
I'll agree that it's the focus of the DNC. But he wrote "anti-Trump forces", which encompasses much more than the DNC.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:49 pm
Way to go BobS, you have an excuse for every stupid remark you make. Since Drogon said some pretty factual things that made
sense, you had to go find something to make a negative comment as a reply, and in doing so you made yourself look awfully foolish
I'll bet your working hard to sound smart and clever all the time, guess what you make yourself look ignorant instead.
If you are a contributor to this site, then I want my money back. You certainly don't bring any class, or anything worthwhile
to this site, with your crudeness. Although, you probably laugh at your own jokes, and think your funny. I've tried for the last
couple of days to somehow deal with you with the hopes that you and I could have a civil conversation, but as I can see I shouldn't
take it personally, since you seem to offend everyone no matter what what is wrong with you man.
Leslie F , August 18, 2017 at 7:07 pm
All of this is worthy of criticism, but not likely to lead to his ouster. The fools think Russia-gate will, but it is obviously
that the Repubs. in Congress are not buying it anymore than most of the population who just declines to become hysterical over
Russia when they have much more immediate problems. There is that matter of Trumps financial malfeasance which is real AND impeachable,
but the Dem establishment isn't interested because it won't deflect attention from their internal problems and many among their
number are guilty of similaar crimes, if not to the same extent as Trump. And the deep state doesn't care because it doesn't advance
their neocon agenda like Russia-gate. I think, however, that it could help mobilize popular outrage which will be necessary if
he is ever going to be impeached.
turk151 , August 18, 2017 at 7:50 pm
That is because those are all ideas that the MSM's benefactors actually support.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 4:30 pm
Yet another strained effort to distract from the actual reality of Trump's Russian connection. Here is Bill Moyers' timeline
of factual events. Tells the story better for anyone with an open mind.
Does Trump have "Russian connections?" Of course he does. He's a billionaire oligarch and, as such, he almost certainly has
corrupt connections with billionaire oligarchs from pretty much any country you can name. If the anti-Trump brigade was less hysterical,
these connections could most likely be used to remove him from office. That said, is there currently any evidence that he collaborated
with the Russian government to throw the election? No.
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 4:55 pm
Thank you for the link. Because of my "closed mind" I've concluded that Bill Moyers has lost it.
I made a couple of searches of my own and found this from Moyers:
"Raked over the coals by Republican inquisitors in Congress who could never make a case that she had acted wrongly in Libya
"
Gist of the story, poor Hillary isn't a male and everybody has been after the innocent woman on that account. Obviously nobody
would have commented if it had been a MAN with the same amount of blood on his hands. In another story he dismissed Hillary's
email maneuvers.
The man is an old Hillary-Bot and I've no use at all for that sort.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:04 pm
Actually, if you'd watched her testimony, they couldn't make that case, the reason being they focused on BENGHAZEEEE -- --
-- -- as opposed to the attack on Libya itself (which all or most of the Republicans in Congress agreed with).
Also, it's disingenuous to pretend that Clinton (and female politicians, in general) aren't held to somewhat different standards
than men.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:26 pm
Agree with you Bob. But CN is infected with Russian bots. Used to be main go to site for me, now it's just the place for Trump
and Putin apologists.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm
"Roy G Biv" is today's name for one of the discredited trolls here lately, probably BobS himself, who pretends to be a former
supporter. Thanks for letting us know that rightwingers are liars.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
""Roy G Biv" is today's name for one of the discredited trolls here lately, probably BobS himself, who pretends to be a former
supporter. Thanks for letting us know that rightwingers are liars."
Thanks for letting me know it's so easy to fuck with your somewhat empty head.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:30 pm
Yeah BobS your the only smart one here. BTW You couldn't put a patch on Anon's ass even if you tried.
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 10:53 am
"CN infected with Russian bots and Putin apologists." Here's your guilt by association tool again. Anyone critical of the Official
Narrative = automatically name-called to Russian bots etc etc the "commie sympathizer" BS of years ago. This kind of comment from
you automatically disqualifies you as having anything worthwhile to say here.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:30 pm
He just finished saying that they are being held to different standards.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm
His implication was that they get a pass, when in fact just the opposite is true.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:08 pm
I was never once discredited. Just censored and shouted down. Now you plant a flag and claim to have refuted. That's not winning
an argument, it's just being loud and intolerant.
LongGoneJohn , August 19, 2017 at 4:11 am
So because of the comments, you don't frequent CN anymore? I call BS, mr perpetual war apologist.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Actually the timeline stands on its own, and is factual. Try reading it and follow the chain of events. Very illustrative.
Doesn't really matter your personal animus against Moyers and Clinton.
D5-5 , August 18, 2017 at 5:04 pm
The specific charge, emanating from the Clinton people, and used as diversion from DNC corruption and Clinton Foundation corruption,
is that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. This is a separate matter from Trump has had dealings with and association with
Russia since decades back. Conflating these two matters is the easy demonizing brush which you're pushing here. There is no evidence
on the specific accusation that Trump worked with Putin to fix the election. If you think there is evidence, versus guilt-by-association,
give us a heads-up on where and what it is.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 5:42 pm
WhoWhatWhy & David Cay Johnston are doing and have done a much better job than consortiumnews in covering Trump's likely connections
to Russian (and Italian) organized crime.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm
That begs (that is, avoids) the question.
I suspect all of our presidents have had connections with organized crime.
Trump is being charged with, basically, treason for colluding with the Russians to influence the election. Two different animals.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm
"That begs (that is, avoids) the question."
?
Kennedy, at least, at the wrong end of a gun.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:29 pm
Malcolm Nance has also chronicled the rise of Vlad and his seizure of the Russian economy from foreign vulture capitalists,
only to claim all the spoils for himself and his cronies, as well as how Trump relied on Russian funding to bail out his bankrupcies.
It's shockingly ignored here.
Malcolm Nance's book is a "best seller" because he allowed himself to become a shill for the corporate intelligence network
not unlike Ann Coulter who became a "best seller" with right wing sponsorship. Such books are printed in mass by the propagandist
and often advertised as best sellers before a copy is sold. Unlike, Coulter, Nance is articulate but he starts out by "poisoning
the well" with the premise that Putin's Russia is evil. He never really questions the hack theory. His book THE PLOT TO HACK AMERICA
is all the rage among Demo "true believers". It was given to me by a friend, no doubt to open my eyes to the evil Putin's maneuvers
but apart from the probability that he believed it himself his conclusion was based on a number of distorted facts(yes, I actually
read it).
Dave P. , August 18, 2017 at 9:25 pm
BobS: The organized Russian Crime mafia you are referring to had branches in Tel Aviv, New York, and London too. They were
lot of people who were part of it, and must be close too Clintons too in their corrupt World in New York and elsewhere in the
West. That is how our British Friends keep their economy running. The real Russians, the peasants according to the West they are,
never really learnt the art you are describing.
May be, Trump had his hand in there in that pot somewhere too, when they were looting Russia in a big way. But they have not
dug it out yet. I fail to understand with all these intelligence agencies, they have not shown it to the public as yet.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:30 pm
If your mind is open like a sieve.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:33 pm
The sieve serves to filter isolate particles of significance from the soup of information. A dam on the other hand prevents
the flow. Most here have built dams against anything implicating Trump and Putin, and there is extensive evidence of it, from
many sources.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:56 pm
Good analogy.
There's enough criticism of Trump here (although he does have his share of apologists, especially with respect to Charlottesville
e.g.'whatabout BLM?'), but Putin, not so much. I'm guessing he gets a pass from many of the readers due to him being somewhat
alone in standing up to the US (in Georgia, Ukraine, etc) as well as consortiumnews being relatively unique in disputing the 'official'
narrative with respect to the Ukrainian coup, MH17, & Crimea (as well as Syria). While Putin has served as a valuable counterweight
to the American empire, it doesn't make him beyond reproach, and he may possibly have helped to put a white-nationalist authoritarian
into the presidency.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
Hillary put Trump in the Oval Office. Bernie would have won, but your darling Hillary made sure that he didn't stand a chance
to win the Democratic primary, because her being a Clinton means she cheats.
Why don't you and Roy go peddle your insulting selfs to people who might buy what your selling. She loss, because she wasn't
a good candidate. In fact Hillary would have loss to almost any of the insane Republicans who ran. You BobS are one dull gem of
a person .now go mimic me you clown.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:48 pm
"Hillary put Trump in the Oval Office."
She helped.
"Bernie would have won"
Agreed.
"She loss, because she wasn't a good candidate. In fact Hillary would have loss to almost.."
You should get your money back for the ESL course.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 8:02 pm
BobS why can't you just talk sensibility with me?
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:18 pm
Vlad does get some credit for straight-arming the West vulture capitalists from feeding on the carcass of the USSR and the
state owned infrastructure, BUT he supplanted those efforts with his own. He's become one of the richest men in the world by the
most unrestrained crony capitalism and is a skilled authoritarian ruler. Why he is so defended around here makes me wonder who
these people are who feel so butt hurt when he is criticized.
Anon , August 19, 2017 at 5:53 am
What garbage: find the evidence and your intellectual superiors will gladly review it.
Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:40 pm
Roy G Biv = BobS: you know as well as we that the utterly discredited Russiagate propaganda is intended solely to distract
from the DNC corruption and Repub corruption. So you pretend that discrediting it is a distraction. The crook is always full of
accusations of the same crookedness, like our Ukrainian hacker.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:23 pm
Hate to disappoint you Anon, but we are not the same person and I have no idea who BobS is. I guess you find it easier to ignore
dissenting opinion by lumping it into one persona. And your dismissal of Malcolm Nance is pretty thin IMO. The Russian hacking
of our election and the financial connections to DJT are well established and creating slogans and memes like "Russiagate" is
a cheap parlor trick.
Anon , August 19, 2017 at 5:56 am
BS. You haven't a single shred of evidence of any election hacking, let alone Russian, and apparently you know it. I demand
your evidence, not propaganda.
DocHollywood , August 20, 2017 at 12:51 am
"The Russian hacking of our election and the financial connections to DJT are well established"
All that's missing is evidence.
Peter Duveen , August 18, 2017 at 5:01 pm
I only pick up the New York Times once or twice a year as a novelty. It has priced itself out of the market, as have many other
newspapers, which used to be affordable by those eking out even the meanest of livings.
It would appear that the Russian hysteria is somehow connected with the anti-Trump hysteria in general, to which has been added
the charge of his being a white nationalist Nazi, merely because he acknowledged two factions willing to exercise violence in
conjunction with a politically charged demonstration. Yet, the latter charges would seem to divide so-called progressives while
casting intellectually honest analyses like Parry's as sympathetic to white supremacists by association. This may seem to be quite
a challenging environment for journalists to operate in, as the actual situation is so at odds with the conventional wisdom being
touted from the same regions of the universe. I do hope the very fabric of truth-telling is not ripped to shreds by these counter-currents.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:34 pm
So Trump is not a Nazi sympathizer? They sure think so. Ask David Duke. He tweeted thanks to Trump for defending them.
Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm
This is faulty logic.
I have said it before and I will say it again:
In our two-party system, millions of voters don't actually have any party that represents their views. This includes what would
be called in the USA "extremists" on both the left and the right.
Unlike what would be the case in a parliamentary system, where if a party gets over the 5% threshold they are represented in
the legislature and may even participate in forming a government, in the USA such groups have to decide which of the two parties
is closer to their own platform. IF David Duke decides that the Repugs are closer to what he wants, that doesn't mean that Trump
is therefore a Nazi or white supremacist.
It means that Duke is some kind of Republican.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm
Trump has received adulation from the white nationalist fringe unusual for a candidate from any party.
Even more unusual, Trump has reciprocated.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 9:37 pm
Knowing you BobS you'll probably think that what I'm about to say, is my supporting Trump, because you are still living the
2016 presidential election. When you bring up odd alliances, how about when Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland (and John McCain)
orchestrated the coup in Ukraine that installed a full on Nazi Party, complete with swastikas?
Let's see if you can answer me in a decent tone. That doesn't mean you need to agree with me, but it does mean you are an ignorant
know it all, if you don't answer me with some common respect.
Before you came here BobS, it was nice to have conversations with the many others who whether they agreed with you or not,
at least the use of good manners did lead to our learning something worthwhile. You BobS, only bring out the worst in a person,
with your little boy agitation. It also over shadows the good points you make, when you use ridicule the way you do. In other
words BobS, I can tell your not stupid, but you sure come off that way with your words and actions when you do the silly things
you do with your rude comments.
It's very rare that I burn down bridges, for you see BobS all my life I have been a bridge builder. So, when your ready to
grow up, and become mature, then who knows, maybe you and I will become friends, if not well it's no big loss. Take care Joe
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 11:43 pm
Joe, they are both professional disruptors. The Roy G Biv character is too well informed to be merely mistaken – he's simply
not honest. I'd posit he is CIA or back-room NYT employee. Or possibly a nutcase Zionist with a good US education posting from
some stolen land in Israel.
Speaking of the New York Times, I'm done with them. I now have zero respect for the filthy propaganda site.
As I was reading through Mr. Parry's piece I decided to find out for myself if they were as bad as they seem. But how to test
this? Long story short, I hit on the idea to see what they've written about the USS Liberty on this 50th Anniversary of the attempted
sinking of the ship and attempted mass murder of all aboard.
Search terms were "USS LIberty" and "nytimes.com".
According to the Google results there were zero mentions of the USS Liberty on the NYT site within the past 12 months. Double
checking, I went to the site and entered the term into the search there. Nothing.
They lie. They distort. They conceal. Mostly for Israel. These days Israel wants Syria to get the Iraq/Libya treatment. Russia
is an obstacle. The lying, cheating, and distortions of the NYT and WP are focused on pressuring Russia enough to get them out
of Syria. The professional newcomers here are accusing us of being Putin-Hacks, and much more. They do everything they can to
disrupt discussion. I'd imagine it's because Mr. Parry's site is becoming one too many people around the world come to view. The
deliberate chaos created by these guys is another small part of the attack on Russia for Israel.
By the way, have you noticed a single thing the BobS and Roy G Biv types have written which is notable in any way whatever?
I haven't. I'm going to try very hard to be done with them as well.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 12:00 am
Thanks Zachary. Hearing you say that these two buttheads maybe professional disrupters is comforting. No, I'm actually honored
that BobS started with me (I think first) the other day. Now I feel empowered to deal with the likes of these two clown asses.
You may have already seen this article over at the Saker, about the USS Liberty, but here it is in case you haven't, or for
the others who may find interest in it as well.
I agree, Zachary and Joe. They appear to be trolls, and may use varying names for a while.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm
You just said: " .charge of his being a white nationalist Nazi, merely because he acknowledged two factions willing to exercise
violence in conjunction with a politically charged demonstration." Your use of the word merely is very disturbing. If it was abundantly
clear from previous revelations, his performance this week should have removed all doubt about his sentiments.
Peter Duveen , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm
Yes it was wrong for me to use "merely," because the characterization of Trump as a white supremacist has nothing to do with
reality, and the fact that Trump took a balanced approach to the demonstration was another excuse for unfounded accusations. What
we have is people who want Trump out, who lost an election, who are doing everything they can to overthrow a president. Since
the Russian hacking meme has been shown to be without merit (although it is still harped upon), the white supremacist angle is
now being milked for everything it has. It's a hoax completely in parallel with the Russian hacking narrative. Reality has nothing
to do with this attempt to overthrow Trump. And the CIA is fully behind it. So stick with it. People may be making idiots of themselves,
but for them, the ends justifies the means.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Well, I guess we'll see. But I believe you will be the one eating crow when the facts are laid out. It seems people have trouble
holding disparate thoughts in their minds and require mutual exclusivity, i.e. the past misdeeds of the CIA vs the idea that they
might actually be doing public service in this Putin/Trump situation. I don't have trouble with this and embrace both. The world
and people are complex, not neatly black or white.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 5:14 pm
I remember as soon as the leak that the DNC tried to subvert the Sanders campaign came out, Hillary's campaign manager Robby
Mook stated the Russians did it, and obviously he had no conclusive proof. At the time I thought they already had it planned that
if their misdeeds were ever revealed Russia would be blamed, and it would be a good reason to go after Trump should he win the
election. It would also allow them to continue to escalate a cold war, already well underway under the Obama administration. It's
basic science that you can't come to a valid conclusion if you have already determined what that will be. I never believed their
lies from the get go. What is very disturbing is that the press is so complicit in pushing this lie while the American public,
and in this case the so called liberal/progressives, are so willing to swallow it. For me, that's the scary part. Equally scary
is that the CIA, FBI and NIA are equally complicit in this deception.
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:37 pm
Right, they are all in on this phony Russia scare gambit. There are plenty of other causes to impeach Trump. Our President
is a crook, as well as a racist.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 7:11 pm
I don't know if Trump's a racist, maybe he is, but did you ever hear Obama, Bush, or Cheney called a racist, or if they were,
did the American people buy into it the way they have with Trump? However, what would you call people who destroy whole nations
which are predominantly Muslim, cross sovereign borders in Muslim countries killing thousands of innocents with drone warfare?
Is Israel in it's treatment of the Palestinians not racist? Are we not racist as a nation as well? I ask myself if these countries
were predominately Christian would the American people be so laid back about our warring exploits in these countries? What about
those papal bulls that gave explorers of the new world the right to conquer and exploit the indigenous people? Not to mention
our sense of entitlement to practically wipe out the American Indian population. If indeed he is a racist, he fits right in. Take
a look at our legal system where over 90 percent of people take a plea bargain and never get a fair trial, and most of the prison
population is black although they constitute a small minority in this country.
I have a friend who berated me for not being more outraged by Trump's racist rhetoric, but she refused to visit an elderly,
and lonely aunt who lived in a black area, while I move in and out of that area quite frequently. We're full of hypocrisy.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm
"I don't know if Trump's a racist"
Trump's a racist.
"Is Israel in it's treatment of the Palestinians not racist?'
Amy Goodman had on a spokesman from the Anne Frank Center this morning forcefully (and accurately, in my opinion) criticizing
Trump, Bannon, & Gorka.
The interview took a somewhat comical turn when Goodman showed her guest a clip of white supremacist Richard Spencer being interviewed
on Israeli television saying:
"As an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood and the history and
experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. I mean, you could
-- you could say that I am a white Zionist, in the sense that I care about my people. I want us to have a secure homeland that's
for us and ourselves, just like you want a secure homeland in Israel."
The comical part was watching the histrionics of the guy from the Anne Frank Center as he avoided addressing Spencer's point.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm
"Hail Trump -- " chanted by Richard Spencer after the election. Fascists love fascists.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 9:37 pm
I usually listen to Democracy Now, but missed this one, and it makes a good point. Easy to point a finger at someone's perceived
racism, but difficult to look at your own, which is too often justified. My point exactly. People talk about Trumps immigration
policies and deportation of immigrants, but are mindless of the fact that Obama deported 2 million immigrants. Many Americans
don't place what is going on now within an historical framework, not even a recent historical framework. I also believe there
is an attempt to undermine the people who voted for Trump, which would make a coup more possible. I don't like Trump, but more
then anything I don't like the idea of overturning the election of a president based on lies and innuendo. I really don't think
that's a good thing --
Dave P. , August 18, 2017 at 9:49 pm
Annie, your comments are always very sincere and objective.
You wrote above: ". . .What is very disturbing is that the press is so complicit in pushing this lie while the American public,
and in this case the so called liberal/progressives, are so willing to swallow it. For me, that's the scary part. Equally scary
is that the CIA, FBI and NIA are equally complicit in this deception. . ."
By this time, it should be clear to any one with an open mind that there is no such thing left in the country as free and fair
Media which informs public. And all these agencies you mentioned are nothing but a sewage pit of lies. And the liberal/ progressives
are like most of the population, completely brainwashed and believe whatever is fed to them by the likes of Rachael Maddow.
Annie , August 18, 2017 at 10:35 pm
My brother listens to her everyday, and I can't listen to him. He's literally hysterical over the Trump presidency, as is she.
He can't hear anything I have to say, or any other point of view. To me it is a total surprise since he is well educated, and
will define himself as a liberal thinker. Bah humbug --
"The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark although the Times had already declared
several times on page 1 that there was really no doubt about Russia's guilt."
The NYT is now terrified of the genuine research and honest conclusions made by the VIPS. It's almost as if the NYT's suffering
under some sort of OCD neurosis, the VIPS has them on their heels, though the NYT will never admit it. Ergo, like Rainman, they
resort to repeating over and over and over to their brainwashed readers the Kremlin's guilt and the intel agencies' assurances.
They try ever so hard to pass themselves off as the only reasonable and sane voices in the room, during these times of upheaval
and uncertainty.
To use an admittedly stretched sports analogy: the VIPS have been doing, and are going to do, to the NYT what Floyd Mayweather
is about to do to McGregor in their upcoming prize fight. A real authentic professional is about to dominate a huckster and charlatan
who's out of his element, just there to collect a fat paycheck (not unlike the careerism of the NYTers).
Karl Sanchez , August 18, 2017 at 5:33 pm
Given the overall context of Russiagate and the "journalistic" history of the NY Times , it would be fair to assess
it and its loyal readership as spreading Washington propaganda and unwitting Washington stooges, respectively. But which gets
to claim the Greatest Propaganda Rag Prize: NY Times or Washington Post ?
mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:39 pm
Too close to call.
D5-5 , August 18, 2017 at 6:02 pm
From Parry: the "certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's intelligence agencies "lack a solid evidentiary foundation."
What would that evidentiary foundation be?
Would it be Donald Trump visited Russia therefore he's guilty of conspiring with Putin to fix the election, starting with hacking
the DNC.
Or Trump had real estate dealings, mafia dealings, whatever, with Russia, and leap to "I wouldn't doubt it."
Or, I hate Trump so much I'll believe anything negative about him.
Or Russia was once the Soviet Union and a bunch of commie rat bastards so of course this story is true.
Or, The New York Times, that esteemed bastion of truth and investigative journalism says it's true so it must be true.
Evidence defined: what furnishes proof.
Yet, reminded by Parry once again, here is the basis for the January 6 assessments:
Quoted from the reporting agencies themselves on January 6, their judgments–
"are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information,
which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
Based on what evidence IS, here we have NO evidence. What we do have is speculation.
Clapper weighed in on January 6 with a "moderate" assessment. How does a moderate differ from a high assessment–was some of
the logic–since the statement indicates no proof based on fact exists–somehow dubious or tendentious?
He was moderately convinced that it just might be so, maybe, possibly. Is that what this means?
Dempsey weighed in at "high" with the above statement, and perhaps somebody knows what this "high" meant, based on what?
Comey weighed in at "high" although his agency, the FBI, did not examine the DNC computers, and relied entirely on Crowdstrike,
shown repeatedly as a biased anti-Russian source in the employ of Hillary Clinton.
This is the authority creating the flimsy evidentiary foundation of the NY Times et al MSM to which we citizens are now either
a) skeptical or b) entirely convinced.
"Evidentiary void"–right on, Robert Parry --
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 12:08 pm
Sorry, meant to say Brennan, not "Dempsey" re CIA assessment.
The Saker is always interesting, and even though you find some good people over there (Michael Hudson & Mike Whitney, among
others), the race stuff at Unz always makes me feel like I have to wash off.
John , August 18, 2017 at 6:58 pm
America is walking into a well planned nightmare. Spoon fed to you by the corporate media soon the spark of hate will become
an uncontrollable wildfire
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 7:00 pm
It did not rely entirely on Crowdstrike. They are just the ones who referred it to FBI. If you don't think the USA has powerful
IT divisions who can forensically determine source and method, then your fear of deep state are immediately invalidated, a contradiction.
If you believe in the awesome power of the intelligence community, then you cannot use the argument that they don't know anymore
than what the got from Crowdstrike. I understand the mistrust of the IC, but you must admit that they just might me trying to
protect us in this case from enemies foreign and domestic.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 7:57 pm
No, no one can "forensically determine source and method" except in lucky cases or when tracing naive hacks. NSA got its trove
of hack methods including false-flagging methods on the black market from a Ukraine hacker. So no one will buy garbage accusations
of Russia from a Ukrainian hacker.
If the US IC has insider sources, they must be prepared to have them bail out and give testimony, after some reasonable period,
where grave accusations must be either discredited or cause serious policy changes.
No hiding behind "trust us" after months: only fools will believe "confidence."
The same goes for MH-17, WMD, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and many others.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:39 pm
What you are saying is true and reasonable. But consider that this is an ongoing counter espionage investigation that has been
in progress for over one year, and these take years to conclude. You may not be able to trust them without seeing the info and
intel, but you cannot simply conclude that the evidence simply doesn't exist just because it's not visible to you. There are reasons
to hold cards close to the vest while leveraging suspects into witnesses.
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:38 am
Fine, let them investigate, but they must not announce extremely serious conclusions to the public, with immediate political
implications, especially conclusions that serve immediate political ends in the US, and refuse to provide evidence to the public
even after a month or so. That is either careless methodology or fraud. The history of such "revelations" on "high confidence"
has been a history of fraud by political appointees to the intel agencies.
I do not exclude the possibility that intel technology whose nature and location are critical secrets might be revealed with
the evidence, although it appears that the secrets could generally be kept. Such technology requires having a safe disclosure
method, such as disguising/relocating informants and devices. Most likely such technology would provide clues to direct other
safely-revealable technology. If it does not, it does not serve democracy well, and probably is fundamentally a tool of tyranny,
a product of excessive spying, and must be discounted by the public.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 7:06 pm
By the way, the "Evidentiary Void" might actually look pretty filled up in private eyes of the office of special counsel. I
wouldn't expect to see the all of the evidence of a case in progress, as persons being investigated are best left unknowing and
useful to flip for a leniency deal. Again, the timeline will be very informative if you take the time to read it. It's merely
the chronological presentation of factual events.
That link is so full of invasive scripts that my script blocking software cannot be persuaded to show it.
Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 8:37 pm
I use YesScript for Firefox on a case-by-case basis. If a site has annoying animations, it gets the treatment.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:40 pm
Just goole billmoyers.com and look for timeline. It's so easy.
D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 10:40 am
The time-line is irrelevant to the specific claim that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election. Point to anything in
this time-line that offers evidence.
Reminder 1: evidence is what offers proof on the specific charge.
Reminder 2: the IC January 6 statement "not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."
This very interesting statement suggests that a political motive was operative in these assessments, in which "what we want
to believe" becomes "what we believe," or to quote Seymour Hersh recently, 2 + 2 = 45.
Your absence of doubt, particularly given the history of lying from our official government reps over many years now, as well
as your swerving aside to an irrelevant "time-line," puts you in the camp of the propagandists.
I believe it is a disgusting and dangerous remark for a person in an elected position to make.
BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:56 pm
That's why I'm outraged.
Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:37 pm
See BobS no one knows how to take your snarky remarks. Plus, I don't believe you when you say you were outraged, because your
squirrelly mind doesn't know how to be sincere. Oh will you pay for my ESL courses? Jagoff.
Pierre Anonymot , August 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm
Mr. Pary, do you manage to send your articles to selected editors and journalists of the NYT, The Guardian, and their MSM mates?
To selected politicians, including executive bureaucrats & MIC peple? It seems to me that some of them must read more than twits
twittering? I think it's very vital that you do so or that someone does it on your behalf (and ours.)
Pierre Anonymot , August 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm
Oops, Parry.
Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:42 pm
Parry is well known on Capitol Hill and among the MSM. Long standing feud, but no doubt respected.
Sam , August 18, 2017 at 7:37 pm
"a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was linked to the release of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016"
Mr Parry, the malware and its developer had nothing whatsoever to do with the DNC. The New York Times erroneously made this
claim and was forced to issue a correction. It has NEVER been claimed that this malware was deployed against the DNC. I think
your piece would be strengthened if you mentioned that The New York Times made a big blunder about this.
Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 8:11 pm
Hi Sam, I regularly post here as Sam F and would appreciate your using an initlal to avoid confusion, if you will.
Taras77 , August 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm
This might be a tad OT but both links follow the reporting on Russia-gate hysteria:
This link is a review of a book on the Browder deception (title of review article is a tad more dire than the title of the
book):
This link is to a very long article by saker on the neo con campaign to take down America and probably the world-very long
but worth a read, particularly with fast moving developments in the trump white house; comments in general are also worthy of
perusing:
We should be careful, as not to dwell strictly on memorial statues. I will admit though, that the conversation should be had,
but not without looking at the type of individuals who flock towards the racist trend. So far, of what I have been able to read
regarding these young white guys, who have found comfort in racism, I find these misguided youth to be angry over the rise of
minority groups. Reading their words, these angered white supremacist wrote, they complain that we spend to much time worried
about bathrooms over them having a decent job. I say, why can't we do both. Someone needs to tell these racist, that it's not
the various minority's who are getting in the way of their success in America, as much as it is themselves for not being able
to overcome the many obstacles life has put in their way. They need to realize, that their future welfare doesn't rely on a minority
losing any of their rights, in order for these racist to survive comfortably. What they need to learn, is they are their own best
hope .attitude is altitude.
I also hope, that what happened in Charlottesville doesn't bring down the hammer on all public protest.
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 3:20 am
Joe – but there are too many "unskilled" workers coming into the country and it IS making a difference. Long time ago, when
there was an abundance of factories churning out all sorts of products, there was a need for unskilled labor. People flooded into
the country to fill these much-needed positions. You didn't need any special training; you didn't need to understand English.
With jobs having been offshored to Asia and with increasing automation, there is not a need for the same amount of "unskilled"
labor as before, and yet they continue to pour into the country. What are the people who are on the left-hand side of the bell
curve supposed to do? Innovate? Compete with the newcomers and have wages decline even more?
It's not the immigrants these kids dislike. It's the sheer numbers of them. Does that make any sense to you, that it's about
the "numbers"? I agree that obstacles in life often make you wiser and stronger, but there comes a point in time when you start
banging your head against the wall. What is the point of putting so many unnecessary obstacles in front of people? So some corporation
can maintain a cheap labor force?
Sometimes my posts come across as sounding blunt. I don't mean them to. It's just that when things are reduced to words, you
miss the shrugs of the shoulders, the eye movement, the sincerity in a person's voice.
Cheers, Joe.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:22 am
You never come off sounding bad, or blunt, with me.
For all the reasons you mentioned, is for all the reasons we as a society should require us to pull together. You see, I don't
believe that all these problems should be remedied with racism taking over our young white mens political ideology. That's all
I'm saying. If only our country would elect leaders, instead of billionaire realtors with tv celebrity status. If only this country's
political parties were to not break the law running their gentrified Wall St hack candidate, who's only aim is to feather her
historical bio. You see backwardsevolution, we need leaders, not celebrities seeking office for their own vain gratification.
Yes, for all the hard choices, and for all the tough decisions, should be the reason for our leaders to reach out or down,
which ever you prefer, and should be what pulls us together. It breaks my heart, that here we are in 2017, the most successful
nation God ever put on earth, and our white young men are turning into racist. Now, what could be wrong with that? I'll tell you
what's wrong with that. Our leaders have quit leading, and replaced this leadership we the people should be receiving, and replaced
this ever distant leadership with ignorance of doing their job to represent the voters.
Thanks for your response. Joe
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:49 am
Joe – " our white young men are turning into racists." I don't think they are, Joe. I think they get angry that they are not
being allowed to speak, as if what they have to say doesn't really matter. I think that what we hear is carefully filtered, especially
in the MSM, so as to make it look like they're racist, but I don't think this is the case at all. No time now, Joe. Thanks.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 11:59 pm
Okay, I will admit that our media portrays many of our events in the worst possible way. You more than likely may have a point
that these young white men are not racist, that for many of them this white supremacist movement is just a vehicle to carry out
their concerns.
What is wrong with our country's leadership, is how they speak to the problems, such as unemployment, with the sharpest rhetoric
they can find to say how they are going to create many, many new and exciting jobs, but once in office they don't do a darn thing,
as they go on to ignore the many promises they had made on the campaign trail. What these politicians seem completely oblivious
too, is the voters who voted for them ,have memories, and they don't forget.
Opportunity only comes to those who seek it. Well that's not completely true, but in most cases it does prove that to those
who try hard, much may be achieved. So if our politicians were to really want to change our sad employment status in this country,
then why don't they do it? Would you invite 100 people over for a barbecue, and only have enough beverage and food for 25 of your
guess. So, why can't the American politicians manage to accommodate a sagging work force, who's jobs they send off shore, with
enough new jobs to fill the quota of the unemployed? Because they weren't told too, by their corporate special interest, or maybe
they just didn't care enough to do something about it.
So, the young white, black, red, and yellow, person loses out. They lose out all because they were neglected by the very people
who said they would help them. I don't know about you, but one of life's biggest disappointments, is when your savior turns their
back on you.
I hope backwardsevolution I'm not sounding like I'm just spinning wheels, and I hope you at least get a peek of what is going
on inside my head, with these important issues.
Joe
Realist , August 19, 2017 at 5:49 am
"Illegitimi non carborundum." (Don't let the bastards grind you down.)
Keep fighting for your principles AND civil discourse on this board, Joe. I offer the same words to backwardsevolution with
whom you were conversing. You have both been stellar examples of respectful debaters.
I don't for a minute think, like some who keep obnoxiously pushing the accusation that most Americans, especially most Southern
Americans, are racist, that racism underlies most of the dysfunction in governance of modern America, and that President Trump
is the king of all racists, winning office only with the support of racists (and Russian saboteurs) to carry on a racist agenda
thus depriving us of a new golden age under Saint Hillary the Great. The whole racist conflict in Charlottesville seemed suspiciously
contrived to me to distract from other problem areas and to facilitate the ongoing coup against Trump (like him or hate him).
I am NOT going to recapitulate all that yet again.
Certainly there were bone fide haters, some predisposed to violence, recruited into both factions by professional agitators.
They couldn't have succeeded in provoking the violence if there were not. But, most working Americans are basically running scared,
fearing they might lose their jobs, their houses, their medical coverage, quality education for their kids, and a viable future.
Most whites, whether right or left, from the North or South, do not hate blacks, Latinos, Muslims or immigrants in general. They
can see how disadvantaged those people often are and fear ending up in the same predicament. Most never say much about the situation,
certainly not in strident public statements. Even the participants at political rallies are just a self-selected minority. Most
who vote do so quietly, without comment. (My parents would never tell us who they voted for -- Keeps the peace.) More than half
the country does not even vote. They choose to shy away from the political battlefield and certainly do not want to confront agitators
in the street.
Call them alienated or disconnected from society, and condemn them if it suits your world view. We contributors to this site
do put a lot of blame on those we decide are willfully ignorant. But I suspect that most of the self-disenfranchised simply don't
have enough time to devote to learning the issues, choosing up sides and becoming activists, or even voters. I doubt that many
of them think that tearing down a bunch of old monuments they were totally oblivious to will change their lives in any way and
they certainly don't want to devote the time or energy to fighting about them.
If either the left or the right want to improve the lot of regular Americans, they will take some kind of action to bring back
jobs to this country, not just high-skill jobs that require massive re-education, but jobs for the middle and the working classes
alike. I thought that's what Dems always wanted to do, and what Trump said he would do. Why is everything still in grid-lock in
Washington while both parties are trying to dump the man who opposed the TPP and said he would pressure corporations to keep jobs
in and even bring back jobs to America–not that I think the latter is likely, but why has even lip-service to the idea stopped?
If the Dems ostentatiously claimed THAT issue was their major bone of contention with Trump, they'd have a lot more followers
than the few idiots who buy the Russia-Gate bullshit.
When Newt Gingrich swept the GOP to power in the congress during Bill Clinton's first term, he had devised a lengthy detailed
plan of action called the "Contract for America." I was not an advocate of those policies, but they certainly resonated better
with the public than today's "elect the Democrats to power and the Russians will never steal another election, in fact, we'll
kick their asses from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea." "Plus we'll tear down all the confederate monuments which should bring
peace and harmony to the streets." If the real game changers can ever be implemented (which seems near to hopeless to me), racism
will not be a major issue in this country, not if most of us are physically and economically secure and optimistic about our futures.
(I've had two black families and a Latino family living in houses right next to mine in South Florida, and I had a mixed race
family as neighbors in my previous place of residence. Do I care? No. Do they care? No. Anyone else in the neighborhood ever make
a comment about anyone's race? No. Does it affect my property value? No, but the real estate bubble caused by the banks sure did.)
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 7:03 am
Yes, good to point out that economic distress is a major factor in apparent racism and immigration resistance among US workers.
This is a great concern to those who advocate international development aid, who must answer objections on economic effects.
The answer on globalization may involve treaties and laws restricting trade to nations that provide a standard of living that
compares well with the lower middle class of the US, and to suppliers who provide well for their employees. While that would be
cheaper elsewhere, so does not remove competition with US labor, it does require that the cost in jobs to the US worker is matched
by benefits in development elsewhere. So our assistance to US workers is reduced by development assistance.
It also would prevent the US heartlessly exploiting cheap labor pools of oppressed workers, without you or I being able to
help them by purchasing choices, or to escape guilt in their exploitation. It would be good to know that one could make purchasing
decisions without grinding others into poverty and degradation to save a few pennies.
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 7:53 am
" economic distress is a major factor in apparent racism and immigration resistance among US workers."
Partly, though certainly not solely, with respect to immigration.
Racism?
Nope.
Makes a nice scapegoat, though, for racists and their apologists.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 10:07 am
Your comment Sam took my mind back to my younger days when this town had an abundance of steel mills. If you were a young apprentice
sometimes on your first day on the job, no one seemed to want to teach you the ropes, because each mill worker felt threatened
that you were to be trained to replace them. In time, if you didn't screw up, you would be accepted and inducted into the group.
We love cliques and groups, don't we? I thought of this, because what you wrote reminded me of how outsiders are viewed by the
existing work force. This comparison on a international level is what we are experiencing. Our leadership is to blame for this
new dividing dilemma. Promises to replace your old job with a brand new better job, was the big lie. Corporate profits override
human necessity, and with that we all lose. I don't think that all these retail outlets closing their doors, is merely due to
Amazons convenient purchasing, but much of this loss of retail revenue, is due to the beatdown society just cannot afford it.
Good comment as always Sam. Joe
Realist , August 19, 2017 at 6:25 pm
You are very much on point, Joe, about worker pitted against worker. Who benefits from such a divide and conquer tactic? The
robber baron capitalists are who. And, I use that term because the phenomenon is nothing new. It, like the bruhaha about race
goes back to before the Civil War. Ever watch the movie "The Gangs of New York?" Both these conflicts, involving race (and ethnicity)
and socioeconomic class, are laid out powerfully right there. And, just as in the movie, after our generations exit the stage
following all the sturm und drang, all the hate and all the angst churned up because we are made pawns of greater forces, no one
will even remember we personally ever existed.
Trump Tower, the Clinton Foundation, and Obama's Library in Jackson Park (yeah, named after the racist Andrew, not Stonewall)
will still persist though, just like the confederate statues do today. But would we really want our descendants to forget this
era and the players who dominated it? We build monuments in DC to the holocaust in Europe which didn't even happen here, not to
honor or glorify it but so we collectively don't forget. Maybe the purpose of some monuments actually evolves over time to serve
as a lesson rather than hero worship, and when Americans a hundred years from now look upon a bronze cast of Robert E. Lee, U.S.
Grant or Douglas MacArthur their take will be, "war, how could our forebears possibly have embraced something so heinous, so destructive,
so insane?"
Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 12:20 am
I always take away something of high value from what you write Realist. I agree with what you wrote here. I also think that
our government should build right next to the Holocast museum, a fitting tribute to the suffering of the 600 indigenous nations
who the U.S. had destroyed in its quest for manifest destiny. I'm serious, as a Sunday school teacher is on a Sunday teaching
the word of God. If our nation's soiled pass, is to remain hidden by the curtain of everything that's just and right, then America's
beloved citizens will never know to what is true. How can our nation become truly great, if it keeps on continuing to lie to itself.
Making stuff up, will only last so long, until the truth will finally overcome every lie you ever told yourself.
The change in attitude towards venerating our country's historical pass, is a sign of how our American culture is changing.
What got praise 100 years ago, may not be praise worthy by today's existing society. There isn't much to cry about, but instead
we should understand that these changes will come, just as night follows day. I guess I'm a revisionist at heart, but I do believe
that assumptions and conclusions, are a ever changing thing. So what we are witnessing, and experiencing, is just our own human
evolution. Plus, I might add, as you know Realist, history is always being updated, and revised, and with it many truths that
weren't known then become known.
It's always a pleasure to correspond with a reasonable, and sensible, comment poster as you. Joe
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:32 am
Every word you wrote Realist, is excellent. I felt the same way about Bill Clinton, but your right, at least the masses at
his time in office thought the economy was what it was all about. I will save going into the reality of Clinton's time in office,
but your point is well made.
Whether it be the Democrates, or a truly changed Republican party, one of these political parties will need to accommodate
the voter, if anything is to get better.
Rather than me go on, I'm just going to read once again what you wrote Realist, because I could not write what you had wrote
any better. Your words are excellent to what we are talking about.
I always enjoy reading your comments Realist, never leave us. Joe
Gregory Herr , August 19, 2017 at 3:06 pm
I have to chime in Joe. I read it twice for good measure. Thanks to Realist and the many here who share such understandings.
backwardsevolution , August 20, 2017 at 7:11 am
Realist – thank you for your kind words. I always appreciate your well-thought-out and intelligent posts. They provide class
and depth to the conversation. I, on the other hand, do not really belong on this site.
Sam F , August 20, 2017 at 9:58 am
Your posts have also been very useful and interesting, b-e.
backwardsevolution , August 21, 2017 at 12:15 am
Yours too, Sam. Always enjoy your comments --
Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 9:02 pm
Hey backwardsevolution your the life of this party, you never seem like you don't belong. I personally look forward to reading
your comments. So brighten up, you are needed here, and that's no lie. Joe
backwardsevolution , August 21, 2017 at 12:25 am
Joe – you're such a kind man. Thank you. I enjoy reading your posts too; they're always very considerate. What I mean by "I
do not really belong on this site" is that I just see things differently than a lot of others on here do, too differently. I'll
hang around a while yet, though. Thanks, Joe.
Joe Tedesky , August 21, 2017 at 4:09 pm
"that I just see things differently than a lot of others on here do, too differently"
With your quote that is all the more reason this sites comment board needs you backwardsevolution.
backwardsevolution , August 20, 2017 at 7:15 am
Realist – excellent post. Thank you.
exiled off mainstreet , August 19, 2017 at 12:02 am
At Nuremberg, in 1946, Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi propaganda rag Der Stuermer, was executed based on the crime of
propagandizing for war. This article provides further evidence that the New York Times Russia posturing is a tissue of propaganda
lies. Since the logical goal of the propaganda is war, and the crap they are publishing has similar validity to that which was
published for decades in the Nazi Stuermer rag, then if the legal doctrines put forward in the Nuremberg trial could be applied
to US war propagandists, their status as war criminals would be apparent.
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:42 am
exiled – yeah, I don't see a difference between then and now. Lies are everywhere, and not just little ones, but huge mothers
used to sway public opinion. These guys really need to be in jail.
Look at what the Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, said re Charlottesville. His remarks were quickly refuted by the Virginia
State Police, but if you happened to hear what McAuliffe said, yet missed the police's remarks, you'd be none the wiser and you
probably would have believed McAuliffe.
"In an interview Monday on the Pod Save the People podcast, hosted by Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson, McAuliffe
claimed the white nationalists who streamed into Charlottesville that weekend hid weapons throughout the town.
"They had battering rams and we had picked up different weapons that they had stashed around the city," McAuliffe told Mckesson.
McAuliffe claimed in an interview with The New York Times that law enforcement arrived to find a line of militia members who
"had better equipment than our State Police had." In longer comments that were later edited out of the Times' story, McAuliffe
said that up to 80 percent of the rally attendees were carrying semi-automatic weapons. "You saw the militia walking down the
street, you would have thought they were an army," he said."
All total bullshit -- Talk about inciting people -- Why is this guy still walking around?
To be more successful, the right wing protestors should have paraded under a facade of free speech, human rights and democracy,
all the while promoting Nazi policies. This is something US intelligence agencies, MSM, and Congress do every day. US politicians
should wear little swastika lapel pins on their suits to avoid confusion.
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 1:24 am
Obviously, the correct answer is
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = bad.
Then there's answers I've read in these comment sections, for instance
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = bad BUT .whatabout BLM?
&
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad
neo-Nazis in the U S = trap for Trump
as well as this classic:
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = DEEP STATE -- -- --
backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 1:59 am
Here is a post by Karl Denninger, a fellow who used to own his own Internet company in Chicago and is very knowledgeable about
these things. After reading The Nation article by Patrick Lawrence, he said:
"I wouldn't go so far as to claim impossible, but I would say "highly unlikely." The second part of the statement, however,
is utterly true -- it is completely consistent with either a SD card or USB flash drive inserted into a computer.
When it comes to Internet transfer of data, remember one thing: You're only as fast as the slowest link in the middle.
There are plenty of places on the Internet with gigabit (that's ~100MegaBYTE per second) speeds. But you would need such pipes
end to end, and in addition, they'd have to be relatively empty at the time you exfiltrated the data.
What's worse is that there is a real bandwidth product delay problem that most "pedestrian" operating systems do not handle
well at all.
In other words as latency and number of hops go up, irrespective of bandwidth, there's an issue with the maximum realistically
obtainable speed, irrespective of whether there's sufficient available pipe space to take the data. This is a problem that can
be tuned for if you know how and your system has the resources to handle it on some operating systems -- specifically, server-class
operating systems like FreeBSD. But the "common" Windows machine pretty-much cannot be adjusted in this way and it requires expert
knowledge to do so. [ ]
But it sure does cast a long shade on the claims of "Russians -- " in this alleged "hack." The simple fact of the matter is
that the evidence points to inside exfiltration of the data directly from the physical machines in question, which is no "hack"
at all: It's an inside job, performed by someone who had trusted, administrative access, and then doctored the documents later
to make it look like Russians.
And, I might add, poorly doctored at that.
PS: Left unsaid in the linked article, but it shouldn't have been, is that if there was an SD card or external USB device plugged
into the machine there is an event log from said machine documenting the exact time that said device was attached and detached.
Find that log (or the timestamp on it being erased, which is equally good in a situation like this), match it against the metadata
times, and then start looking for security camera footage and/or access card logs for where that machine is and you know who did
it with near-certainty, proved by the forensic evidence.
Now perhaps you can explain why the FBI didn't raid the DNC's offices with a warrant, take custody of said logs and go through
them to perform this investigation -- which would have pointed straight at the party or parties responsible .."
Could the quote below apply to today?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street
building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History
has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." – George Orwell, 1984
BobS , August 19, 2017 at 8:44 am
"Could the quote below apply to today?"
If one is a drama queen, apparently yes.
Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:51 am
Stephen it doesn't take a drama queen to recognize the true sorry state our society has evolved into. Orwell's 1984 is disturbingly
coming to life more than ever. I read 1984 back when I was a sophomore in high school, but recently a lawyer friend of mine read
that book, and he said that all he kept thinking about was me. He said, that while he read the book, the many conversations which
him and I had had made him think of my warnings to where our civilization is going. No we are here, the date on your calendar
may read 2017, but make no mistake about it we are living in 1984.
I dread that these violent protest, will deny our civil rights to form protests, and that would be a great loss. Although,
these buggers in D.C. are convinced they must seize every crisis, and milk it for all they can. Each terrible disaster brings
with it new restrictions. It maybe found when boarding a plane, or opening an investment account, as each tragic event brought
us to these new restrictions we must live with. We are being played, but that piece of information, is covered over with conspiracy
nut paper, and there go I.
Keep the faith Stephen, and ignore the trolling critics, who no doubt are paid to annoy us with our own hard earned taxpayer
money .now that's Big Brother stuff, if ever there was any Big Brother stuff to disturb our inquiring minds. Joe
Reading the link you provided, all I could picture, was Senator John McCain doing a photo op session with his new found friends
the terrorist. Also, I believe that if you pay your taxes you have every right to complain. That your ability to lodge a complain
against your government shouldn't depend solely on your voting, because you still pay your taxes, and that paying your taxes,
is your ticket to the complaint window.
What this country's politicians really need is a 'low voter turnout', so low as to delegitimize the results of any election,
which would result in the world not honoring your country's election results.
As if on cue, to illustrate my point.
Get out the smelling salts.
Tannenhouser , August 22, 2017 at 10:32 pm
Balloons full of piss. I'd say that illustrates anything remotely resembling a point you make believe you have made bobs.
Keep up the good work Joe. Thanks for all you and other's do here.
Michael Kenny , August 19, 2017 at 10:30 am
Mr Parry is simply repeating what he has said before in many articles. He even harks back to the Malaysian airliner -- Whatever
other evidence there may be (MacronLeaks, the criminal investigation into which is still ongoing), Trump Junior's admissions prove
Russian interference in the US election. Russians claiming to represent their government met with Junior and offered him DNC "dirt".
DNC dirt subsequently appeared on the internet via Wikileaks. That those two events are wholly unrelated coincidences is more
than I am prepared to believe. At that point, it matters not one whit how the Russians obtained the information or from whom.
The Russians promised, the Russians delivered. Did Charlottesville really do this much damage? Putin's American supporters seem
to be in panic -- Or is it Bannon?
Desert Dave , August 19, 2017 at 10:53 am
"Trump Junior's admissions prove Russian interference"? Unless I am not keeping up, all that happened is that a PR flak (not
in Russian government) used the promise of compromat to arrange a meeting with Junior, where they talked about something else.
That's weak, my friend. And while it seems true that Trump's supporters are in a panic, Trump is not Putin.
And in case you want to put me in the box with Trump supporters, know that I am actually a LGBTQ-celebrating, anti-war, dirt-worshipping
tree-hugger.
Gregor , August 19, 2017 at 12:47 pm
A sincere congratulations to some of us who have learned to ignore the snarky but non- contributive remarks
of Bob S. . Joe and Stephen and others, it seems you have found a way to communicate with each other and the rest of us
without responding to Bob S. That's good.
Bob In Portland , August 19, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Let me toot my own horn again. I figured all this out last spring. But the way the false information was fed to the public,
large portions were revealed after the election, indicates that the disinformation wasn't originally to prevent Trump's election,
but rather intended as use for President Hillary Clinton's casus belli to take the war to Russia. Everyone presumed she would
win. You can read original piece here:
https://caucus99percent.com/content/okeydoke-americans-were-supposed-get
But, as I suggested in April, this okeydoke was directed by the intelligence wing of the Deep State, probably the CIA, for
Hillary's warhorse to ride into battle. It not only was supported by the CIA, it was created by it. And while most Americans never
consider that the powers who are the likeliest suspects for the political assassinations of the sixties would insinuate themselves
into the political system and support and promote their own, I suggest that another article, another one from the New York Times,
which tries to explain Hillary suspiciously bouncing from the right to the left during the troubled times of 1968. What the article
doesn't provide is that after volunteering for Gene McCarthy in early 1968 she attended the Republican convention. After that
she worked as an intern in Congress that summer and wrote a speech for then-Republican congressman Robert "Bom" Laird about financing
the war in Vietnam. Six months after that speech Laird was Nixon's Secretary of Defense, sending wave after wave of B-52s over
Vietnam. Then Hillary capped her summer by going to the civil war that was the Chicago Democratic convention.
Rather than looking like a confused college student, not sure whether to be a pro-war Republican or an anti-war Democrat, Hillary
Rodham looks more like one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of government spies that infiltrated all progressive groups back
then in operations like the FBI's COINTELPRO. What did she do after that? She "observed" a Black Panther trial in New Haven. Then
a year or so later she spent a summer interning for the law office in Oakland that represented Black Panthers in the Bay Area.
In short, she appeared to have an intelligence background before she allegedly met Bill on the Yale campus, which holds out
the possibility that their marriage was actually a marriage made in Langley. And that explains why Deep State interests wanted
and expected her to be leading the charge in 2017.
As usual I take away a lot from your posting comments.
Michael , August 19, 2017 at 4:54 pm
Roy G Biv wrote: "It seems people have trouble holding disparate thoughts in their minds and require mutual exclusivity "
Sam F wrote: "I do not exclude the possibility that intel technology whose nature and location are critical secrets might be
revealed with the evidence "
So what is being said is that the benefit to the USA of disclosing methods and sources has not yet reached the level at which
the FBI or the IC will comply on their own to make public any evidence AND it also has not negatively affected the country enough
to force our leaders with the levers of power in their hands to make them comply.
That's what I hear and it sounds like typical political posturing. So we will get more dysfunction in govt and more people
dying here and abroad. Mean while we wait for the magic event that will put us over the line. Or not
Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Yes, it looks like political manipulation. The IC could have revealed sufficient information after a month or so at only moderate
loss of intelligence asset value, both on the alleged hacking and flight MH-17. If they were unprepared to reveal evidence after
this time, then they should not have publicized conclusions. By now they should accept the loss and reveal it, otherwise citizens
may fairly presume that political appointees in intel are deceiving them for political purposes.
Typical sources that could be revealed by now:
1. A well-placed source in a foreign government agency: Try to claim another plausible source, email intercept, or recently dismissed
employee or defector already protected; if that is impossible and the info is of great political importance in the US, the real
source must defect to the US for safety. We must take the intel loss to preserve the integrity of public information.
2. A satellite or new technology: If the images or info seem to identify the source or location or capability, then modify them
enough to make it look like another technology or location. Admitting alteration is better than providing nothing.
3. A snoop connection in a valuable location: move it, install another similar device, claim that the info comes from a distinct
source or location, etc.
If the problem is "developing" witness credibility or forthrightness, which some may hope will improve, then the source is
not yet credible and potential conclusions should not be stated with "high confidence" by anyone who cares for truth in policy
making.
Billy , August 19, 2017 at 7:30 pm
The "Russia hacked the DNC so if you pay attention to the content of the emails leaked, you're a Putin loving unAmerican dog
-- " lie used by the DNC to distract from their cheating Bernie. Really took off, practically every pretend news source on the
internet repeated the evidence free accusation, as if it were a proven fact. As did all the MSM propagandist posing as news anchors.
The sheer number of people pushing the lie was mind boggling. Now all of the sudden not a peep about it. I have to question the
timing of the statue removal shit stirring. It seems like a convienent distraction. Why now? All of a sudden these statues must
go -- -- I still haven't figured out what the distraction is distracting from. But the Nation and other web sites were starting
to publish truth about "Russia gate"
Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 10:13 pm
Good comment Billy. The timing of these events is always interesting. Like when the MSM released info on trumps son meeting
with a Russian, just after trump met face to face with Putin in Europe. Presumably the MSM had this story for months, and ran
it to "punish" trump for the Putin meeting.
Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 10:04 pm
Again, its probably best to ignore BobS. He is probably a paid professional disruptor ..your tax dollars at work huh? The fact
he is bothering to muddy these waters is both flattering to CN and evidence of the validity of CN's stance on many important issues.
Herman , August 20, 2017 at 9:50 am
President Trump will probably survive but the effects of his treatment by the media, politicians in both parties, and monied
folks but the way he was attacked and its effects will forever leave a mark on the Office itself. It is an unnecessary reminder
how mindless lynch mobs can be and how powerless the great majority of people are regarding what is happening and will likely
happen to them.
Hank , August 21, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Russia Gate is a Farce. If by now, the deep state has not figured out a way to make it look like a Russian hack with some "credible"
evidence that at least MSM and the masses can swallow then we must seriously doubt. Post Categories: Canada
William Blum | Saturday, June 24, 2017, 20:02 Beijing
33
Print
GR Editor's Note
This incisive list of countries by William Blum was first published in 2013, posted on Global Research in 2014.
In relation to recent developments in Latin America and the Middle East, it is worth recalling the history of US sponsored
military coups and "soft coups" aka regime changes.
In a bitter irony, under the so-called "Russia probe" the US is accusing Moscow of interfering in US politics.
This article reviews the process of overthrowing sovereign governments through military coups, acts of war, support of terrorist
organizations, covert ops in support of regime change.
In recent developments, the Trump administration is supportive of a US sponsored regime change in Venezuela and Cuba
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, June 24, 2017
******************
Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War.
(* indicates successful ouster of a government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Libya 2011*
Syria 2012
Q: Why will there never be a coup d'état in Washington?
A: Because there's no American embassy there.
Tom , August 22, 2017 at 7:13 am
Putin's denial is meaningless (though he just as likely could be telling the truth) HOWEVER to my knowledge Assange has yet
to be proven wrong (must less intentionally lying) about anything. IMO he's the ONLY person in all of this who has anything resembling
a record of credibility. That MSM dismisses this demonstrates they are driven by narrative & ideology, NOT pursuit of fact/truth
Jamie , August 22, 2017 at 12:59 pm
"If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake.
They were connected to, as we now know, the thousand Russian agents."
– Crooked Hillary
Large Louis de Boogeytown , August 22, 2017 at 2:58 pm
There is just as much evidence that Ukraine hacked the DNC computer and releasing the information was another one of that countries
'mistakes'. If they are capable of nothing else, Ukraine seems to produce "software experts" who are involved in EVERY dirty game
attached to the internet. The latest one is about turning the Ukrainian 'hryvnia' into real money – 'bitcoin'.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 6:34 pm
Yes, it DID rely ENTIRELY on CrowdStrike.
All CrowdStrike did was send the FBI a "certified true image" of the DNC servers. This also applies to the other two infosec
companies who weighed in on the evidence – Mandiant and FireEye. Neither the FBI or those two companies ever examined the DNC
servers, the DNC routers or other IT infrastructure which is an absolute MUST in investigating a computer crime.
That is NOT sufficient. ALL the alleged "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike is either circumstantial or easily spoofable. Therefore
the only thing the FBI can see on that "certified true image" is the "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike.
And CrowdStrike is COMPLETELY COMPROMISED by being a company run by an ex-pat Russian who hates Putin and Russia, someone who
sees Russian under every PC.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 7:32 pm
I should also point out that Jeffrey Carr has been saying this exact thing since the events unfolded last summer. In fact,
from an email to me, he's said he's tired of talking about it.
Jeffrey is absolutely right. NONE of the alleged "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike in any way connects directly back to ANYONE,
let alone the Russian government.
Some of it is laughable, such as the notion that the malware compile times were "during Moscow business hours." If you look
at a time zone map, you see that Kiev, Ukraine, is one hour behind Moscow time. When it's business hours in Moscow, it's business
hours in Ukraine – and can you imagine there are Ukraine hackers more than willing to frame Russia for a high-profile hack?
The National article and the research by The Forensicator does not PROVE that the DNC emails were leaked, because it is POSSIBLE
for someone to access high-speed Internet. Unlikely, as The Forensicator states, but NOT impossible. At least 17% of the US has
access to Gigabit Ethernet to the home and business. However, as The Forensicator correctly points out, it's hard to get that
kind of speed across the Internet, especially to Eastern Europe where the entity Guccifer 2.0 allegedly resides.
Further, we don't know that the copies analyzed by The Forensicator were copied originally from the DNC. In fact, The Forensicator
specially disavows that requirement. What is important to him is that the analysis proves that Guccifer 2.0 was NOT remotely hacking
from Romania because 1) the speeds involved, and 2) the timestamps are all East Coast USA times (which he acknowledges could be
faked but Guccifer 2.0 would have had little reason to do so or even think of doing so.)
The bottom line is that The Forensicator's analysis, coupled with Adam Carter's analysis of the Guccifer 2.0 entity, establishes
good solid CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is NOT a remote Romanian hacker and is NOT a Russian agent, but rather an
entity inserted into the mix to provide "evidence" that the DNC leak was a Russian hack.
And finally, of course, we have Sy Hersh being caught on tape explicitly stating that he has seen or had read to him an FBI
report that specifically states the murdered DNC staff Seth Rich WAS in contact with Wikileaks and had offered to sell them DNC
documents. And that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account where presumably he was stashing those documents or using it
to transfer them to Wikileaks.
Hersh is preparing a full report on this matter, which if it's anything like his earlier articles will bury the "DNC hack"
story completely.
Remember that "Russiagate" essentially depends on TWO critical factors:
1) That it is a fact that Russia hacked the DNC; and
2) That it is Russia that transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks – otherwise there is no real reason why Russia would hack the
DNC and it certainly did not do so to "influence the election."
If number one is weak, due to laughable "evidence" and number two proves to be false, the entire "Russia influencing the election"
story goes away. And the rest of the "Trump collusion" "evidence" is also laughable.
Now it may well be true that even if Russia did not give Wikileaks the emails they may still have hacked the DNC at some point.
I submit that if the Russian government did it, we'd never know about it. First because they wouldn't have done it over the Internet
because of the risk of the NSA detecting it (the NSA certainly wasn't monitoring the DNC) and second, they wouldn't have left
any real evidence, especially not evidence linking directly to Russia.
Russian intelligence would have either used a physical penetration of the DNC network (easily done as demonstrated by US penetration
testers all the time) or used a wireless connection into the DNC network from somewhere close to the DNC server location. That's
assuming they wouldn't use the standard intelligence tactic of bribery or blackmail to get a DNC staffer to GIVE them the emails.
In any case, the NSA would not have detected that hack, and CrowdStrike wouldn't have found any significant forensic evidence
except perhaps some evidence that forensic traces had been ERASED.
Which basically means that whoever hacked the DNC – and that is only IF the DNC was REALLY hacked, for which there is NO PROOF
except the DNC's and CrowdStrike's word since the FBI did not investigate the alleged hack itself – might have been 1) some criminal
hacker(s) from Russia or elsewhere, or 2) some other intelligence agency trying to frame Russia for a hack.
It has been suggested that Russian intelligence DOES use criminal hackers on a contract basis either to perform hacks or to
buy intel from said hackers. However, I find it unlikely that Russian intelligence would use incompetent hackers – and the DNC
hackers had to be incompetent to leave the traces they did – for such a "sensitive" hack on a political party in the US.
You can't have it both ways: 1) that awesomely capable Russian hackers are hacking everything in the US connected to the election,
and 2) that they are so incompetent as to leave easily followed trails right back to the Kremlin.
In general, so-called "attribution" of "Russian hackers "is nothing of the sort. It is merely attribution to a collection of
hacking tools and alleged "targets". With the sole exception of Mandiant identifying specific individuals in a specific building
in China, which if accurate was an impressive display of solid attribution, ninety percent of the time no individuals or agencies
can be reliably identified by attribution.
Instead, what we get is the following:
1) Someone ASSUMES that because "target X" is a government or other sensitive facility that the hacker of said target MUST
BE a "nation state actor."
2) Then some later hacker who either happens to use the same hacking tools or happens to target a similar target is ASSUMED
to be either the same hacker or associated with the same hacker. (Note: the DNC hackers are actually alleged to be TWO SEPARATE
entities – APT28 and APT29 – not including Guccifer 2.0.)
3) Thus a house is built on the sand of the first assumption and used to justify all the subsequent "analysis" and "assessments."
An example of this is German intelligence believing that Russia committed a specific hack, and that is now used as justification
for believing the DNC hack was done by the same group, when in fact German intelligence merely stated that because of the TARGET
of the hack they "assessed" that it MIGHT have been Russian intelligence.
In reality, ANY hacker will hack ANY TARGET if he thinks 1) that it will be a challenge, and/or 2) that it will be interesting,
and/or 3) that it contains PII (Personally Identifiable Information) or other data such as credit cards which he can sell on the
hacker underground. Therefore the choice of target doesn't really prove anything.
The choice of hacking tools is also irrelevant. CrowdStrike asserted that some of the tools used in the DNC hack are "exclusive".
Jeffrey Carr has proven they're not, because he spoke to Ukrainian hackers and others who have them.
Bottom line: Without HUMINT (human intelligence) or SIGINT (signals intelligence) obtained offline that specifically identifies
a given organization or individuals, attribution of a specific hack to a specific hacker(s) is almost impossible.
Most of the hackers who have been caught have been caught because they had poor operational security and allowed email addresses
and other identifying information that connected directly to their offline identity to be found. Without that, most hackers get
away, unless they can be lured into identifying themselves by bragging or being set up by a law-enforcement sting.
At this point, Carr is right: There is NO publicly available, non-circumstantial, non-spoofable evidence that a DNC hack
even occurred, let alone that any hack that might have been done was done by Russians at all, let alone the Russian government.
And all of the alleged US intelligence "assessments" have provided NO additional evidence.
Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 7:36 pm
Correction to my post:
"(the NSA certainly wasn't monitoring the DNC)" s/b
"(the NSA certainly was monitoring the DNC)"
now it isn't just the nytimes but the new yorker as well, with a many pages piece in its current issue that reads like a doctoral
thesis written by a gossip columnist and is a hatchet job on assange and in great part accusing him, putin and russia of electing
trump.. hope you will comment on some of the specifics the writer includes which will probably be convincing to readers of political
gossip columns and benefit from informed criticism such as you can provide..i don't believe any of this crap anyway.
"... By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter: @Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
August 19, 2017 by
Yves Smith Yves here.
This is a well-argued debunking of various "evil Rooskie" claims and is very much worth circulating.
Stunningly, there actually are people asserting that white supremacists and the figurative and now
literal hot fights over Confederate symbols (remember that Confederate flags have been a big controversy
too?) are part of a Russian plot. Help me. Fortunately their views don't seem to have gotten traction
outside the fever-swamp corners of the Twitterverse.
Author Kovalev's bottom line: When you are doing the same thing Putin and his propaganda machine
does, you're doing something wrong.
By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter:
@Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at
openDemocracy
On 11-12 August, violent clashes erupted between the far-right Unite the Right movement and anti-fascist
counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. One woman died when an alleged neo-Nazi sympathizer
rammed a car into a crowd of counter-protesters. There were numerous injuries and a major national
crisis erupted in the United States resulting from and inspired by the rapid rise of white nationalist,
neo-Nazi and other similar sentiments far to the right of the political spectrum.
As it often happens these days, numerous people on Twitter immediately jumped in, pitching the
so-called "hot takes" -- rapid, hastily weaved together series of tweets with often
outlandish theories of what really happened. These instant experts, who have come to prominence in
the wake of the Trump presidency, have carved out a niche for themselves by taking the most tangential
or non-existent connection to anything Russian and "connecting the dots" or "just asking questions".
The most egregious example is
Louise Mensch , a former UK conservative pundit (and sometime MP) now residing in the US. Mensch
is the
most extreme example of a Twitter-age conspiracy-mongering populist . But there are other people,
with more credible credentials, who are also prone to demanding that "ties with Russia" (via individuals,
events and institutions) be investigated.
Immediately following the events in Charlottesville, the writer and consultant
Molly McKew
and Jim Ludes of
the Pell Center , among others, chimed in with their "hot takes", repeating each other almost
word for word: "We need to closely examine the links between the American alt-right and Russia."
These particular expressions ("links between X and Russia", "ties with Russia", "Russian connections"
or "close to Putin/Russian government") are, essentially, weasel words, expressions so elastic that
they could mean anything -- from actively collaborating with senior Russian officials
and secretly accepting large donations from to the vaguest, irrelevant connections mentioned simply
for the sake of name-dropping Russia in an attempt to farm for more clicks.
Almost every person of Russian origin involved in the Trump drama is "Putin-connected", although
in Russia that definition only applies to a tiny power circle of trusted aides and advisors, a select
group of oligarchs running state-owned enterprises and close personal friends from before Putin's
presidency. The exaggerated tone of reporting often suggests something more far-reaching, coordinated
and sinister than a loose collection of unconnected factoids.
So, what do "links between the American alt-right and Russia" actually mean? Much of the allegations
of American alt-right's "collusion" with Putin's regime rely on the fact that Richard Spencer, a
divisive figure in this already quite loose movement, was
once married to a woman of Russian origin , Nina Kupriyanova. Their current marital status is
unclear and, frankly, irrelevant. Kupriyanova, a scholar of Russian and Soviet history with a PhD
from the University of Toronto, is also a follower of Alexander Dugin, a larger-than-life figure
in contemporary Russian media and politics. Because of Dugin's outsized presence in the western media
where he is often, and quite erroneously, presented as "Putin's mastermind" or "Putin's Bannon",
this connection is often enough to be declared the
smoking gun in the crowdsourced investigation .
Dugin has been many things to many people over his decades-long, zig-zagging career as an underground
occult practitioner in the Soviet years: philosopher, lecturer, one of the founding fathers of a
radical movement, public intellectual, flamboyant media personality. But he is not a "Putin advisor"
and never has been. Although Dugin is a vocal fan of the Russian president, has repeatedly professed
his loyalty to Putin and has orbited the halls of Russian power for more than a decade, he hasn't
accumulated enough influence to even keep a stable job.
In 2014, Dugin was fired from his position as a guest lecturer at the department of sociology
of Moscow State University. Students and academic staff had complained for years about the "anti-scientific,
obscurantist" atmosphere Dugin had created within the department (one petition filed by the students
mentions Dugin "performing extrasensory experiments" on them during lectures). But the final straw
was Dugin's interview where
he agitated to "kill, kill, kill" Ukrainians in June 2014 -- the early stages
of Russia's war campaign in Ukraine. Both Dugin and his patron, the dean of the sociology department,
were promptly fired after a major media scandal.
Later, Dugin was quite
unceremoniously removed from his position as a host on Tsargrad TV -- a right-wing,
reactionary private network funded by "Orthodox oligarch" Konstantin Malofeyev and launched with
the help of a former Fox News executive. All mentions of Dugin's show on Tsargrad simply disappeared
from the network's website.
Although Richard Spencer's own writings for his Radix Journal do have visible Dugin inspirations,
it's inconceivable that Dugin has any significant influence on the American right. His teachings
are just too eclectic, esoteric and over-intellectualised for an average American neo-Nazi who just
wants to see more white faces around him. In fact, Dugin's overarching idea of "Eurasianism" goes
against the grain of "keeping America white and ethnically pure": at its core is an obscure early
20th century Orientalist school of thought which accentuated Russia's civilisational continuity with
Mongolian and Turkic ancestors, as opposed to the spiritually alien West.
Russia's conservatives of all shades of right have indeed been long cultivating links with their
brethren to the west of Moscow -- well before Putin appeared on the scene. These
have been well documented by scholars of the far right such as
Anton Shekhovtsov . After Putin's onslaught
in Ukraine, Russia, in dire need of new allies,
intensified efforts to strengthen those links .
In the latter case, the dynamic is reversed: it's not Russia influencing the West and exporting
its values, but vice versa. It's Russia's parliamentary ultra-conservatives like
Yelena Mizulina (now a senator) who have been inspired and supported by the American religious
right.
Russia's last public attempt to unite the European and American far-right ended in a
major media scandal in early 2015 when the "International Russian Conservative Forum" in Saint
Petersburg was widely criticised in the press. The forum's Russian official supporters from the "traditionalist"
Rodina (Motherland) party allied with the ruling United Russia were forced to withdraw their endorsement,
and no further attempts to organise the forum have been made. Propaganda outlets like RT are quietly
shedding commentators with far-right sympathies like Manuel Ochsenreiter or Richard Spencer mentioned
above in an attempt to cleanse their image as a safe haven for Holocaust deniers and white power
enthusiasts. Only a couple of days after Charlottesville, Russian authorities
banned The Daily Stormer, a virulently anti-Semitic "alt-right" website, which had temporarily
sought refuge on Russian web space after having been refused service in the US.
There is little to no evidence that any of the above had anything to do with the tragic events
in Charlottesville. The resurgence of murderous, hateful ideologies in the United States is a home-grown
issue. Young men with identical haircuts and matching, uniform-like attires chanting "Blood and soil
-- " in the streets of American cities are inspired and influenced by many things, but a bearded
Russian mystic is hardly one of them. Attempting to explain internal strife in your country by "Russian
influences", hastily put together disjointed and exaggerated phenomena, is intellectually lazy. It
distracts from getting to the root of the problem by offering quick, easy answers to complicated
questions.
Ironically, it's also a very Putin thing to do. Explaining Russia's internal issues by blaming
the West's machinations is the Russian president's shtick. When you find yourself doing the same
thing Putin and his propaganda machine does, you're doing it wrong.
"... The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon. ..."
Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise.
The war veteran
has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a
series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon.
The strategist denied involvement, but he also did not speak out against them.
By the time Charlottesville erupted, Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump had a powerful ally in Mr.
Kelly, who shared their belief that Mr. Trump's first statement blaming "many sides" for the
deadly violence needed to be amended.
Mr. Bannon vigorously objected. He told Mr. Kelly that if Mr. Trump delivered a second, more
contrite statement it would do him no good, with either the public or the Washington press
corps, which he denigrated as a "Pretorian guard" protecting the Democrats' consensus that Mr.
Trump is a race-baiting demagogue. Mr. Trump could grovel, beg for forgiveness, even get down
on his knees; it would never work, Mr. Bannon maintained.
"They're going to say two things: It's too late and it's not enough," Mr. Bannon told Mr.
Kelly.
The USA started to imitate post-Maydan Ukraine: another war with statues... "Identity
politics" flourishing in some unusual areas like history of the country. Which like in
Ukraine is pretty divisive.
McAuliffe was co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and was one of her superdelegates
at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Notable quotes:
"... The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. ..."
"... It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats. ..."
"... Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general. ..."
"... So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. ..."
"... Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive. ..."
"... From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person). ..."
"... I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). ..."
"... Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently. ..."
"... There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]... ..."
"... I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts. ..."
"... But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor. ..."
"... The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor. ..."
"... On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election. ..."
"... The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening. ..."
"... What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving. ..."
"... I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault. ..."
"... There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation. ..."
"... CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. ..."
"... The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election. ..."
"... As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers). ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness. ..."
"... But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen. ..."
The media, and political elite, pile on is precisely what I expect. The chattering political classes
have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. And his few allies
are increasingly uncertain of their future.
The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation.
WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free
but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from
there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. Trump
is the epitome of the salesman that believes he can sell anything to anyone with the right pitch.
Reporters that might normally be restrained by actual facts and a degree of fairness simply are
no longer so constrained.
It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on
steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the
strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor
the Democrats.
Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments
of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However,
the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because
taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general.
So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms
with the expectation they will then control Congress. After that they will happily dispatch
Trump with some discovered impeachable crime. At that point it won't be hard to get enough Republicans
to go along.
The Republicans can only hope to convince Trump to resign well prior to the midterms. They
hope they won't have to go on record with a vote and get nailed in the elections.
In the meantime the country is going to go through hell.
Yes, we are staring into the depths and the abyss has begun to take note of us. BTW the US
was put back together after the CW/WBS on the basis of an understanding that the Confederates
would accept the situation and the North would not interfere with their cultural rituals.
There was a general amnesty for former Confederates in the 1870s and a number of them became
US senators, Consuls General overseas and state governors.
That period of attempted reconciliation has now ended. Who can imagine the "Gone With the Win"
Pulitzer and Best Picture of the Year now? pl
Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still
so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going
to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat,
slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive.
I totally disagree with you LeeG. From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class
and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about
his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic
attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses
in the first person).
I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something
for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change
quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people
are left with Hope). I hope he will succeed but I learnt that we will always be left with
Hope!
That last tweet is from the Green Party candidate for VP. Those are just a few examples from
a quick Google search before I get back to work. Those of you with more disposable time will surely
find more.
Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together
is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with
the "for all" emphasized frequently.
I believe Charlottsville was a staged catalyst to bring about Trump's downfall, there
seems now to be a "full-court press" against him. If he survives this latest attempt, I'll be
both surprised and in awe of his political skills. If he doesn't survive I'll (and many others,
no matter the "legality of the process") will consider it a coup d'etat and start to think of
a different way to prepare for the future.
There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated
quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]...
I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon
to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see
for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a
fair number of converts.
But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations
of old communists who have fallen out of favor.
As far as statue removal goes: There should be legal ways of deciding such things democratically.
There should also be the possibility of relocating the statues in question. I imagine that there
should be plenty of private properties who are willing to host these statues on their land.
This should be quite soundly protected by the US constitution.
That these monuments got, iirc, erected long after the war is nothing unusual. Same is true
for monuments to the white army, of which there are now a couple in Russia.
As far as the civil war goes, my sympathies lie with the Union, I would not be, more then a
100 years after the war, be averse to monuments depicting the common Confederate Soldier.
I can understand the statue toppler somewhat. If someone would place a Bandera statue in my surroundings,
I would try to wreck it. I may be willing to tolerate a Petljura statue, probably a also Wrangel
or Denikin statue, but not a Vlassov or Shuskevich statue.
Imho Lees "wickedness", historically speaking, simply isn't anything extraordinary.
Col., thank you for this comment. I grew up in the "North" and recall the centenary of the Civil
War as featured in _Life_ magazine. I was fascinated by the history, the uniforms and the composition
of the various armies as well as their arms. I would add to that the devastating use of grapeshot.
I knew the biographies of the various generals on both sides and their relative effectiveness.
I would urge others to read Faulkner's _Intruder in the Dust_ to gain some understanding of the
Reconstruction and carpetbagging.
I believe the choice to remove the monument as opposed to some other measure, such as the bit
of history you offer, was highly incendiary. I also find it interesting that the ACLU is taking
up their case in regard to free-speech:
http://tinyurl.com/ybdkrcaz
I was living in Chicago when the Skokie protest occurred.
"They came to Charlottesville to do harm. They came armed and were looking for a fight."
I agree. This means Governor McAuliffe failed in his duty to the people of the Commonwealth
and so did the Mayor of Charlottesville and the senior members of the police forces present in
the city. Congradulations to the alt-left.
They - the left - previously came to DC to do harm - on flag day no less. Namely the Bernie
Bro James Hodgkinson, domestic terrorist, who attempted to assasinate Steve Scalise and a number
of other elected representatives. The left did not denounce him nor his cause. Sadly they did
not even denounce the people who actually betrayed him - those who rigged the Democratic primary:
Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist
media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the
total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor.
On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New
Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing
the 2016 election.
The protestors on both divides were organized and spoiling for a fight.
The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the
wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon,
Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves.
After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been
ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing
out what is really happening.
It seems to me that this brouhaha may work in Trump's favor. The more different things they accuse
Trump of (without evidence), the more diluted their message becomes.
I think the Borg's collective hysteria can be explained by the "unite the right" theme of the
Charlottesville Rally. A lot of Trump supporters are very angry, and if they start marching next
to people who are carrying signs that blame "the Jews" for America's problems, then anti-Zionist
(or even outright anti-Semitic) thinking might start to go mainstream. The Borg would do well
to work to address the Trump supporters legitimate grievances. There are a number of different
ways that things might get very ugly if they don't. Unfortunately the establishment just wants
to heap abuse on the Trump supporters and I think that approach is myopic.
There will always be an outrage du jour for the NeverTrumpers. The Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow,
Morning Joe & Mika ain't gonna quit. And it seems it's ratings gold for them. Of course McCain
and his office wife and the rest of the establishment crew also have to come out to ring the obligatory
bell and say how awful Trump's tweet was.
What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this
overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards
him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment
who are viewed as completely self-serving.
It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia to wear a mask that covers one's face in most public
settings.
LEOs in Central Va encountered this exact requirement when a man in a motorcycle helmet entered
a Walmart on Rt 29 in 2012. Several customers reported him to 911 because they believed him to
being acting suspiciously. He was detained in Albemarle County and was eventually submitted for
mental health evaluation.
This is not a law that Charlottesville police would be unfamiliar with.
Chomsky:
"As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were. "It's a major
gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."
"what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally
self-destructive."
"When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who
win – and we know who that is. That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the
opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."
I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing
their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within
hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group
of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even
claim that they were equally at fault.
There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect
in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence
and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media
of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation.
CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly,
but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the
area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area.
A pundit on CBS claimed that "if they went" to the park in question, which of course they did,
"they would not have been arrested because it was a public park." He failed to mention that large
groups still are required to have a permit to assemble in a public park.
The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the
Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and
the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will
vote" in every election.
Lars, but they came with a legal permit to protest and knew what they would be facing. The anti-protestors
including ANTIFA had a large number of people being paid to be there and funded by Soros and were
there illegally. The same mechanisms were in place to ramp up protests like in Ferguson which
were violent and this response was no different.
However, the Virginia Governor a crony of the Clintons, ordered a police stand down and no
effort was made to separate the groups. I remind you also that open carry is legal in Virginia.
So, IMHO this was deliberately set up for a lethal confrontation by the people on the left.
I will also remind you that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party among others,
are perfectly legal in the US as is the KKK. Believing and saying what you want, no matter how
offensive, is legal under the First Amendment. Actively discriminating against someone is not
legal but speech is. Say what you want but that is the Constitution.
Your last paragraph is a suitably Leftist post-modern ideological oversimplification of an
infinitely complex phenomenon. It also reveals a great deal of what motivates the SJW Left:
" As for the notion that this is a 'cultural issue', I quote: 'Whenever I hear the word
culture, I reach for my revolver.' 'Culture' is the means by which some people oppress others.
It's much like 'civilization' or 'ethics' or 'morality' - a tool to beat people over the head
who have something you want. "
First, it is a cultural issue. It's an issue between people who accept this culture as a necessary
but flawed, yet incrementally improvable structure for carrying out a relatively peaceful existence
among one another, and those whose grudging, bitter misanthropy has led them to the conclusion
that the whole thing isn't fair (i.e. easy) so fuck it, burn it all down. In no uncertain terms,
this is the ethos driving the radical Left.
Second, I don't know exactly which culture created you, but I'm fairly sure it was a western
liberal democracy, as I'm fairly certain is the case with almost all Leftists these days, regardless
of how radical. And I'm also fairly certain the culture you decry is the western liberal democratic
culture in its current iterations. But before you or anyone else lights the fuse on that, remember
that the very culture you want to burn down because it's so loathsome, that's the thing that gave
you that shiny device you use to connect with the world, it's the thing that taught you how to
articulate your thoughts into written and spoken word, so that you could then go out and bitch
about it, and it even lets you bitch about it, freely and with no consequences. This "civilization"
is the thing that gives rise to the "morals" and "ethics" that allow you to take your shiny gadgets
to a coffee shop, where the barista makes your favorite beverage, instead of simply smashing you
over the head and taking your shiny gadgets because he wants them. These principles didn't arise
out of thin air, and neither did you, me, or anyone else. This culture is an agreed-upon game
that most of us play to ensure we stand a chance at getting though this with as little suffering
as possible. It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else I've seen in history.
In his inimitable fashion, I'll grant Tyler (and the Colonel, as well) the creditable foresight
to call this one. Those of you who find yourselves wishing, hoping, agitating, and activisting
for an overturn of the election result, and/or of traditional American culture in general would
do well to take their warnings seriously.
If traditional American culture is so deeply and irredeemably corrupt, I must ask, what's your
alternative? And how do you mean to install it? I would at least like to know that. Regardless
of your answer to question one, if your answer to question two is "revolution", well then you
and anyone else on that wagon better be prepared to suffer, and to increase many fold the overall
quotient of human suffering in the world. Because that's what it will take.
You want your revolution, but you also want your Wi-Fi to keep working.
You want your revolution, but you also want your hybrid car.
You want your revolution, but you also want your safe spaces, such as your bed when you sleep
at night.
If you think you can manage all that by way of shouting down, race baiting, character assassinating,
and social shaming, without bearing the great burden of suffering that all revolutions entail,
you have bitter days ahead. And there are literally millions of Americans who will oppose you
along the way. And unlike the kulaks when the Bolsheviks rode into town, they see you coming
and they're ready for you. And if you insist on taking it as far as you can, it won't be pretty,
and it won't be cinematic. Just a lot of tragedy for everyone involved. But one side will win,
and my guess is it'll be the guys like Tyler. It's not my desire or aim to see any of that happen.
It's just how I see things falling out on their current trajectory.
The situation calls to mind a quote from a black radical, spoken-word group from Harlem who
were around in the early to mid 60s, called the Last Poets. The line goes, "Speak not of revolution
until you are willing to eat rats to survive." Just something to think about when you advocate
burning it all down.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) has added his name to a growing list of public officials
in state governments encouraging the removal of Confederate statues and memorials throughout the
South. Late in the day on Wednesday McAuliffe released an official statement saying monuments
of Confederate leaders have now become "flashpoints for hatred, division and violence" in a reference
to the weekend of violence which shook Charlottesville as white nationalists rallied against the
city's planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. McAuliffe further described the monuments as
"a barrier to progress" and appealed to state and local governments to take action. The governor
said:
As we attempt to heal and learn from the tragic events in Charlottesville, I encourage Virginia's
localities and the General Assembly – which are vested with the legal authority – to take down
these monuments and relocate them to museums or more appropriate settings. I hope we can all now
agree that these symbols are a barrier to progress, inclusion and equality in Virginia and, while
the decision may not be mine to make...
It seems the push for monument removal is now picking up steam, with cities like Baltimore
simply deciding to act briskly while claiming anti-racism and concern for public safety. Of course,
the irony in all this is that the White nationalist and supremacist groups which showed up in
force at Charlottesville and which are even now planning a major protest in Lexington, Kentucky,
are actually themselves likely hastening the removal of these monuments through their repugnant
racial ideology, symbols, and flags.
Bishop James Dukes, a pastor at Liberation Christian Center located on Chicago's south side,
is demanding that the city of Chicago re-dedicate two parks in the area that are named after former
presidents George Washington and Andrew Jackson. His reasons? Dukes says that monuments honoring
men who owned slaves have no place in the black community, even if those men once led the free
world.
Salve, Publius. Thanks for the article. Col. Lang made an excellent point in the comments' section
that the Confederate memorials represent the reconciliation between the North and the South. The
same argument is presented in a lengthier fashion in this morning's TAC
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-confederate-monuments-represent-reconciliation/
. That reconciliation could have been handled much better, i.e. without endorsing Jim Crow. I
wish more monuments were erected to commemorate Longstreet and Cleburne, JB Hood and Hardee. I
wish there was more Lee and less Forrest. Nonetheless, the important historical point is that
a national reconciliation occurred. Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national
reconciliation. The past which is being erased is not the Civil War but the civil peace which
followed it. That is tragic.
IMO, most of the problems majority of people (specially the ruling class) have with Donald Trump'
presidency is that, he acts and is an accidental president, Ironically, everybody including, him,
possibly you, and me who voted for him knows this and is not willing to take his presidency serious
and act as such. IMO, he happens to run for president, when the country, due to setbacks and defeat
on multiple choice wars, as well as national economic misfortunes and misshapes, including mass
negligence of working class, was in dismay and a big social divide, as of the result, majority
decided to vote for some one outside of familiar cemented in DC ruling class knowing he is not
qualified and is a BS artist. IMO that is what took place, which at the end of the day, ends of
to be same.
" Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation."
That is the intent. The coalition of urban and coastal ethnic populists and economic elites
has been for increased concentration and expansion of federal power at the expense of the states,
especially the Southern states, for generations. This wave of agitprop with NGO and MSM backing
is intended to undo the constitutional election and return the left to power at the federal level.
I agree with most of Trump's policy positions, but he is negating these positions with his out-of-control
mouth and tweets.
As much as I have nothing but contempt and loathing for the "establishment" (Dems, Republicans,
especially the media, the "intelligence" community and the rest of the permanent government),
Trump doesn't seem to comprehend that he can't get anything done without taming some of these
elements, all of whom are SERIOUSLY opposed to him as a threat to their sinecures and riches.
"Who is this OUTSIDER to come in and think that he in charge of OUR government?"
What seems like a balanced eyewitness account of Charlottesville that suggests that although the
radicals on both sides brought the violence, it was the police who allowed it to happen.
The need to keep protesters away from counter-protesters particular when both are tooled should
be obvious to anyone, but not so with the protest in Charlottevlle.
-"Trump isnt our last chance. Its your last chance."
Reminds me of the 60's and the SDS and their ilk. A large part of the under 30 crowd idolized
Mao's Little Red Book and convinced themselves the "revolution" was imminent. So many times I
heard the phrase "Up Against the Wall, MFs." Stupid fools. Back then people found each other by
"teach-ins" and the so called "underground press." In those days it took a larger fraction to
be able to blow in each other's ear and convince themselves they were the future "vanguard."
These days, with the internet, it is far easier for a smaller fraction to gravitate to an echo
chamber, reinforce group think, and believe their numbers are much larger than what, in reality,
exists. This happens across the board. It's a rabbit hole Tyler. Don't go down it.
Yes, Forts Bragg, Hood, Lee, AP Hill, Benning, etc., started as temporary camps during WW1
and were so named to encourage Southern participation in the war. The South had been reluctant
about the Spanish War. Wade Hampton, governor of SC said of that war, "Let the North fight. the
South knows the cost of war." pl
I would like to share my viewpoint. As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump
and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the
Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump
is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers).
But violence on all sides is absolute BS. Nazi violence gets its own sentence and language at least as strong as the language he has
no trouble hitting ISIS with. Didn't hear that. So I guess in his mind, the threat the US faced
from Nazis during WW2 was less than a ragtag, 3rd world guerilla force whose only successes are
because of 1. US, Saudi, and other weapons, and their war on unstable third world countries. Give
me a break - did he never watch a John Wayne movie as a kid?
When I discuss nazi's, F-bombs are dropped. I support the right of nazi's to march and spew
their vitriolic hatred, and even more strongly support the right of free speech to counter their
filth with facts and arguments and history.
I am sorry, but Antifa was not fighting against the
US in WW2. If one wants to critique Antifa, or another group, that criticism belongs in a separate
paragraph or better in another press conference. Taking 2 days to do so, and then walking it back,
is the hallmark of a political idiot (or a billionaire who listens to no one and lives in his
own mental echo chamber).
If Trump gets his info and opinions from TV news, despite having the $80+ billion US Intel
system at his beck and call, he is the largest idiot on the planet.
It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with
fairness.
But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is
having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be
Nostradamus to see what's going to happen.
"... Former CIA chief John Brennan said Trump's comments on racial violence were a "national security risk". ..."
"... The enthusiasm for whipping up the new anti-Trump campaign seems due in large part because the erstwhile Russia-gate story has patently failed to gain any traction. For nearly seven months since Trump's inauguration, the relentless claims pushed by Democrats, the media and anonymous intelligence sources that his election last November was enabled by Russian interference have shown little impact in terms of discrediting Trump and ultimately forcing him out of the White House. The Russia-gate theme has failed in its soft coup objective. ..."
"... It is relevant that Wikileaks editor Julian Assange has consistently denied US intelligence and media claims that his source was Russian hackers. Also, former British ambassador Craig Murray has confirmed that he knows the identity of the source for Wikileaks and that, as the dissenting veteran US intelligence people have assessed, the information was leaked, not hacked. ..."
"... In sum, the Russia-gate story that the US Deep State and media have peddled non-stop for seven months is on its knees gasping for lack of credibility. ..."
"... Not only that, but now technical details and expert analysis are emerging from credible former US intelligence personnel who are verifying that the Russia-gate story is indeed a hoax. ..."
"... The imminent death of the Russia-gate "scandal" is giving way to the next orchestrated campaign to oust Trump in the form of allegations that the president is a "Neo-Nazi sympathizer". ..."
August 18, 2017 "
Information Clearing House
" - The political
opponents of President Trump have found a new lever for sabotaging his presidency – his
alleged embrace of white supremacists and Neo-Nazis. He is now being labelled a "sympathizer"
of fascists and bringing America's international image into disrepute. Cue the impeachment
proceedings.
Notably, the same power-nexus that opposed Trump from the very outset of his presidency is
vociferously condemning his alleged racist leanings. Pro-Democrat media like the Washington
Post, New York Times and CNN can't give enough coverage to Trump "the racist", while the
intelligence community and Pentagon have also weighed in to rebuke the president.
Former CIA
chief John Brennan said Trump's comments on racial violence were a "national security
risk".
This is not meant to minimize the ugliness of the various Neo-Nazi fringe groups that have
lately rallied across Southern US states. Trump's wrongheaded remarks which appeared to lay
equal blame on anti-fascist protesters for deadly violence last weekend in Charlottesville,
Virginia, were deplorable.
However, the concerted, massive media campaign to nail Trump as some kind of new Fuhrer
seems way over the top. The media frenzy smacks of Deep State opponents scouring for a handy
new pretext for ousting him from office.
The enthusiasm for whipping up the new anti-Trump campaign seems due in large part because
the erstwhile Russia-gate story has patently failed to gain any traction. For nearly seven
months since Trump's inauguration, the relentless claims pushed by Democrats, the media and
anonymous intelligence sources that his election last November was enabled by Russian
interference have shown little impact in terms of discrediting Trump and ultimately forcing him
out of the White House. The Russia-gate theme has failed in its soft coup objective.
Back in January, on the eve of Trump's inauguration, the US intelligence agencies claimed
that Russia had interfered in the presidential election with the aim of promoting Trump's
victory over Democrat rival Hillary Clinton. But seven months on, no evidence has ever been
produced to support that sensational claim.
Despite this absence of "killer evidence" to damage Trump as a Russian stooge, the Congress
continues to hold investigations into the vapid allegations. And, separately, a "special
prosecutor" – former FBI chief Robert Mueller – continues to expand his
investigation, forming a grand jury and this week opening enquiries into White House staff.
Thus the whole Russia-gate affair is in danger of becoming a giant farce from the lack of
evidence. With so little to show for their herculean efforts to trap Trump as a "Russian
patsy", his political opponents, including prominent media organizations, are at risk of being
seen as ridiculous hoaxers.
A telltale sign of how bankrupt the Russia-gate story is was the publication of a lengthy
article
in Wired earlier this month. The California-based online magazine proclaims to be a
cutting-edge technology publication. Wired is published by Condé Nast, a global American
company, whose other prestige titles include Vogue, Vanity Fair and New Yorker . With a claimed
monthly readership of 30 million, and an editorial staff of over 80, Wired is supposed to be a
global leader in new technology and communications.
According to its advertising blurb, "Wired is where tomorrow is realized", adding: "It is
the essential source of information and ideas that make sense of a world in constant
transformation".
Therefore, as a US technology forum, this publication is supposed to be the elite in insider
information and "nerdy journalism". With these high claims in mind, we then turn excitedly to
its article published on August 8 with the headline: "A guide to Russia's high tech tool box
for subverting US democracy".
On reading it, the entire article is a marathon in hackneyed cliches of Russophobia. It is
an appalling demonstration of how threadbare are the claims of Russian hacking into the US
election last year. Citing US intelligence sources, the Wired article is a regurgitation of
unsubstantiated assertions that Russian state agencies hacked into the Democratic National
Committee last July and subsequently used whistleblower site Wikileaks to disseminate damaging
information against Trump's rival Hillary Clinton.
"According to US investigators", says Wired, "the hack of the DNC's servers was apparently
the work of two separate Russian teams, one from the GRU [military intelligence] and one from
the FSB [state security service], neither of which appears to have known the other was also
rooting around in the Democratic Party's files. From there, the plundered files were laundered
through online leak sites like WikiLeaks and DCLeaks Their impact on the 2016 election was
sizable, yielding months of damaging headlines".
Nowhere in the Wired article is any plausible technical detail presented to back up the
hacking claims. It relies on US intelligence "assessments" and embellishment with quotes from
think tanks and anonymous diplomats whose anti-Russia bias is transparent.
Wired's so-called Russian "tool box for subverting US democracy" covers much more than the
alleged hacking into the DNC. It accuses Russia of using news media, diplomats, criminal
underworld networks, blackmail and assassinations as an arsenal of hybrid warfare to undermine
Western democracy.
Wired declares: "And they are self-reinforcing, because in Russia the intelligence
apparatus, business community, organized crime groups, and media distribution networks blend
together, blurring and erasing the line between public and private-sector initiatives and
creating one amorphous state-controlled enterprise to advance the personal goals of Vladimir
Putin and his allies".
This is an astoundingly sweeping depiction of Russia in the most slanderous, pejorative
terms. Basically, Wired is claiming that the entire Russian state is a criminal enterprise. The
Russophobia expressed in the article is breathtaking – and this is in a magazine that is
supposed to be a leader in technology-intelligence.
Wired tells its readers of Russia having a "Grand Strategy" – to undermine Western
democracies, and multilateral alliances from NATO to the European Union.
With foreboding, it warns: "[T]he Putin regime's systematic effort to undermine and
destabilize democracies has become the subject of urgent focus in the West the biggest
challenge to the Western order since the fall of the Berlin Wall".
The salient point here is that despite its grandiose professional claims, Wired provides
nothing of substance to support the narrative that Russia hacked into the US election. If a
supposed cutting-edge technology magazine can't deliver on technical details, then that really
does demonstrate just how bankrupt the whole Russia-gate story is.
Moreover, another nail in the coffin for the Russia-gate narrative was recently provided by
a respected group of former US intelligence officers called Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS). Last month, the group
wrote
to
President Trump with their expert analysis that the DNC incident was not a hack conducted via
the internet, but rather that the information came from a DNC insider. In other words, the
information was a leak, not a hack, in which the data was transferred by person out of the DNC
offices on a memory disk. In that case, Russian agents or any other internet agents could not
have possibly been involved. The key finding in the VIPS analysis is that the information
obtained from the DNC computers was so vast in file size, it could not have been downloaded
over the internet in the time period indicated by meta-data.
It is relevant that Wikileaks editor Julian Assange has consistently denied US intelligence
and media claims that his source was Russian hackers. Also, former British ambassador Craig
Murray has confirmed that he knows the identity of the source for Wikileaks and that, as the
dissenting veteran US intelligence people have assessed, the information was leaked, not
hacked.
In sum, the Russia-gate story that the US Deep State and media have peddled non-stop for
seven months is on its knees gasping for lack of credibility.
Even a supposed top technology publication, Wired, is embarrassingly vacant of any details
on how alleged Russian hackers are supposed to have interfered in the US election to get Trump
into the White House. As if to compensate for its dearth of detail, the Wired publication pads
out its "big story" with hackneyed Russophobia worthy of a corny James Bond knock-off.
Not only that, but now technical details and expert analysis are emerging from credible
former US intelligence personnel who are verifying that the Russia-gate story is indeed a
hoax.
The Deep State and other political/media opponents of Trump are inevitably scrabbling for
alternative means of sabotaging his presidency. They are finding that the Russia-gate ploy to
get Trump out of the White House is in danger of collapsing from lack of evidence and from the
emergence of a plausible explanation for the DNC breach that damaged Clinton's election
campaign. The bottomline is: it wasn't the Russians, so all the hype about Trump being a
Russian stooge is a case of fake news, just as Trump has long maintained.
The imminent death of the Russia-gate "scandal" is giving way to the next orchestrated
campaign to oust Trump in the form of allegations that the president is a "Neo-Nazi
sympathizer".
Trump's nationalistic America First views may be suspect, even reprehensible in
their wider association. That's not the point. The point is the concerted, orchestrated way
that the Deep State will rail-road the new campaign to oust Trump in place of the failing
Russia-gate ploy. The contempt for democratic process raises the question of who the more
dangerous American fascists are?
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published
in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a
career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he
worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish
Times and Independent.
Given the current level of hysteria, few people are going to check your facts. This is one
you can really have fun with. See how far you can push the paranoia. Make up elaborate
conspiracy theories. If you're not quite sure how to go about that, check
The New York
Times
or
The Washington Post
they're masters of that kind of thing.
Your anti-Nazi loyalty oath should definitely
not
include any of the following:
(1) Any mention of the Ukrainian Nazis that Obama, Clinton, and the rest of the Resistance
(before it was the Resistance, of course) helped regime-change the Ukrainian government when it
wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Mentioning the Resistance's support of these Nazis
would only confuse those reading your oath, who might not understand that there are good Nazis
and bad Nazis, and who have probably forgotten how the US government smuggled a number of
actual Nazis (i.e., members of the NSDAP) into America after WWII or how, since the end of that
war, the United States has mass murdered countless millions of people all over the planet (but,
technically, not in a genocidal fashion, so that doesn't make us the same as Nazis).
(2) Actual membership figures on neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, because those
figures are pathetically small. Doing this would make your loyalty oath (not to mention the
whole Nazi hysteria thing, generally) seem, if not paranoid, then at least absurd, or like part
of some manufactured effort to whip up support for a ruling class coup by waving Nazis in front
of everyone's faces. This would be extremely counterproductive. Remember, one of the primary
goals of the De-Putin-Nazification program is to convince the public that Richard Spencer (and
the handful of other insignificant idiots that the corporate media is showering with publicity)
is about to lead an overwhelming force of tiki torch-bearing neo-Nazis into the streets of
American cities to battle the hyper-militarized police, the national guard, and the US
military, or some other preposterous scenario like that.
(3) Any reference whatsoever to the corporatocracy that runs the country, and that normally
decides who can run for president, and which is currently making an example of Trump in order
to dissuade any future billionaires from having the audacity to fuck with them. You'll be
better off avoiding this subject entirely, as it only reminds folks how screwed they are, and
how, odds are, they're probably all worked up about something the corporate-owned media wanted
to get them all worked up about, neo-Nazis, Russian hackers, nuclear war with North Korea,
Syrian gas attacks, lone wolf terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, or whatever. Take it
from someone who's worked in show business. No one likes being made aware of how they are being
manipulated or provided with a binary set of officially acceptable contextual parameters within
which they can think and speak.
But don't worry too much about that binary stuff. There'll be plenty of time to get into all
that after we rid the world of these Nazis, and these racists, and all these Confederate
statues. And Trump, of course. That's the main thing getting rid of Donald Trump, and getting a
Democrat back in office. Oh, yeah and the books. We need to look at the books. God knows how
many Confederate books are still out there in the public libraries, and in people's homes,
where children can read them. We'll need to get to the books eventually.
In the meantime, focus on Priority One. Go hard on the Nazi hysteria, at least throughout
the rest of the weekend, after which they'll probably need to switch us back to the Russia
hysteria, or possibly the North Korea hysteria, or damn, see? Here I go with that contextual
parameter stuff again. I've really got to stop doing that. The last thing I need is to get
myself accused of being some kind of Nazi sympathizer, or Confederate apologist, or Russian
propagandist, or extremist, or terrorist, or, you know whatever.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel,
ZONE 23
, is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at
cjhopkins.com
or
consentfactory.org
Indeed it is hysteria & the madness of crowds in the USA, to a degree never seen
before in our lifetimes
Perhaps the cleverness of Trump & others with him, is instinctively understanding
that, this hysteria cannot be directly defused given its elite & corp media support, but
now the fire must simply be left to run its course, until it burns itself out, in the end
forcing a widespread recognition of the absurdity, & enduring shame for those who
fostered it
This may explain including such nominal feints such as the jettisoning of 'goy' top
advisor Steve Bannon to give the antifa etc hysterics more fuel for their fires
Interesting article by, of all people, David P Goldman aka 'Spengler' of Asia Times,
arguing that Donald Trump may at the moment be making an extremely clever riverboat gamble
-
Siding with the more common-sense ordinary people of both USA Democrat & Republican
political parties, as those parties implode and split into pieces, & possibly building a
new, core, more sensible political centre once the current hysteria has run its course
Trump will reach out to Democratic voters who are alienated from a leadership that has
devoted most of its energy to a radical social agenda instead of bread-and-butter
solutions, and he will appear to a majority of his own party. I do not know whether he will
succeed; if he does, the self-inflicted wounds to the erstwhile arbiters of American
opinion will be fatal.
'The Bloody Shirt of Charlottesville and its unintended consequences'
When all the Confederate Statutes are taken down, what replaces them?
The Anti-fascist replacement:go google photos of Hillary Clinton pick the Hillary Clinton
photo with Hillary wearing the most hideous of her pantsuits that's the one that will replace
General Lee .A statue of a psychopathic War Criminal bulldyke who was organized and gave the
order to mass murder Conservative Russian Christians in the Eastern Ukraine on behalf of
Neo-Nazis.
Hillary Clinton created Al QUEDA and ISIS .enabler of Ukraino Nazis ..
Hillary Clinton..the poster girl for the Antifa Tranny Freaks .and the cucked White
Protestant Male Ministers standing up to hate in Charlottesville
Nicely provocative, an essay that seems more likely than a lot published here to get
through to Americans not yet divided-and-conquered.
Another way to help people you know and care about to get beyond the TV-level dumbshittery
afflicting the country: posit whether ANY statue, plaque, etc., of ANY politician, military
"hero," or other person being thus celebrated for exercising governmental authority is worth
funding with taxation, much less squabbling over.
Yet another panic reaction to Charlottesville, I suppose. Small correction of fact: the
Ukrainian government wasn't overthrown when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Quite
the contrary, indeed. It was when Yanukovych decided that he would sign the EU association
agreement that he was overthrown or, more correctly, that he simply fled. NATO was never an
issue. As with Mr Zuesse, the polemical style and the pro-Putin line suggest growing fear in
the pro-Putin camp.
@Michael
Kenny
Yet another panic reaction to Charlottesville, I suppose. Small correction of fact:
the Ukrainian government wasn't overthrown when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO.
Quite the contrary, indeed. It was when Yanukovych decided that he would sign the EU
association agreement that he was overthrown or, more correctly, that he simply fled. NATO
was never an issue. As with Mr Zuesse, the polemical style and the pro-Putin line suggest
growing fear in the pro-Putin camp. As usual, you're dead wrong. Yanuvovich ultimately did
not
sign the EU agreement:
The political provisions of the treaty were signed on 21 March 2014 after a series of
events that had stalled its ratification culminated in a revolution in Ukraine and
overthrow of the then incumbent President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. This ousting was
sparked by Yanukovych's refusal to sign the agreement.
As far as NATO is concerned, it is unlikely that Ukraine will be joining in the near
future, because of Transnistria and because it has two border disputes with Russia. But the
country can still be used as a cat's paw to get at Russia (just like Georgia under
Sakashvili), which is even better from Washington's point of view, since they don't even have
to give the Ukies any security guarantees if they get into trouble with Russia (again, just
like Georgia under Sakashvili).
You are right, hypocrisy rules. What else is new? Civil war has nothing to do with what
happened in Charlottesville. These monuments stood for ~100 years or longer and caused no
violence. It is important to face this fact, as well as the fact that the violence in
Charlottesville was started by self-proclaimed "liberals". Considering how shamelessly they
push lies in the media and how they violently suppress any opinion that differs from theirs,
these "liberals" are anything but. What we are witnessing is yet another string of
provocations by those who are sore that their beloved mad witch spent twice as much money as
Trump and lost. Mind you, I am no fan of Trump, but I don't trust that lying corrupt to the
core "alternative" an inch. As far as Hillary is concerned, from my viewpoint her gender does
not matter. What matters is massive fraud in the Democratic primaries (that's why Debbie
Wasserman-Schulz resigned as a head of DNC in 2016 right before the convention she presumably
prepared), as well as the fact that Hillary never gave a speech w/o at least $100,000
"speaking fee", took vast amounts of money from the most unsavory sources, including Saudi
Arabia (the same one that murders people by public beheading with a curved sword, exactly
like ISIS, and keeps murdering hundreds of civilians in Yemen), and was openly supported by
the most notorious neocons from both parties. I would not trust a male with this kind of
record, either.
Trump's words that removal of monuments is "sad" and "so foolish" arguably are his first
intelligent utterance in months. History does not change no matter what people do, and it has
a way of punishing those who forget or try to erase it. Only cowardly scum fights monuments.
I am deeply ashamed that some scenes from my country resemble those earlier seen in hopeless
basket cases, like present-day Ukraine.
Look, events in Boston vindicating the Alt Right narrative in Charlottesville.
All the violence is instigated by 'counter-protesters', as the globalist CBS calls
them.
They are Antifanissary thugs and lunatics who oppose free speech and side with Wall Street
and the War State.
I'm glad this event happened. At this event, there were no Confed flags, no one with Nazi
flag, and no extremists.
There were only patriots defending free speech, but the Antifanissary scum attack just the
same.
Trump should talk about this.
Globalist War on Free Speech and Free Assembly.
Barking dogs on leash who can't tolerate the howl of free wolves.
Thank the Police on this. The State, in this case, defended those defending freedom of
speech and assembly.
But the Corporations will all side with PC Proglodytes.
But there will be blowback. Just like the Jihadis supported by the US turned on the West,
these Antifa scum will turn around and bite the corpies.
In a way, the bogeyman of 'nazi' is very useful to corporations. Capitalists know that the
Far Left hates them and wanna smash windows, burn down Starbucks, create havoc in upscale
cities like Seattle, and etc. And capitalists fear BLM and black thugs too.
If 'nazis' didn't exist, these restless Antifa and BLM would likely be doing Occupy Wall
Street, rioting in gentrified parts of town, attacking yuppies and hipsters, and attacking
GREED.
But if there are 'nazis' as bogeyman, the corporations can direct all Antifa and BLM rage
at the 'white supremacists' who actually have no power and wealth.
Also, as having sponsored the Antifa and BLM, the corpies hope that the far-left and black
thugs will be grateful and not attack them.
But there is blowback sometime down the line. you've made an important point, Priss:
"Nazi," "Hitler," "Swastika" and "Holocaust ™ " are
brands
created by and for
corporate interests; the narrative behind these brands does NOT represent history, it is the
product of Bernays/hasbara. That is, its basic appeal is to emotion, deliberately bypassing
reason and critical analysis.
Corporatists, zionists and Jews *** are striking back as hard as they are, and attempting
to associate "hate" with "Nazi" as often as they can, in an exercise in Brand Spanking: as
Sam Shama let slip the other day, spanking the Nazi etc. brand is essential because more and
more people are
waking up
.
Charlottesville was, indeed, a set-up: some PR shop managed the affair and cucksertive
media are following the script to a Tee.
On C Span on Aug 15, John McArdle hosted an exercise in propaganda so obvious you have to
wonder if UVa might consider rescinding his diploma. McArdle invited callers to opine on
Trump's statement on the C'ville events; in the 61 minute program, he spoke the word "hate"
41 times: once every 90 seconds.
"Hate" was associated with "white" at every opportunity.
If a caller failed to link "hate" with "white/supremacists/nationalist," McArdle prompted
them to do so.
The history of the era of the European-Jewish wars is a radically different entity from
the branding.
Before the history can be made more fully consistent with reality -- an absolute essential
for a the "well informed citizens" in a representative form of government -- the "Nazi" etc.
brands have got to be torn apart: shattered, fragmented.
One of Eddie Bermays's first triumphs was to persuade elite women that smoking cigarettes
was chic.
Years and many deaths later, cigarettes now carry a warning from the Surgeon General that
cigarettes can kill you.
The same thing has to happen to the deadly way the Jewish PR/media has bastardized "Nazi"
Hitler" "Swastika" .
It must be made clear in every instance that the people who inserted the toxic ingredients
in those brands had only their own revenue stream in view, and not full and truthful
information for the American public.
!!!
*** Jews -- and they can be named & should be shamed -- were at the vanguard of branding
"Nazi" "Hitler" and "Swastika" with the epithet
Hate
nearly a decade before a single
hair on a Jewish head was so much as mussed: James Waterman Wise, son of Rabbi Stephen Wise,
published a book titled "Swastika" in about May, 1933.
The book opened with the declaration that "the swastika represents hatred of the Jew."
@Anon
I've listened to nearly a 24-hour day's worth of C Span programming about Charlottesville;
I've heard "hate" and "Nazi" and "KKK" and "white supremacy" said so many time my ears are
numb and my cerebral cortex overdosed.
I have NOT heard, in all that C Span programming, one, single, solitary guest or
journo-phoner discuss what Robert E. Lee stood for; or his correspondence with Lord Acton,
about the necessity of state sovereignty to guard against an oppressive centralized power
that could take a country to war with no bulwark against its force.
Incredibly -- and I have to post this for all to see: a Jewish woman called C Span to
complain that Jewish interests were not represented in C Span programming on
Charlottesville.
Here's what she said:
Moderator: Let's go to Virginia Beach, Virginia; Betty is on the line for Democrats:
BETTY: Good morning. Thank you for C Span. I want to say one thing. The two gentlemen
you just had on were fine, *** but I'm extremely disappointed because I happen to be Jewish
and I was in Connecticut, which I'm originally from Newtown, Connecticut [and spent ] the
last weekend there visiting my family there.
I heard more news when I got home. But what I'm disappointed about -- I don't know if C Span
ever invited -- I know you've had Jewish people on talking before, but with the
Charlottesville thing, I don't know if you've invited anybody from the Anti Defamation
League or a rabbi or some other Jewish person to come on, representing a group, because
it's awful with the KKK but it's also awful with these Nazis marching -- Nazis marching down
in Charlottesville! Both groups are – are- are terrible. It was a horrible thing to
see such a thing in 2017 in the United States of America.
And one other thing, and I mean, these other networks, I mean, I don't just sit home and
watch TV but I watch C Span, I watch CNN, I watch MSNBC quite a bit --
I haven't seen too many uh Jewish commentators come out and talk. And I really I appreciate
and respect the Black commentators that have come on, but I don't know why there hasn't
just! Let me make one more comment please:
All the Jews and people of color that are in -- I don't think there's too many, but the ones
that are in the Trump administration really should resign after what he said.
I'm glad Steve Bannon is gone. But he uh he uh Trump himself in my opinion is a sympathizer
to these groups, that's how I feel, I mean that's how I feel.
And just, I mean, y'know uh uh they're wimps, and especially his son-in-law. He's supposed
to be an Orthodox Jew? No, I'm not even a religious Jew, but I mean in my heart, that's
what I am. But I mean, he's a wimp! He shouldn't be in there with his father-in-law! He
should get up and walk out! That's how I feel.
And real quick !I was so proud to get a letter from President Obama -- I was always going to
write him -- I always been a big supporter of his from the very very beginning. And uh I
wrote him a letter before he left office, and now I have a framed letter from President
Obama on my wall and I'm very very grateful for that.
Thank you very much for allowing me to make my comments.I00:10:04
Mod. Geoff Bennett: Thank you for your suggestion about our programming. We will take it
under consideration.
In fact, several persons who are "Jewish in their hearts" (or at least their names)
appeared on C Span to explain the many sins of the "white supremacists."
The one group (in addition to sound historians on Robert E Lee) that was not represented
in C Span program over the course of this hysteria was a single representative of the Unite
the Right project.
There are plenty of articulate voices that C Span could have hosted to better inform its
audience.
Julian Assange has the evidence – but will he reveal it?
There's an exciting new development in the "Russia-gate" investigation, one that has the potential to blast apart what is arguably
the biggest hoax in the history of American politics.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) has
met with Julian Assange – the first US congressman to do so – and returned with some spectacular news:. The Hill
reports :
"Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last
year's election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future."
Assange has maintained all along that the Russians had nothing to do with procuring the DNC/Podesta emails, despite the intelligence
community's assertions – offered without evidence – that Vladimir Putin personally approved the alleged "hack." Yet credible challenges
to this view have emerged
in recent days,
including
from a group of former intelligence officials, that throw considerable doubt on the idea that there was even a "hack" to begin with.
"Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents," says The Hill ,
"Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. 'Julian also indicated that he is open to further
discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,' he said."
What this looks like is an attempt by Assange to negotiate with the US government over his current status as a political prisoner:
he has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London for many years. Hanging over him is the threat of arrest should he leave
and his rendition to the United States to face charges. Could he be making a bid for freedom, offering to provide evidence of how
he got his hands on the DNC/Podesta emails in exchange for a pardon?
Rohrabacher, who has a history as a libertarian fellow traveler, has been the target of a smear campaign due to his unwillingness
to go along with the Russophobic hysteria that's all the rage in Washington, D.C. these days. Politico attacked him in a piece
calling him "Putin's favorite congressman," and "news" accounts of this meeting with Assange invariably mention his "pro-Russian"
views – as if a desire to get along with Russia is in itself somehow "subversive."
It's a brave stance to take when even the ostensibly libertarian and anti-interventionist Cato Institute has jumped on the hate-on-Russia
bandwagon. Cato
cut
their ties to former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus because he refused to accept the War Party's line on the US-sponsored
Ukrainian coup that overthrew the country's democratically elected chief of state. But it gets worse.
Here 's Cato senior fellow Andrei Illarionov saying
we are already at war with Russia:
"First of all, it is necessary to understand that this is a war. This is not a joke, this is not an accident, this is not a
mistake, this is not a bad dream. It will not go away by itself. This is a war. As in any war, you either win or lose. And it is
up to you what choice you will make."
And it's not just a cold war: the conflict must, says Illarionov, contain a military element:
"First, in purely military area, it is quite clear that victory in this war cannot be achieved without serious adjustments
made to the existing military doctrine. Certainly, soft power is wonderful, but by itself it does not deter the use of force."
While the rest of the country is going about its business with nary a thought about Russia, in Washington the craziness is pandemic.
Which is why Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Adrienne Watson felt safe vomiting up the usual bile in response to Rohrabacher's
initiative: "We'll take the word of the US intelligence community over Julian Assange and Putin's favorite Congressman."
The power of groupthink inside the Washington Beltway has energized both the neo-cold warrior hysterics –
epitomized by the imposition of yet more sanctions -- and the "Russia-gate" hoax to the point where it is unthinkable for anyone
to challenge either. Yet Rohrabacher, whom I don't always agree with, has the balls to stand up to both, and for that he should be
supported.
Assange has stubbornly resisted revealing anything about the provenance of the DNC/Podesta emails, allowing the CIA/NSA to claim
that it was the Russians who "hacked the election," and also giving them a free hand to smear WikiLeaks as an instrument of the Kremlin.
This meeting with Rohrabacher, and the promise of revelations to come, indicate that he is reconsidering his stance – and that we
are on the verge of seeing "Russia-gate" definitively debunked.
We here at Antiwar.com have challenged the "mainstream" media's wholesale swallowing of the government's line from the very beginning.
That's because there hasn't been one iota of solid proof for blaming the Russians, or even for the assertion that the DNC was "hacked."
We don't accept government pronouncements at face value: indeed, we don't accept the "conventional wisdom" at face value, either.
We always ask the question: " Where's the
evidence? "
"... For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran. ..."
"... Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false. ..."
"... But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours. ..."
"... Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible. ..."
"... "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." ..."
"... The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored. ..."
A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives
is that they alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans
and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance. Part of the reason
for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national
news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that
is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.
But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals
and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting
the Left's disgust with President Trump
People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts
have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more
difficult.
The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions
on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties,
passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.
The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan,
Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky
and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.
In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating
tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia
and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on
the table just where the neocons want it.
The Putin Obstacle
As for Russia, the
neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since
2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military
strike over
dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus
on Aug. 21, 2013.
Subsequent
evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate
to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.
While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would
benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking
on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed
states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to
shatter
the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.
Many neocons are, in effect, America's Israeli agents and – since Israel is now allied with Saudi
Arabia and the Sunni Gulf states versus Iran – the neocons exercise their media/political influence
to rationalize U.S. military strikes against Iran's regional allies, i.e., Syria's secular government
of Bashar al-Assad
For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations
with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb
and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S.
military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary
and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.
Punishing Russia
It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman
identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize
of removing Putin in Russia.
Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Victoria
Nuland and Sen. John McCain , delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup
that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including
neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.
When Putin responded by allowing Crimeans to vote on secession from Ukraine and reunification
with Russia, the West – and especially the neocon-dominated mainstream media – denounced the move
as a "Russian invasion." Covertly, the Russians also helped ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who
defied the coup regime in Kiev and faced annihilation from Ukrainian military forces, including the
neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which literally displayed Swastikas and SS symbols. Putin's assistance to
these embattled ethnic Russian Ukrainians became "Russian aggression."
Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were
swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade
earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the
violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with
U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.
But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved
extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change"
war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.
Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially
flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian
affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to
kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.
Successful Propaganda
As part of this propaganda process, the
jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories
to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for
fear of being beheaded.
Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely
chemical attack,
the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous
pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the
alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the
other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.
Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has
said ,
"Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history
of the American press."
But all these successes in the neocons'
"perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since
Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.
Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to
the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome
and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame
Russia.
The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called
Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of
the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence"
contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible
to trace.
So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the
government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs,
CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , to come up with an
assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared
the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched
his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.
'Hand-Picked' Analysts
According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked"
from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama
left office. Their
Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that
it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us"
approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.
Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy
Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had
been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt
Romney
The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America
as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate
stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky
Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by
the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies.
So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday
column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point
about Washington groupthink.
"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been
the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that
the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom
of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.
Lost Logic
But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling"
in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is
now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute
despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the
Russian government.
Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions
bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:
"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing
Trump's behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential
election has been outrageous."
However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents.
Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support
its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.
Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation
true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political
motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush
's Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene
in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.
But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial
pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers
at CNN and other cable outlets.
Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia
with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive
for more "regime change" wars.
There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect
of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear
war, more likely.
In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani , "We told you so" that the U.S.
government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with
the nuclear agreement.
And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from
his own hardliners who view him as naďve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.
Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs
signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente
between Washington and Moscow.
In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and
coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party
hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of
nuclear war is being ignored.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... Evidence that undermines the "election hack" narrative should get more attention. ..."
"... The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... VIPS instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks' Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer 2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of Russian metadata in his files and his use of a Russia-based virtual private network. ..."
"... The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second -- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second, a speed not commonly available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic ..."
"... However, as Forensicator has pointed out , the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something only an insider could have done -- at about that speed. ..."
"... And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike, the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment, had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the Atlantic Council , a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as a hostile power. ..."
"... Many Americans' certainty about Russian involvement, which has led to increased hostility toward Russia... ..."
"... The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold on it. That may be an Iraq-sized mistake, leading to a dangerous failure to recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made one. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin's routinely use external enemies to gloss over domestic divisions and distract the public from problems at home. In a functioning democracy, such tactics should not succeed. ..."
Evidence that undermines the "election hack" narrative should get more attention.
What if it wasn't Russia's fault?
In 2003, when a number of former intelligence professionals formed a group
to protest the way intelligence was bent to accuse Iraq of producing weapons
of mass destruction, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof
wrote a sympathetic column quoting the group's members. In 2017, you won't
read about this same group's latest campaign in the big U.S. newspapers.
The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating
the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee
files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence
to the contrary.
Unlike the "current and former intelligence officials" anonymously quoted
in stories about the Trump-Russia scandal, VIPS members actually have names.
But their findings and doubts are only being aired by
non-mainstream
publications that are easy to accuse of being channels for Russian disinformation.
The Nation, Consortium News, ZeroHedge and other outlets have pointed to their
findings that at least some of the DNC files were taken by an insider rather
than by hackers, Russian or otherwise.
The January assessment of the U.S. intelligence community, which serves as
the basis for accusations that Russia hacked the election said, among other
things: "We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General
Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and
DCLeaks.com to release U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly
and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."
VIPS instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks' Julian Assange announced
on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the
DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse
any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used
the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer
2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of
Russian metadata in his files and his
use of a Russia-based virtual private network.
The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers
who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former
found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on
July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second
-- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second,
a speed not
commonly
available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly
over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would
have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which
the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic.
However, as Forensicator has
pointed out , the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something
only an insider could have done -- at about that speed.
Adam Carter, the pseudonym for the other analyst, showed that the content
of the Guccifer files was at some point cut and pasted into Microsoft Word templates
that used the Russian language. Carter laid out all the available evidence and
his answers to numerous critics in a
long post earlier
this month.
VIPS includes former National Security Agency staffers with considerable
technical expertise, such as William Binney, the agency's former technical director
for world geopolitical and military analysis, and Edward Loomis Jr., former
technical director for the office of signals processing, as well as other ex-intelligence
officers with impressive credentials. That doesn't, of course, mean the group
is right when it finds the expert analysis by Forensicator and Carter persuasive.
Another former intelligence professional who has examined it, Scott Ritter,
has
pointed out that these findings don't necessarily refutes that Guccifer's
material constitute the spoils of a hack.
VIPS's record of unruly activism might have devalued its theories and conclusions
in the eyes of mainstream journalists. Ray McGovern, a VIPS founder who used
to prepare and deliver White House briefings at the Central Intelligence Agency,
has been removed from Hillary Clinton's events for protesting her policies.
While the group was right about Iraq in 2003, that doesn't mean it's right about
Russia in 2017, with some of its members' intelligence work now long in the
past.
And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the
discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since
no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike,
the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment,
had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder
Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the
Atlantic Council
, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as
a hostile power.
One hopes that the numerous investigations into Trump-Russia are based on
hard evidence, not easy assumptions. But since these investigations are not
transparent at this point, the only way to make sure their attention is still
focused on the technical aspects of the suspected Russian hacks and leaks is
to present the available evidence, along with any arguments undermining it,
to the public.
Many Americans' certainty about Russian involvement, which has led to
increased hostility toward Russia...
Having been burned so badly on the Iraq intelligence claims in 2003, you
would think major U.S. media would apply more journalistic skepticism and rigor
here, even if, to the broader public, Russia is a faraway power to which it's
easy to ascribe pretty much any nefarious activity. Instead, these outlets seem
more intent on
noting Putin's bare-chested physique and
accusing him of further meddling on social networks. The alt-right may not
need Russia's help in using Twitter bots to run its
social media campaigns , but it gets less scrutiny for them than Russia.
The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line
last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold
on it. That may be an Iraq-sized mistake, leading to a dangerous failure to
recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made
one. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin's routinely use external enemies to
gloss over domestic divisions and distract the public from problems at home.
In a functioning democracy, such tactics should not succeed.
( Corrects volume of data transferred in sixth paragraph.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board
or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story:
Leonid Bershidsky at [email protected]
"... " So here's what I want you to tell every politician: If you get a call from somebody suggesting that a foreign government wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us all to call the FBI." ..."
"... https://youtu.be/VzawbjQc4iM?t=1m34s ..."
"... What did McCain do? He twice received material generated by a foreign intelligence operative and passed this along as if it was valuable, verified intelligence. Here is the proof, thanks to Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times . ..."
"... McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed Democrats (and one unnamed Republican). And this is not the only instance of collusion with a foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly consorted with Ukrainian operatives: ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... We can continue to be distracted by new intelligence about shenanigans during the presidential election until Trump's first term is up. That is the plan. ..."
"... Which reminds me what about all those dirty little wars, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc that Obama and the Clintonist queen involved the US in on the basis of an AUM signed back in 2001, and how was Gadaffi, Assad and the Houthis, all sworn enemies of the jihadists, "associated force" of those responsible for 9/11. ..."
"... I continue to be baffled by the Trump Administration's response to the continued attacks by former and possibly current high officials in the IC. There seems to be no overt investigation by the AG. They seem to be just reacting as the media go to town manufacturing hysteria. ..."
"... In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. It was Lord Hutton's application of a lavish quantity of this substance to the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI6, and the Blair Government in his inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly which played a non-trivial role to reducing the BBC to its present status as a kind of imitation of the Brezhnev-era Radio Moscow. ..."
"... The acceptance of patently fabricated evidence by Owen took the 'whitewash' process to new heights. It would seem to me unlikely that those involved are optimistic that, by selecting the right kind of judge and organising another propaganda 'barrage' on the BBC and other outlets, they can contain the damage done by the lawsuits brought over the dossier. But I could be wrong. ..."
"... The latter [Russophobia] is an effort to assert US power over the legitimate interests of a nuclear-armed Russia, to continue to act provocatively against Russia, and to kill any attempts at a rapprochement. Birtherism crossed a line of political rhetoric, but the efforts of neocons in tying Trump's hands regarding peaceful relations with Russia is crossing a far more dangerous line. ..."
"... Birtherism was one of many things that discredited Trump as a huckster from receiving my vote. Warmongering, among other matters, also disqualified Hillary. ..."
When it comes to meeting with foreign spies to dish dirt on a Presidential candidate (or a President elect), John McCain is more
at fault than anyone connected to Donald Trump. McCain was directly involved in spreading unverified slanderous material regarding
President-elect Donald Trump as he consorted with operatives linked to a foreign government--in this case, the United Kingdom.
This should give Lindsay Graham pause after watching his his exchange with FBI nominee Christopher Wray at Wednesday's Senate
Judiciary hearing. Graham, who rhetorically fell on a fainting couch overwhelmed by outrage from the news that an obscure Russian
lawyer had sought a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. in order to dish dirt on Hillary Clinton,
admonished the FBI nominee to deal harshly with his colleagues on the following :
" So here's what I want you to tell every politician: If you get a call from somebody suggesting that a foreign government
wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us all to call the FBI." https://youtu.be/VzawbjQc4iM?t=1m34s
But Donald Trump Jr. is not guilty of doing this. Instead, it is Senator John McCain. He is the one who was fooling around with
a foreign intelligence organization.
What did McCain do? He twice received material generated by a foreign intelligence operative and passed this along as if it
was valuable, verified intelligence. Here is the proof,
thanks to Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times .
Aleksej Gubarev , a Cypriot based chief executive
of the network solutions firm XBT Holdings, filed suit against Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, for defamation
over their role in the publication of an unproven dossier (which appeared in Buzzfeed) on President Donald Trump's purported activities
involving Russia and allegations of Russian interference during last year's U.S. election.
The businessman, Aleksej Gubarev , claims he
and his companies were falsely linked in the dossier to the Russia-backed computer hacking of Democratic Party figures.
Gubarev
, 36, also is seeking unspecified damages from Buzzfeed
and its top editor, Ben Smith, in a parallel lawsuit filed in Miami. Lawyers for Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence
in the United Kingdom filed a response with the British court.
Rowan Scarborough obtained a copy of the document and posted it on-line in April. The defense document is both illuminating and
damning (I don't know how I missed this when it came out in April). This is like a statement under oath and it presents the following
facts:
1. Orbis Business Intelligence was engaged by Fusion GPS sometime in early June 2016 to prepare a series of confidential memorandum
based on intelligence concerning Russian efforts to influence the U.S. Presidential election process and links between Russia and
Donald Trump (the first memo was dated 20 June 2016).
3. Senator John McCain, accompanied by David Kramer (a Senior Director at Senator McCain's Institute for International Leadership),
met in London with an Associate of Orbis, former British Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, to arrange a subsequent meeting with Christopher
Steele in order to read the now infamous Steele Dossier.
4. David Kramer and Christopher Steele met in Surrey on 28 November 2016, where Kramer was briefed on the contents of the memos.
5. Once Senator McCain and David Kramer returned to the United States, arrangements were made for Fusion GPS to provide Senator
McCain hard copies of the memoranda.
6. After Donald Trump was elected, Christopher Steele prepared an additional memorandum (dated 13 December 2016) that made the
following claims:
Michael Cohen held a secret meeting in Prague, Czechoslovakia in August 2016 with Kremlin operatives.
Cohen, allegedly accompanied by 3 colleagues (Not Further Identified), met with Oleg SOLODUKHIM to discuss on how deniable
cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the Clinton campaign and various
contingencies for covering up these operations and Moscow's secret liaison with the Trump team more generally.
In Prague, Cohen agreed (sic) contingency plans for various scenarios to protect the operation, but in particular what was
to be done in the event that Hillary Clinton won the Presidency.
Sergei Ivanov's associate claimed that payments to hackers had been made by both Trump's team and the Kremlin.
[Note--Michael Cohen denies he was ever in Prague.]
7. Christopher Steele passed a copy of the December memo to a senior UK Government national security official and to Fusion GPS
(via encrypted email) with the instruction to give a hard copy to Senator McCain via David Kramer.
Sometime between December 14, 2016 and December 31, 2016, Senator McCain passed this salacious material to FBI director, James
Comey.
As I pointed out in my previous piece (
Trump Jr. Emails Prove No Collusion . . . ), the Steele Dossier now stands completely discredited because the Trump Jr. emails
provide prima facie evidence that there was no regular, sustained contact with Kremlin operatives. If there had been then there was
no need to meet with an unknown lawyer peddling anti-Hillary material that, per the Steele Dossier, already had been delivered to
the Trump team.
The role of Fusion GPS in this whole sordid affair needs to be thoroughly investigated. Circumstantial evidence opens them to
charges of facilitating and enabling sedition. What they did appears to go beyond conventional opposition research and dirty tricks.
Spreading a lie that Donald Trump and his team are Russian operatives crosses a line and, as we have witnessed over the last six
months, roiled and disrupted the American political system.
McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed Democrats (and one unnamed Republican).
And this is not the only instance of collusion with a foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly
consorted with Ukrainian operatives:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only
to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico
investigation found.
You can read the full story
here . The hysteria on
the part of Democrats over alleged Russian meddling and collusion with the Trumps shows a growing potential for blowback. As more
actual evidence emerges of anti-trumpets receiving intelligence and sharing that intelligence in underhanded back channels, the greater
the risk that public attention will hone in on the real actions as opposed to unsubstantiated allegations. Such a development would
leave the Democrats very vulnerable and very exposed.
I agree that Birtherism was an unethical strategy (e.g., when did you stop molesting children). I would point out the Hillary
Clinton used this as an issue against Obama in 2008. She published photos of him in native african garb and had her surrogetes
us this against up through the Democrat Convention. It was a strategy of both Trump and Clinton.
Slightly OT but mentioned by Steve & Iowa Steve above. I watched an hour or so long You Tube video 3 or 4 months ago about how
Sheriff Joe Arpio (??sp) had got a couple of investigators to look into the Obama birth Cert brouhaha & to try & put it to bed,
one way or another. The result was what I considered to be (I am not any expert in document forensics) a pretty convincing explanation
of how the Birth Cert that the White House put forward was a forgery & how it had been falsified.
They even had tracked down (& named the woman) the birth cert that Obamas had been based on. It was convincing.
The other thing that sold the investigation to me as being genuine was there was nothing - nothing, in the MSM about it. I
took that to mean that they didn't want to try & debunk it as it would attract attention to the video. I didn't pay over much
attention to the scandal back when, & only watched the vid as I was laid up that day. Since then I've also come across a "Barry
Soetoro" foreign student I.D. card from Columbia U with a young Obama pictured on it.
We can argue the merits of a Trump presidency all we want. We can continue to be distracted by new intelligence about shenanigans
during the presidential election until Trump's first term is up. That is the plan.
I understand that foreign governments -- and probably mostly Russia -- try desperately to influence our elections in their
favor. Just as I understand that our government officials do the same in foreign elections. It's disgusting behavior for someone
who really, really believes the high principles on which our government was founded. I admit it: I am a Pollyanna in that regard.
But I also KNOW my tendencies to be more idealistic than realistic in regard to human nature. At my age, the reality of human
nature has caused me more heartbreak than I care to remember.
Therefore, I have to prioritize my worries. And so, here again, I am with PT on this issue. McCain is the bigger jerk. In my
opinion, he can't stand it that more Americans voted for Trump than voted for McCain (this American included--though I did hold
my nose and vote for McCain simply because my stomach would not take voting for BHO. I was not a birther, but I was fully aware
of things in regard to his past that I didn't like and his ideology that I despised and his friendships with people I found reprehensible.
I could go on, but won't).
The people I admire the most are, in many cases, people who did champion Trump from the beginning. I was originally flabbergasted
by that fact. I was, and still am, a Cruz person. But.....I am also an American and do put much faith in the everyday, working,
Americans who live in the Middle, where I live. These are truly the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world" people. Their
votes were given mostly because, I think, Trump declared that he wanted to "drain the swamp." We knew what that meant. We know
now that avoiding the machinations of swamp people is harder than we might have guessed. So I am willing to give the Trump boys
some grace, but not the smarmy "bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomp Iran" McCain.
Nothing came from this juvenile and inept attempt to "collude." Let's forget it, get the swamp drained and the leaks plugged
and get on with making campaign promises come true. Take the NYT and WaPo copies and find some way to use them for good: birdcage
liners, shredded packaging stuffing, even cat litter. Let CNN become a memory as you avoid watching it or any news story about
it. Heck, don't even watch Fox except to get the news without listening to the commentary. Write your senators and representatives
about your views of the issues; then go on with leading good American lives, while saying your daily prayers to the only One who
is in charge.
"Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a flagrant cover-up."
This is in addition to attracting more attention to Magnitsky Act (and to a documentary by Nekrasov), and, by association,
to another important documentary, "Two hundreds years together" by Solzhenitsyn. Both authors used to be the darlings of the west
for their harsh critique of the Soviet Union (by Solzhenitsyn) and Putin (by Nekrasov).
No publishing house in the US and UK dares to publish "Two hundreds years together," and no western country dares to show "The
Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes," because the presented facts are not fitting the ziocons' sensibilities.
What subversion is that? Nothing came of Donald Jr's stupidity but there were real effects from the Fusion GPS garbage. As for
Trump making gooey eyes at Putin, it was one part of his election platform that Trump was clear and open about and as the president
pretty much gets to decide foreign policy, rather than McCain, Graham, the Clintonists, etc. so what?
Which reminds me what about all those dirty little wars, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc that Obama and the Clintonist queen involved
the US in on the basis of an AUM signed back in 2001, and how was Gadaffi, Assad and the Houthis, all sworn enemies of the jihadists,
"associated force" of those responsible for 9/11.
Apparently the Russian lawyer who met with Don Jr was lobbying on behalf of a Russian oligarch who was sanctioned as a result
of the Magnitsky Act. That same oligarch was also faced with a $230 million fine for money laundering. He tried to cut a deal
back in 2015 whereupon he would act as an informant to US authorities. The $230 million fine was later reduced to only $6 million
days before his case was set for trial this past May.
" In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind
of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. "
This is exactly what breeds cynicism. I don't believe it is any different in the US as the judiciary always gives a pass when
the "state secrets" defense is mounted. This is a perfect legal doctrine as it can be used to cover up all kinds of malfeasance
and misfeasance. There's a reason why support exists for whistleblowers like Snowden and Wikileaks among the general public.
What was the reaction of the average person in Britain to the Lord Hutton "inquiry"?
I continue to be baffled by the Trump Administration's response to the continued attacks by former and possibly current
high officials in the IC. There seems to be no overt investigation by the AG. They seem to be just reacting as the media go to
town manufacturing hysteria.
There is a further lawsuit against BuzzFeed, brought by the Alfa Group oligarchs, Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven, and German Khan.
The summons, dated 26 May 2017 is at
Also, a report on 'McClatchy' on 11 July, entitled 'John McCain faces questions in Trump-Russia dossier case', linked to the
response of Steele and Orbis dated 18 May to the request by Gubarev's lawyers for further information in response to the 'Defence'
in the London suit to which you linked.
Whether the fact that the lawyer who prepared the response, Nicola Cain, was until recently a senior barrister at the BBC is
of any relevance I do not know.
There is a lot in this which is not at the moment making a great deal of sense. It is absolutely basic journalistic 'tradecraft'
to get a piece like the dossier 'lawyered' before publication. The question in my day would have been 'is it a fair business risk?'
A lawyer competent in the law of defamation – as Ms Cain clearly is – would I think have almost certainly said that the memorandum
on the Alfa oligarchs was in no way a 'fair business risk.'
Moreover, it is hard to see any compelling reason why it should not have simply been omitted from the published version of
the dossier – particularly as this would not have materially reduced the 'information operations' impact of the document.
As to the reference to Gubarev, a simple redaction would have reduced the risk of his suing to zero, and again, would not have
materially reduced the impact of the dossier.
Indeed, even if the BuzzFeed journalists are amateurish, former WSJ journalists like those who run Fusion – and one of the
company's partners, Thomas Catan, is also a former 'Financial Times' journalist – should have been aware they were on a sticky
wicket without needing to consult a lawyer.
At the moment, both sets of legal proceedings are a hostage to fortune, for many reasons, including the possibility that they
could make people for the first time actually notice that Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a
flagrant cover-up.
Although the claims made about Steele's involvement in that affair are a hopeless mess of contradictions, what would seem reasonably
clear is that he was a key figure in orchestrating proceedings. (Whether Fusion were involved, at the American end, is an interesting
question.)
Perhaps unsurprisingly, we end up with a situation where people are stabbing each other in the back. So Steele is trying to
rescue himself, by suggesting that the memoranda were not intended for publication at all, and that the reason for their publication
was a violation of a confidentiality agreement by Fusion.
Meanwhile, the former British Moscow Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood has already directly contradicted the 'Defence', claiming that,
contrary to what it says, he was never an 'associate' of Orbis.
In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind
of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. It was Lord Hutton's application of a lavish
quantity of this substance to the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI6, and the Blair Government in his inquiry into the death of
Dr David Kelly which played a non-trivial role to reducing the BBC to its present status as a kind of imitation of the Brezhnev-era
Radio Moscow.
The acceptance of patently fabricated evidence by Owen took the 'whitewash' process to new heights. It would seem to me
unlikely that those involved are optimistic that, by selecting the right kind of judge and organising another propaganda 'barrage'
on the BBC and other outlets, they can contain the damage done by the lawsuits brought over the dossier. But I could be wrong.
The whole anti-Trump bruha-ha has been about his alleged collusion with a foreign government. Here we have a documented case of
a collusion of clintonistas with the foreign intelligence organization (UK) and foreign government (Ukraine). The "progressives"
(including McCain and the most rabid ziocons) have been waling like sirens about alleged "treason." Well. It seems that their
wish was heard.
This is not about Trump. This is about the law.
"...if there was any line, it was crossed a long time ago."
Sigh. Obama's "we scam" was a powerful instrument of breeding both lawlessness and cynicism. i
Yeah, Trump's birtherism was odious but I don't see the equivalence between that and the current Russiaphobia.
The latter [Russophobia] is an effort to assert US power over the legitimate interests of a nuclear-armed Russia, to continue
to act provocatively against Russia, and to kill any attempts at a rapprochement. Birtherism crossed a line of political rhetoric,
but the efforts of neocons in tying Trump's hands regarding peaceful relations with Russia is crossing a far more dangerous line.
Birtherism was one of many things that discredited Trump as a huckster from receiving my vote. Warmongering, among other
matters, also disqualified Hillary.
This is article by the person recently fired by McMaster for promoting "deep state" theory of the coup against Trump. The hypothesis
that does makes some sense ;-).
But primitive anti-Islamism does provide much insights into the situation, In snot American Imperialism and neoliberal globalization
it promotes and enforces by force (sometimes by force of arms) destined to produce blowback? the fact that some of it runs on Islamic
banners is mostly immaterial. Also the USA is using political Islam for its purposes since the days of The USSR occupation of Afghanistan.
The fact that attempts to resist neoliberal globalization in Islamic world often decent into barbarity and head chopping should
not obscure the reason political Islam obtained traction and the leading role of the USA in forming the current brand as a tool to make
the USSR occupation of Afghanistan the second Vietnam for the USSR. In was a social experiment hatched in the USA political laboratories
as a countervailing force for Soviet Bolshevism (which was a decaying ideology since mid 60th, in any case and eventually was overthrown
by the forces of neoliberalism in the USSR space) that eventually went wrong. and this reckless political experimentation is hall mark
of the USA foreign policy for a long time.
So is Muslim Brotherhood which definitely has deep connection with Obama administration was a threat, or a tool for the US led global
neoliberal empire (Huma Aberdeen of
Hillary Clinton
email scandal fame is one example) ? Kind of universal door opener for neoliberal globalization for countries that try to resist
it. This is the question.
Notable quotes:
"... Abidine Ben Ali would be removed in Tunisia, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Moammar Quadaffi in Libya, the latter two states descending into civil war, as a Syrian civil war rages with no coherent U.S. strategy and no end in sight. ..."
"... The Islamic State (ISIS) would be armed with American weapons and declare itself the Caliphate, spreading across the globe using videos of Christian beheadings and other atrocities broadcast on digital media to recruit thousands of jihadis worldwide, including open FBI cases in all 50 states. ..."
"... A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue. The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us!which is supposed to be the first order of business in any strategic threat assessment. ..."
Picture a breakfast meeting on the morning of September 11, 2001 between Mullah Omar, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Osama bin Laden,
the three leaders of al-Qaeda. While eating their yogurt and fruit, they discuss the successful September 9th assassination of Ahmed
Shah Massoud and the imminent strikes in Washington and New York.
Could they have imagined that a short 15 years later:
The United States would be approximately $20 TRILLION in debt.
Iraq in sectarian civil war and Afghanistan under increasing Taliban (ISIS) control would both have Constitutions placing those
Republics under Sharia Law, and U.S. ally Turkey would be moving quickly into the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) camp.
Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak would be removed from power in Egypt, replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, then replaced by Abdel
Fattah el-Sisi and the U.S. would support the MB.
Abidine Ben Ali would be removed in Tunisia, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Moammar Quadaffi in Libya, the latter two states
descending into civil war, as a Syrian civil war rages with no coherent U.S. strategy and no end in sight.
Nigeria, West Africa (Boko Haram) and Somalia (al Shahbab) under threat.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons and receives $150 BILLION courtesy of the U.S. government while
Saudi Arabia builds hundreds of Wahhabi mosques in Indonesia and in South America.
Nascent Islamic insurgencies in France, Italy, Germany, England, Belgium and other European countries fueled by millions of inassimilable
Islamic immigrants who reside in "no-go zones" and who are flooding into Europe as well as the U.S. receiving social welfare benefits
paid for by the citizens of those counties.
The Islamic State (ISIS) would be armed with American weapons and declare itself the Caliphate, spreading across the globe using
videos of Christian beheadings and other atrocities broadcast on digital media to recruit thousands of jihadis worldwide, including
open FBI cases in all 50 states.
U.S. presidential candidates from both political parties saying "the Islamic State is not Islamic" while U.S. and European patriotism
is considered racism.
National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead
to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood cultural advisors.
If you could go back in time and tell Messrs. Omar, Zawahiri and bin Laden this would be the outcome in just 15 short years,
do you think they would believe you? Do you think that they would think that their side is winning?
When a tactical fire-team breaches a door expecting four bad guys on the other side, but they find forty, what do they do?
Do they keep going in? That's a one-way trip.
Do they ask one of the bad guys why there are so many of them in the room? Probably wouldn't be a smart move to hang around
for the answer. Not smart at all.
Ideally, the team backs out quickly and moves off the target. This is called a tactical pause and that is basically what Donald
Trump has proposed in the form of a halt on immigration.
After getting out of danger, the tactical team will do a reassessment of what happened. Was their information wrong? Did they
go to the wrong house? Did somebody purposefully give them bad information? Can they call in an air strike? All of these things need
to be considered.
A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue.
The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful
sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never
dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us!which is supposed to be the first order of business in
any strategic threat assessment.
At present, Mr. Trump's proposed course of action pertaining to the terrorist threat is a tactical pause and a strategic reassessment.
This proposal isn't rhetorical, alarmist or ill-conceived. This is smart tactics being applied to a strategic issue.
Rich Higgins is currently a DOD contractor. He formerly led several classified programs for Special Operations Command.
He is the former Chair of Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict at the National Defense University's College of International
Security Affairs.
Donald Trump is guilty of something, guilty as sin. Nobody outside his innermost circle knows yet what he is guilty of, and all
the evidence is circumstantial. But guilty he surely is.
Is it that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton? That is the story line that corporate media
take for gospel truth. It is not out of the question that some Russians, some of whom had some connection with the Russian government,
hacked into something. Even if they did, however, the Russian meddling story is ridiculously overblown – for reasons that are politically
self-serving and irresponsibly, if not criminally, dangerous.
If catastrophic outcomes can somehow be avoided, that story will eventually go the way of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Before that happens, however, count on Vladimir Putin's affront to the "integrity" of American democracy being used to justify devastating,
potentially catastrophic, diplomatic and military adventures -- in much the way that Saddam Hussein's WMDs once were.
By the time the dust settles, it will likely become clear that either there never was any reason to accept the party line on Russian
meddling or that, even if there was something to it, there was never any reason to get all worked up about it.
This is not to say that "Russiagate" investigations should be opposed; quite to the contrary, there is every reason to support
them fully.
If nothing else, investigations like Robert Mueller's and the ones underway in the House and Senate help keep Trump and the people
he has brought into his administration from executing their nefarious agendas. Better yet, they are likely, before long, to bring
Trump himself down – in ways that would make it harder for Trump's appointees and, when the times comes, for Mike Pence to turn many
of the progressive gains of the past hundred or so years around.
But the fact remains: the election meddling furor is, at best, a red herring – about which all one can honestly say, for now,
is: Who knows? Who cares?
Who knows – because the only reason to think that there was Russian meddling is that "the intelligence community" says there was.
But, as everybody knows or ought to know, they are inveterate liars. Lying is in their genes and in their job descriptions.
Moreover, if history is a guide, they are just as likely to be wrong as to be right, even when they aren't deliberately telling
lies.
Everybody also knows that the CIA in particular is not above politicizing intelligence when it serves some institutional purpose.
Who knows too – because liberal and not-so-liberal media have been pressing the case for Russian election meddling so vigorously
for such a long time that the idea has become almost second nature to all but the most circumspect consumers of news. In cases like
this, the wisest course of action usually is to become more, not less, skeptical.
It is hard to say which media outlet is the most at fault; the competition is so intense. The Washington Post and
The New York Times are serious contenders, though it must be said, in fairness, that the Trump menace seems to have reignited
a taste for real investigative reporting – about Trump -- in both of them. For that, one could forgive a great deal.
But they are still, on the whole, a servile lot. My vote for the worst of them all is MSNBC, with Joy Reid leading the way and
Rachel (take twenty minutes to make a twenty second point) Maddow close behind.
A character in Edgar Allan Poe's "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether" advised believing only half of what one sees
and nothing that one hears. Inasmuch as most of what one sees and hears about Russian meddling in the 2016 election are breathless
repetitions of claims originating in the intelligence services, this is good advice in the case at hand.
The problem is not "fake news," news reports that are deliberately deceptive. Trump blathers on endlessly about that – in his
usual, self-serving, bullying way – using the term so loosely as to void it of meaning. On this as on so much else, what comes out
of Trump's mouth and what one reads in his tweets is sheer nonsense.
It is true, of course, that, under his aegis and inspiration, there has been an up-tick in deliberately false news stories, mainly
in "alt-right" media outlets. But there is little, if any, genuinely fake (deliberately false) news in mainstream media. This side
of Fox News, and sometimes even there, most journalists do try to maintain journalistic standards. They are not pathological liars,
little Donald Trumps.
What they are, wittingly or not, are propagandists – in the sense discussed long ago by Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman in Manufacturing
Consent (reprint edition, Pantheon, 2002). Ď
Through the workings of the several mechanisms described in that book, they fashion and reinforce narratives, story lines, that
accord with the interests of the owners of the corporations they work for and, when the need arises, with the interests of the entirety
of what C. Wright Mills called the "power structure." At the same time, they derogate and marginalize counter-narratives that have,
or could have, effects detrimental to the interests of the people and institutions they serve.
Their express intention, of course, is to report the news, not to maintain the status quo; they don't set out to deceive. More
often than not, they believe the stories they tell. Why would they not? The system they are part of incentivizes compliance with
the power structure's interests; and, when tensions arise, it is generally easier to go along than to be a stickler for plausibility.
***
For getting mainstream media to sign on to the election meddling narrative, it would be difficult to underestimate the importance
of the role played by a key component of the power structure in the United States today, the Democratic Party.
That is how desperate Democrats are to make sure that Clinton's stunning, self-inflicted defeat last November will not be Clintonism's
(neoliberalism's, liberal imperialism's) last hurrah. To that end, they have been willing, even eager, to revive Cold War demons
that had lain dormant for decades -- bringing the world to the brink of a nuclear apocalypse.
Ostensibly the less noxious of the two neoliberal parties that dominate our politics, Democrats today have sunk so low that were
Republicans still no worse than they were, say, when they fell into line behind George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's Afghanistan and
Iraq Wars, or even before Obama's 2008 electoral victory made many rank-and-file Republicans bat shit crazy, it would now be an open
question which party actually is the greater evil of the two.
The consensus view in mainstream media lately, in the Democratic Party, and increasingly in the Republican Party as well, is that
Trump is doing grave harm to the office of the Presidency and to many of the institutions, both domestic and international, through
which the United States has dominated the world since 1945.
This is certainly the case. But, contrary to what is assumed throughout the power structure, it is at least debatable whether
Trump's effect on these institutions – and the negative effect his presidency is having on the GOP itself – is, on balance, a good
or bad thing.
Instead of rallying around the Democratic Party, a genuine Left would itself be taking aim at the bastions of empire and class
rule that Trump is mindlessly but inexorably undoing. Trump's way is nihilistic and thuggish; and the only alternatives he or his
cabinet secretaries and agency heads have in mind are odious even by Republican standards.
This is why the Trump presidency is, and will continue to be, an unmitigated disaster – no matter how much damage Trump does to
the old world order or to some of the more disabling institutional arrangements afflicting the political scene.
Democrats can be and, for the most part, actually are, monumentally awful, but Republicans who support Trump are worse. This would
not be so plainly the case, if the comparison was with pre-9/11 Republicans or even with the Republican Party before the 2008 election.
After all, if the appropriate metric is damage to world peace, geopolitical stability, and the wellbeing of humankind, Bush is
still the worst President ever. Of course, if Trump mentally decomposes more than he already has, or if he starts acting out in exceptionally
lethal ways, he could surpass even the standard Bush has set. For now, though, six months into the Trump era, W remains Number One
How revealing, therefore, that the very media that, to their credit, have nothing good to say about the billionaire buffoon, are
now welcoming Bush, and his underlings, back into the fold.
In polite society nowadays, Obamaphiles, including Obama himself and his First Lady, even seem to regard Bush the Younger as one
of the good guys; and miscreants from his administration are featured in all the leading media outlets. How pathetic is that!
To his credit, however, Bush, unlike Trump, was not blatantly racist or nativist in his public pronouncements; and notwithstanding
the fact that he and Cheney waged war on the Muslim world, he wasn't overtly Islamophobic either. The party he led generally followed
suit.
However, once he was gone, Tea Partiers and Tea Party fellow travelers didn't have anything holding them back. With Obama at the
helm of the empire, it didn't take long for them to make the Party over in their image.
For appearance sake, the Republican Party became the Party of No, but what they really were was the anti-Obama-for-all-the wrong-reasons
Party. Republicans had no principled reason to turn Obama into Public Enemy Number One; his political views, which he did little
to advance in any case, were more or less in line with those of pre-2001, or even pre-2008, Republicans.
Obama's rival in the 2012 election, Mitt Romney, was essentially a pre-2008 Republican; politically, he and Obama were cut from
the same cloth. Tea Partiers didn't like that one bit, but even the most "deplorable" of them never hated Romney the way they hated
Obama. What set their hatred off was the color of Obama's skin.
How else to account for eight years of "repeal and replace Obamacare" sloganeering? In substance and genealogy (its origins in
the Heritage Foundation, the implementation of something very like it in Massachusetts under Governor Mitt Romney) Obamacare is essentially
a Republican program. Had it not come with Obama's name attached, doctrinaire free-market theologians of the Rand Paul or Ted Cruz
variety would still not like it, but neither would they or any of their co-thinkers get especially worked up on its account.
Nevertheless, it was opposition to Obamacare, more than anything else, that kept the GOP's several factions together during the
Obama years. How ironic that all those "repeal and replace" Republicans are now floundering because when they finally got their chance
to do what they said they wanted to do, they were unable to do anything at all. It is tempting to say that they outsmarted themselves,
but the word "smart" grates when applied to them.
Democrats are generally nicer than Republicans, and many times more civilized. Were their self-exonerating anti-Russian, anti-Putin
campaigning not so dangerous, they would plainly be the good guys still, comparatively speaking.
Even with their hysterical Russophobia, they probably still are. But being comparatively less awful than the GOP is no reason
to buy into the election meddling story that Democrats are so assiduously promoting.
It is possible, of course, that despite all the reasons to be skeptical of their narrative, there is some truth in what they say.
Even if there is, however, why make such a big deal or it? Who cares?
Evidently, pundits with venting privileges on ostensibly liberal cable networks do and Democratic Party sore losers, but their
concerns are misdirected. No one, not even the worst of the worst on MSNBC, claims that those dastardly Russian meddlers affected
the outcome of the election in any significant way. Russians didn't defeat Hillary Clinton; she defeated herself.
It is not for want of trying that no one has been able to make a plausible case for the claim that, but for Russian meddling,
Clinton would have beaten Trump. But, alas, no one has been able to maintain that Russians had anything to do with collecting or
counting votes, or that they interfered with the workings of the electoral process in any other way.
The idea instead is that they depressed Democratic turnout by diminishing enthusiasm for Clinton. They did this, supposedly, by
providing evidence of the Democratic National Committee's efforts to rig the election for Hillary and against Bernie Sanders, and
by demeaning Clinton in ways that Democrats and their friends in the mainstream press don't even bother to try to spell out.
If only the Democrats and their media flacks would evince half as much self-righteous indignation over past and on-going Republican
efforts at voter suppression! There is no doubt that they were real and that their consequences were significant. Neither is the
case with alleged Russian voter suppression efforts last year.
Moreover, even if the Russians did do all that our propagandists claimed they did, they did nothing worse than what countless
homegrown political operatives do when they sell candidates to voters in more or less the way that commercial advertisers sell the
wares they peddle to targeted audiences.
The difference is morally significant. If the Russians actually did suppress voter turnout in 2016, it was through one or another
form of persuasion. Republicans suppress votes by making it difficult, or impossible, for likely Democratic voters -- African Americans
and other "persons of color" mainly, but also students, and many elderly citizens -- to exercise their right to vote.
***
The consensus view notwithstanding, the Russian election meddling narrative is short on compelling evidence, and is grounded in
a patently defective rationale. Even so, it could still have merit.
But even if there was meddling as charged, nothing much came of it. This has always been obvious, and it too is significant.
Sanders supporters didn't need Russians to tell them that the Democratic Party wanted Bernie to lose and Hillary to win. Everyone
paying attention knew that already. Clinton's shortcomings were also evident for all to see.
Therefore, if the story line being pushed by our "manufacturers of consent" is on track, it would only show that those Russians
are not nearly as clever as the propagandists vilifying them would like people to think. By documenting the obvious, what they did
made about as much sense as throwing buckets of water into the ocean.
Why then is Trump putting the extent of his ineptitude on display by acting as if he is about to block the Mueller investigation
into Russian meddling? Trump may not be the magisterial dealmaker his remaining fans believe him to be, but he is surely not as self-destructively
stupid as his actions suggest.
The answer must be that he really does have something to hide; something more damaging than anything the mainstream media narrative
suggests.
Trump doesn't know much, but he surely does know that Congressional investigations and Justice Department investigations involving
special prosecutors take on lives of their own, even when, in the first instance, they are much ado about nothing. Watergate was
only "a third-rate burglary," after all.
He is also shrewd enough to realize that his business machinations give Congress and the Justice Department plenty to investigate.
There is sleaze galore out there, waiting to be uncovered.
Therefore, in the weeks and months ahead, if Trump is still around – or even if he returns to the gilded monstrosity on Fifth
Avenue that he had built to glorify himself, leaving arch-reactionary Mike Pence in charge -- we will have loads of well-corroborated
reports of shady (artful?) deals with Russian oligarchs and, insofar as there is a difference, Russian mobsters, making the news
interesting again.
This is sheer speculation, of course; and the evidence, what there is of it so far, is circumstantial. Much of it consists of
idiotic tweets that suggest nothing more damning than an acute consciousness of guilt. Ě
Nevertheless, I would bet the ranch, if I had one to bet, that honest and determined investigators with subpoena power scratching
beneath the surface, will find incontrovertible proof of legal, moral, or political infractions so egregious that even the fools
who still refuse to admit that Trump conned them into thinking that, as President, he would somehow make their lives better, will
find it impossible to keep on standing by their man.
Trump is guilty, a hundred times over; and it is plain as day too that whatever it turns out to be that he is guilty of, that
his over-arching cupidity and vanity made him do it.
Finding out what he is guilty of should be at the top of every competent authority's to do list. It should also become a consuming
passion of journalists who, for their own good and the good of the public they serve, no longer want to propagandize for the beneficiaries
of the status quo.
Because the power structure is so thoroughly and uniformly intent on dumping Trump – not for wholly creditable reasons, but, for
a matter of such urgency, that hardly matters – opportunities for doing authentic journalism, even in the face of the propaganda
mechanisms Herman and Chomsky identified, now exist to a degree that would have seemed unimaginable before November 2016.
It is a complicated business, however because the same anti-Trump animosities that make it possible to mobilize the press against
the government also enable the Democratic Party to enlist support, in media circles and more generally, for the demonization of Putin
and his government, with all the dangers that ensue.
So, by all means, investigate, investigate, and investigate some more – taking care, however, not to be sidetracked onto false
paths where perils of Clintonite design threaten to spin out of control in ways that even competent statesmen, like Putin and Sergey
Lavrov, would have a hard time diffusing, if they still had reasonable interlocutors in Washington to work with.
Those are, to put it mildly, in short supply. With Trump in the White House and a bipartisan (but Clinton inspired) neocon consensus
in Congress, reasonable interlocutors in Washington are about as numerous as genuine progressives in the Democratic fold.
Join the debate on Facebook More articles
by: Andrew Levine
ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell)
as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is
In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the
Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy)
at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to
Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics
of Illusion (AK Press).
The real question is who controlled Imram Awan and who planted him into Congress (as a mole). The level of criminal negligence
demonstrated during his hiring is atypical for the
USA government. And especially for government IT. Which is staffed by very security conscious people, as a rule. So he
definitely should have a "sponsor" among intelligence agencies to accomplish such a feat and suppress all the "flash
lights" that lighted during evaluation of his candidacy. I think that "I want this guy" request from Debbie Wasserman
was not enough. She is no Hillary Clinton ;-) But to which country this intelligence agency belong is an open question,
but most probably this was a USA intelligence agency. I doubt that Mossad would use Pakistani as their agent.
Notable quotes:
"... To be sure, the tale is a strange one with plenty of unsavory links. Thirty-seven year old Awan, his wife, sister-in-law and two brothers Abid and Jamal worked as IT administrators, full and part-time, for between 30 and 80 congressmen , all Democrats, including former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. They did not have security clearances and it is not even certain that they were in any way checked out before being hired. Nor were their claimed skills at IT administration confirmed as their work pattern reportedly turned out to consist more of absences than time spent in the House offices. One congressional IT staffer described them as "ghost employees." ..."
"... At one point, Imran brought into the House as a colleague one Rao Abbas, someone to whom he owed money, best distinguished by his being recently fired by McDonald's . Abbas lived in the basement of a house owned by Imran's wife as a rental property. He may have had no qualifications at all to perform IT but the congressmen in question did not seem to notice. Abbas wound up working, on the rare occasions that he went into the building, in the office of Congressman Patrick Murphy, who was at the time a member of the House Intelligence Committee as well as for Florida Congressman Theo Deutch. He was paid $250,000. ..."
"... To cover for all the non-working but on the payroll employees, Imran also hired a high school friend Haseeb Rana, who actually did know something about computers. Rana reportedly did "all the work" and kept wanting to quit for that reason. It was also against House rules for an IT administrator to fill in for someone else, as Rana routinely did, since each such employee had be personally registered by the congressman. ..."
"... The Awans and their two friends were all taken on as salaried employees of the House of Representatives at senior civil service level paygrades of ca. $165,000 annually, which normally is what is paid to highly experienced senior managers or chiefs of staff. Imran's younger brother Jamal was only twenty years old when he was hired at that level in 2014. ..."
"... It is not known if the Awans, who were working for several Intelligence Committee members simultaneously, would have been involved or had access to the computers able to pull up classified material being used by those staffers, but Buzzfeed, in its initial reporting on the investigation of the Awans family, repeated the concerns of a Congressman that the suspects might have "had access to the House of Representatives' entire computer network." Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that that was not the case. In office environments, the IT administrators routinely ask for passwords if they are checking out the system. WikiLeaks emails confirm that Imran certainly had passwords relating to Congressman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as well as to others on her staff. ..."
"... As of February 2016, the Awans came under suspicion for having set up an operation involving double billing as well as the theft and reselling of government owned computer equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of Representatives' computer network as well as to other information in the individual offices' separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed to access. The Capitol Hill Police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that there might be a problem. Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after he was actually arrested. ..."
"... Initially Wasserman-Schultz refused to cooperate with the police, refusing to provide her passwords and not permitting them to open her computers, but Fox News reports that she has recently apparently allowed the authorities to do a scan. ..."
"... Dr. Ali A. Al-Attar fled the United States after the indictment to avoid arrest and imprisonment and is now considered a fugitive from justice. Late in 2012 he was observed in Beirut Lebanon conversing with a Hezbollah official. Al-Attar is of interest in this case because he appears to have been a friend of Imran Awan and also loaned him $100,000, which was never repaid. The FBI is currently looking into any possible international espionage specifically involving the two men as Awan and his associates clearly had access to classified information while working in the House of Representatives that would have been of interest to any number of foreign governments. ..."
"... [An earlier version of this article appeared on The American Conservative on August 3 rd ] ..."
There has been surprisingly little media follow-up on the story about the July 25 th Dulles Airport arrest of House
of Representatives' employed Pakistani-American IT specialist Imran Awan, who was detained for bank fraud while he was allegedly
fleeing to Pakistan. The mainstream media somewhat predictably produced
minimal press coverage before the story died. The speed at which the news vanished has prompted some observers,
including Breitbart, to sound the alarm over a suspected cover-up of possible exposure of classified information or even espionage
that just might be part of the story that we are now calling Russiagate.
To be sure, the tale is a strange one with plenty of unsavory links. Thirty-seven year old Awan, his wife, sister-in-law and
two brothers Abid and Jamal worked as IT administrators, full and part-time, for between
30 and 80 congressmen , all Democrats, including former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
They did not have security clearances and it is not even certain that they were in any way checked out before being hired. Nor were
their claimed skills at IT administration confirmed as their work pattern reportedly turned out to consist more of absences than
time spent in the House offices. One congressional IT staffer described them as "ghost employees."
At one point, Imran brought into the House
as a colleague one Rao Abbas, someone to whom he owed money, best distinguished by his being
recently fired
by McDonald's . Abbas lived in the basement of a house owned by Imran's wife as a rental property. He may have had no qualifications
at all to perform IT but the congressmen in question did not seem to notice. Abbas wound up working, on the rare occasions that he
went into the building, in the office of Congressman Patrick Murphy, who was at the time a member of the House Intelligence Committee
as well as for Florida Congressman Theo Deutch. He was paid $250,000.
To cover for all the non-working but on the payroll employees,
Imran also
hired a high school friend Haseeb Rana, who actually did know something about computers. Rana reportedly did "all the work" and
kept wanting to quit for that reason. It was also against House rules for an IT administrator to fill in for someone else, as Rana
routinely did, since each such employee had be personally registered by the congressman.
The Awans and their two friends were all taken on as salaried employees of the House of Representatives at senior civil service
level paygrades of ca. $165,000 annually, which normally is what is paid to highly experienced senior managers or chiefs of staff.
Imran's younger brother Jamal was only twenty years old when he was hired at that level in 2014.
The process of granting security clearances to Congressional staff is not exactly transparent, but it is not unlike the procedures
for other government agencies. The office seeking the clearance for a staff member must put in a request, some kind of investigation
follows, and the applicant must then sign a non-disclosure agreement before the authorization is granted. Sometimes Congress pushes
the process by demanding that its staff have access above and beyond the normal "need to know." In March 2016, for example, eight
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee requested
that their staffs be given access to top secret sensitive compartmented information.
It is not known if the Awans, who were working for several Intelligence Committee members simultaneously, would have been
involved or had access to the computers able to pull up classified material being used by those staffers, but Buzzfeed, in its initial
reporting on the investigation of the Awans family,
repeated the concerns of a Congressman that the suspects might have "had access to the House of Representatives' entire computer
network." Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that that was not the case. In office environments, the IT administrators routinely
ask for passwords if they are checking out the system. WikiLeaks emails confirm that Imran certainly had passwords relating to Congressman
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as well as to others on her staff.
Congress paid the Awans
more than $4 million between 2004 and 2016 at their $165,000 salary level, a sum that some sources suggest to be
three or four times higher than the norm for government contractor IT specialists performing similar work at the same level of
alleged competency. Four of the Awans were among the
500 highest paid of the 15,000 congressional staffers. The considerable and consistent level of overpayment has not been explained
by the congressmen involved. In spite of all that income being generated, Imran Awan declared bankruptcy in 2010 claiming losses
of $1 million on a car business that he owned in Falls Church Virginia that ran up debts and borrowed money that it failed to repay.
The business was named
Cars International A, abbreviated on its business cards as CIA
The Awans family also was noted for its brushes with the law and internal discord, though it is doubtful if the congressional
employers were aware of their outside-of-the-office behavior. The brothers were on the receiving end of a number of traffic citations,
including DUI, and were constantly scheming to generate income, including what must have been a
hilarious phone conversation to their credit union in
which Imran pretended to be his own wife in order to wire money to Pakistan. They were on bad terms with their father and step-mother,
including forging a document to cheat their step-mother of an insurance payment and even holding her "captive" so she could not see
their dying father. Their father even changed his last name to dissociate himself from them.
As of February 2016, the Awans
came under suspicion for having set up an operation involving double billing as well as the theft and reselling of government
owned computer equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of Representatives' computer
network as well as to other information in the individual offices' separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed
to access. The Capitol Hill Police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that there might be a problem.
Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after
he was actually arrested.
Some of those defending the Awans, to include Wasserman-Schultz and the family lawyer, have insisted that he and his family were
the victims of
"an anti-Muslim, right-wing smear job," though there is no actual evidence to suggest that is the case. They also claim that
the bank fraud that led to the arrest, in which Imran obtained a home equity loan for $165,000 from the Congressional Federal Credit
Union based on a house that he owned and claimed to live in in Lorton Virginia, was largely a misunderstanding It has been described
as something "extremely minor" by his lawyer
Chris Gowen , a
high priced Washington attorney who has worked for the Clintons personally, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.
It turned out that Imran and his wife no longer lived in the house which had been turned into a rental property, a clear case
of bank fraud. The Awans had
tenants in the house, an ex-Marine and his Naval officer wife, who were very suspicious about a large quantity of what appeared
to be government sourced computer equipment and supplies, all material that had been left behind by the owners. They contacted the
FBI, which discovered hard drives that appeared to have been deliberately destroyed.
The FBI is certainly interested in the theft of government computers but it is also looking into the possibility that the Awans
were using their ability to access and possibly exploit sensitive information stored in the House of Representatives' computer network
as well as through Wasserman-Schultz's iPad, which Imran had access to and was connected to the Democratic National Committee server.
It is believed that Imran sent stolen government files
to a remote personal server . It may have been located in his former residence in Lorton Virginia, where the smashed equipment
was found, or as far away as Pakistan. As Imran Awan is a dual-national, born in Pakistan, the possibility of espionage also had
to be considered. By some accounts the Awan family traveled back to Pakistan frequently, where Imran was treated royally by local
officialdom, suggesting that he may have been doing favors for the not very friendly government in Islamabad.
Considering the possible criminal activity that Imran and his family might have been engaged in and which was still under investigation,
the Capitol Police and FBI determined that he should be stopped in his attempt to flee to Pakistan. The charge that Awan was actually
arrested on at the airport, bank fraud, was an easy way to hold him as it was well documented. It allows the other more serious investigations
to continue, so the argument that Imran Awan is only being held over a minor matter is not necessarily correct.
Awans had wired the credit union money and some cash of his own to Pakistan, as part of a $283,000 transfer that was made in January.
His wife Hina Alvi also left the U.S. two months later.
She was searched by Customs officers and it was determined that she had on her $12,400 in cash. She also had with her their three
children, and numerous boxes containing household goods and clothing. It was clear that she did not intend to come back but there
has been no explanation
why she was even allowed to leave since carrying more than $10,000 out of the country without reporting it is a felony.
As Imran Awan
reportedly had access to Wasserman-Schultz's iPad, he presumably also was able to see the incriminating Hillary Clinton emails.
He used a laptop in her office as well that was, according to investigators, concealed in an "unused crevice" in the Rayburn House
Office Building. It is currently being examined by police but Wasserman-Schultz tried strenuously to recover it before it could be
looked at. She pressured the
Chief of the Capitol Police Matthew Verderosa to return it, threatening him by saying "you should expect that there will be consequences."
Initially Wasserman-Schultz refused to cooperate with the police, refusing to provide her passwords and not permitting them to
open her computers, but Fox News reports that she has recently apparently allowed the authorities to do a scan.
There is another odd connection of Imran Awan that goes back to the neocon circle around Paul Wolfowitz during the Iraq War. In
late 2002 and early 2003, Wolfowitz regularly
met secretly with
a group of Iraqi expatriates who resided in the Washington area and were opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. The Iraqis had not
been in their country of birth for many years but they claimed to have regular contact with well-informed family members and political
allies. The Iraqi advisers provided Wolfowitz with a now-familiar refrain, i.e. that the Iraqi people would rise up to support invading
Americans and overthrow the hated Saddam. They would greet their liberators with bouquets of flowers and shouts of joy.
The Iraqis were headed by one Dr. Ali A. al-Attar, born in Baghdad to Iranian parents in 1963, a 1989
graduate of the American University of
Beirut Faculty of Medicine. He subsequently emigrated to the United States and set up a practice in internal medicine in Greenbelt
Maryland, a suburb of Washington D.C. Al-Attar eventually expanded his business to include nine practices that he wholly or partly
owned in Virginia and Maryland but he eventually lost his license due to "questionable billing practices" as well as "unprofessional
conduct" due to having sex with patients
Al-Attar was
investigated by the FBI and eventually
indicted for large scale health care fraud in 2008-9, which included charging insurance companies more than $2.3 million for
services their patients did not actually receive with many of the false claims using names of diplomats and employees enrolled in
a group plan at the Egyptian Embassy in Washington. In one case, the doctors claimed an embassy employee visited three of their clinics
every 26 days between May 2007 and August 2008 to have the same testing done each time. The insurance company paid the doctors $55,000
for more than 400 nonexistent procedures for the one patient alone.
Dr. Ali A. Al-Attar fled the United States after the indictment to avoid arrest and imprisonment and is now considered a fugitive
from justice. Late in 2012 he was observed in Beirut Lebanon conversing with a Hezbollah official. Al-Attar is of interest in this
case because he appears to have been a friend of Imran Awan and
also loaned him $100,000, which was never repaid. The FBI is currently looking into any possible international espionage specifically
involving the two men as Awan and his associates clearly had access to classified information while working in the House of Representatives
that would have been of interest to any number of foreign governments.
The Imran Awan case is certainly of considerable interest not only for what the investigation eventually turns up but also for
what it reveals about how things actually work in congress and in the government more generally speaking. I don't know which of the
allegations about what might have taken place are true, but there is certainly a lot to consider. Whether the case is investigated
and prosecuted without fear or favor will depend on the Department of Justice and FBI, but I for one was appalled to learn that the
official who quite likely will
oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother
of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. If that should actually occur, it would be a huge conflict of interest and it has to be wondered if
Wasserman would have the integrity to recuse himself.
There are many questions regarding the Awan case. One might reasonably ask how foreign-born IT specialists are selected and vetted
prior to being significantly overpaid and allowed to work on computers in congressional offices. And the ability of those same individuals
to keep working even after the relevant congressmen have been warned that their employee was under investigation has to be explained
beyond Wasserman-Schultz's
comment that Awan had not committed any crime, which may have been true but one would expect congressmen to err on the side of
caution over an issue that could easily have national security ramifications. And how does a recently bankrupt and unemployed Imran
Awan wind up with a high-priced lawyer to defend him who is associated with the Clintons? Would that kind of lawyer even take a relatively
minor bank fraud case if that were all that is involved? Finally, there are the lingering concerns about the unfortunately well-established
Russiagate narrative. Did the Russians really hack into the DNC or were there other possibilities, to include some kind of inside
job, a "leak," carried out by someone working for the government or DNC for reasons that have yet to be determined, possibly even
someone actually employed by DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? There are certainly many issues that the public needs to know more
about and so far, there are not enough answers.
[An earlier version
of this article appeared on The American Conservative on August 3 rd ]
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance. I mean in the highly unlikely
event I were to become a Chinese citizen (and be 40 years younger), would the Chinese be so stupid as to give me a clearance
and allow me to work in a key government office?
Obviously not but forget"obviously" when we're talking about the U.S.A.
The Department of Justice needs to do its job looking at the Clintons, the DNC, Wasserman-Schultz, Donna Brazile and others.
The stench of corruption is appalling, and the Russia thing looks more like a fraudulent story to keep the pressure off, particularly
since the phony dossier which started it was compiled at the behest of a political consultancy which usually works for the same
crowd. I think it is about time that Mueller's fishing expedition be closed down and the necessary draining of the swamp be commenced.
@Cloak And Dagger
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the law is only meant for we ordinary citizens and not for the elite. Those of us
who are silently hoping for the indictment of Debbie and Hillary are sure to be sorely disappointed.
There is no justice anymore in these United States whose domestic and foreign policies are controlled by the deep state. Some
days can be so bleak... Actually, the whole Awan-US Congress case is about the High Treason. No security clearances. The open
access to the classified documents of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (oh the irony!) and the House Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/exclusive-house-intelligence-it-staffers-fired-in-computer-security-probe/
There are should be arrests made of those congresspeople who allowed the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity by inviting
and financing the non-qualified personnel (fraudulent hiring).
An important question is, who pays Chris Gowen, a very expensive and well-connected lawyer, for the defense of the documented
fraudster and possible spy.
That Steven Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz oversees the investigation
is a scandal of gigantic proportions.
Those making the presstituting peeps about Russiangate should be from now on pummelled with the facts of the Tale of the Brothers
Awan.
This is a staggering story. What a load of incompetence and coverup. This government is a total sieve. Of course those people
were spying. Even if they didn't want to spy, for whatever reason, the Pakistani government could surely find ways to 'convince'
them to do so. Most of these politicians appear to be so clueless that it's difficult to comprehend. It's just a carnival of taxpayer
ripoff in DC.
@Dana Thompson Somebody
should write a movie script based on this. It would be better than American Hustle - call it Pakistani Hustle, maybe. The pitch
would start with, "It's the Sopranos meet the Simpsons."
I for one was appalled to learn that the official who quite likely will oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven
Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Yup. And guess what? As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder
13 months on and still no leads!
When the hell are Trump and Sessions going to get serious about going after these freaks?
What if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency? What if Seth Rich leaked the emails, and they exposed
Hillary Clinton to prosecution? What if the "deep state" panicked because it could no longer control the narrative? What if Comey
dragged his feet on a slam-dunk investigation because the "deep state" was sure Clinton would win, and it could all be buried?
What if they hadn't had time to consider "Plan B" in time to head off investigation of Clinton Foundation fraud? What if they
never expected that Anthony Wiener's sexting would get his computer seized by the NYPD? What if the whole story extends back to
the Mueller, Wolfowitz, Clarke and Tenet cabal, and all of their think-tank gurus? What if somebody realizes that the planning
stages had to predate the Bush-Cheney administration? What if Russia-gate and Clinton-gate are playing out as two hands in a game
of strip poker? What if one side refuses to fold? What if Hillary threatens to file a sworn affidavit? What if Mueller is the
historical analogue of John J. McCloy, the anonymous "deep state" Chairman of the Board? What if this is just a plot in the latest
episode of war pornography? What if it's called, "Debbie Does Dulles", and its stars include "Many Talented Celebrities"? What
are the chances that somebody important goes to jail? I'm guessing the odds are pretty long. I'm betting Hillary has the goods
on all of them, and she'll file that affidavit if she has to.
Killing freedom of speech in America, one google search at a time:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/08/google-committed-suppression-free-speech/
"According to reports, Google works hand in hand with the NSA and CIA to expand unconstitutional spying on everyone everywhere
and to suppress independent and dissenting thought and expression. For example, on July 31, the World Socialist Web Site reported
that "Between April and June, Google completed a major revision of its search engine that sharply curtails public access to Internet
web sites that operate independently of the corporate and state-controlled media. Since the implementation of the changes,
many left wing, anti-war and progressive web sites have experienced a sharp fall in traffic generated by Google searches."
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/31/goog-j31.html
@Seamus Padraig "As
Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no
leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair)
and the Trump Justice Dept. seems to have zero interest in it
I suspect this and other reasons- like the serial leaks from the highest levels of the intelligence agencies are why Trump
is becoming openly exasperated with Sessions
I suspect that Sessions knows that too much exposure of back-room dealings of the deepstate (with perhaps the Senate), would
be potentially inconvenient.
when Lindsey Graham! came to Jeff Sessions defense, I sort of knew then that Jeff Sessions is a deepstate asset
@F. G. Sanford What
if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency? What if Seth Rich leaked the emails, and they exposed Hillary
Clinton to prosecution? What if the "deep state" panicked because it could no longer control the narrative? What if Comey dragged
his feet on a slam-dunk investigation because the "deep state" was sure Clinton would win, and it could all be buried? What if
they hadn't had time to consider "Plan B" in time to head off investigation of Clinton Foundation fraud? What if they never expected
that Anthony Wiener's sexting would get his computer seized by the NYPD? What if the whole story extends back to the Mueller,
Wolfowitz, Clarke and Tenet cabal, and all of their think-tank gurus? What if somebody realizes that the planning stages had to
predate the Bush-Cheney administration? What if Russia-gate and Clinton-gate are playing out as two hands in a game of strip poker?
What if one side refuses to fold? What if Hillary threatens to file a sworn affidavit? What if Mueller is the historical analogue
of John J. McCloy, the anonymous "deep state" Chairman of the Board? What if this is just a plot in the latest episode of war
pornography? What if it's called, "Debbie Does Dulles", and its stars include "Many Talented Celebrities"? What are the chances
that somebody important goes to jail? I'm guessing the odds are pretty long. I'm betting Hillary has the goods on all of them,
and she'll file that affidavit if she has to. I'm sorry F.G., but what if all the various narratives, which are being supplied
to the Seth Rich murder end up only being a way of hiding the truth within plain sight, so as to make it hard to distinguish between
the real, and the phony, narratives which have been put in place, as to only confuse us truth seekers? This is how 'conspiracy
theories' are made to become conspiracy theories.
It's possible the Wasserman-Schultz – Awan scandal was raised subsequently by a caller to C Span, but as the above schedule
of C Span Washington Journal programming displays, if the American people wanted to in-depth information about the Awans, they'd
do better to tune in to RT, where Dr. Phil Giraldi explained the case and labeled it "the scandal of the century"
@annamaria "As Assistant
DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-brother-steven-wasserman-accused-burying-seth-rich-case/
"The Seth Rich Case: Nucleus of An American Coup Attempt:" http://www.phillip-butler.com/seth-rich-case/ Where is Mr. Wasserman's
boss, the U.S. Attorney for D.C.? Oh, right, it's an Obama holdover. Why hasn't President Trump put his own person in this critical
job? (Apparently he has nominated someone but as usual the Senate is in no hurry to approve him. Nothing would stop DOJ from firing
the current guy and placing the Trump nominee in an acting position, just as Obama did with the incumbent.)
This story would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. The quintessential example of foreigners from corrupt societies learning
quickly how to work our system. We have to give the Awans credit for milking liberal banks' and Democrats' foreigner- and Muslim-worship
(combined with sheer stupidity) to refrain from asking any questions.
@Ace Foreign-born
people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance. I mean in the highly unlikely event I were
to become a Chinese citizen (and be 40 years younger), would the Chinese be so stupid as to give me a clearance and allow
me to work in a key government office?
Obviously not but forget"obviously" when we're talking about the U.S.A.
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance.
Several years ago, I was denied employment in an aerospace company because I was considered a security risk for having relatives
abroad. This was done in spite of the fact that I was already working for the same company in another division. In the end, I
had the last laugh, because a week later a company employee, a native born white American, was arrested for passing out secret
information.
@annamaria "As Assistant
DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-brother-steven-wasserman-accused-burying-seth-rich-case/
"The Seth Rich Case: Nucleus of An American Coup Attempt:" http://www.phillip-butler.com/seth-rich-case/ Maybe it should be called
Wassergate.
@EdwardM Where is
Mr. Wasserman's boss, the U.S. Attorney for D.C.? Oh, right, it's an Obama holdover. Why hasn't President Trump put his own person
in this critical job? (Apparently he has nominated someone but as usual the Senate is in no hurry to approve him. Nothing would
stop DOJ from firing the current guy and placing the Trump nominee in an acting position, just as Obama did with the incumbent.)
This story would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. The quintessential example of foreigners from corrupt societies learning
quickly how to work our system. We have to give the Awans credit for milking liberal banks' and Democrats' foreigner- and Muslim-worship
(combined with sheer stupidity) to refrain from asking any questions. There is no Muslim-worship among the ziocons at DNC, who
got caught in the Awan affair. The Muslim card is a desperate argument for the currently unstoppable process of investigation.
Whether Mr. Wasserman or his boss or Clintons' lawyer defending Awan for the undisclosed amount of money, the train is moving
and the word Treason is in the air.
The most serious detail of the Awan affair is the violation of the protocol re classified information: The Awan family had no
security clearance, there was no documentation of the confirmation of the previous employment and no records for their relevant
education/training. Just to reiterate: the family (with a history of fraud and suspicious connections) has an open access to the
classified documents of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/exclusive-house-intelligence-it-staffers-fired-in-computer-security-probe/
Wasserman-Schultz has been directly involved in the greatest breach of the national cybersecurity. She tried to impede the investigation
and she kept the fraudsters on the US-taxpayers-paid payroll up to the day of the arrest of the main culprit. She did that despite
being warned by the police. She should be stripped already of her security clearance and arrested for the breach that was done
on her watch and with her active help.
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance.
Several years ago, I was denied employment in an aerospace company because I was considered a security risk for having relatives
abroad. This was done in spite of the fact that I was already working for the same company in another division. In the end, I
had the last laugh, because a week later a company employee, a native born white American, was arrested for passing out secret
information. It's all about minimizing risk. My respect for Sikhs would make me inclined to grant security clearances to them
liberally. My overall position, however, is that we have let in far too many foreigners than sane persons would and are stupidly
phlegmatic about leaving illegals here to "make a life for themselves" or "make a contribution" (at the expense of native born
Americans).
You were entitled to the last laugh indeed. We do not lack for native born white Americans. In fact, they are the source of
our fundamental problems.
n no explanation why she was even allowed to leave since carrying more than $10,000 out of the country without reporting it
is a felony.
Not a felony, but a mere civil infraction. Not reporting carrying more than $10k across the border can be either a criminal charge
with fines up to $500k and jail time, or a civil violation which often results in all unreported assets being seized and forfeit
and possibly with a civil penalty of up to the amount forfeit, or even both criminal and civil. The fact that she was allowed
to go on her way with her cash shows an unusual deference to the lady.
@Seamus Padraig His
boss, no doubt, is also an Obama flunkee. That's entirely possible given Trump's bewildering indifference to personnel matters.
He appears to have been hamstrung at the outset, eschewing both philosophical leadership and staffing up with loyalists. His
director of personnel is a bad joke but Trump simply doesn't see it or care. He made a point of saying how he hires good people
and lets them run but competent isn't the same thing as loyal or otherwise appropriate
@Cloak And Dagger
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the law is only meant for we ordinary citizens and not for the elite. Those of us
who are silently hoping for the indictment of Debbie and Hillary are sure to be sorely disappointed.
There is no justice anymore in these United States whose domestic and foreign policies are controlled by the deep state. Some
days can be so bleak... I agreed but it sure would be nice if Sessions would get her and her brother.
@anonymous This is
a staggering story. What a load of incompetence and coverup. This government is a total sieve. Of course those people were spying.
Even if they didn't want to spy, for whatever reason, the Pakistani government could surely find ways to 'convince' them to do
so. Most of these politicians appear to be so clueless that it's difficult to comprehend. It's just a carnival of taxpayer ripoff
in DC. It could possibly be a case of intensional incompetence. There are a huge number of people IN Congress that are totally
committed to destruction from within. The Trojan Horse has been within the gates for a surprising number of years. Trevor Loudon
has an interesting video on Amazon titled The Enemies (inclde the "s") Within. If accurate, it IS intensional incompetence. It
may be on Youtube as well.
La (w)hore Pakistan is most likely in bed with her pimp du jour, China and using the Pakis working for the US Congress to secure
data to be passed on to their handlers at ISI who in turn, pass it on to Beijing. And let's not forget the Saudis
@Sowhat I agreed but
it sure would be nice if Sessions would get her...and her brother. I just saw this posted. Don't know if it is completely true
but it fits with other information. Devastating.
@Joe Tedesky I'm sorry
F.G., but what if all the various narratives, which are being supplied to the Seth Rich murder end up only being a way of hiding
the truth within plain sight, so as to make it hard to distinguish between the real, and the phony, narratives which have been
put in place, as to only confuse us truth seekers? This is how 'conspiracy theories' are made to become conspiracy theories. F.G.
said "What if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency?" But of course. They're perfect patsies, just like
in our most famous "conspiracy theory" dubbed case.
Were the Awan brothers really gathering intelligence for Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence)? And was the ISI on
secret contract with the CIA?
I for one was appalled to learn that the official who quite likely will oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven
Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Yup. And guess what? As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder ...
13 months on and still no leads!
When the hell are Trump and Sessions going to get serious about going after these freaks?
As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and
still no leads!
In a recent broadcast, Michael Savage suddenly savaged what he called "fake news from the right" such as the Seth Rich murder,
Pizzagate (which he misrepresented as relating to hookers), etc. The presentation seemed curiously disengaged.
My guess is that Savage and his family were physically threatened.
@Sam Shama What evidence
prompts your scepticism about the Hezbollah connection? Al-Attar is a known Hezbollah operative with a connection to Awan. Pakistan
is next door to Iran which finances Hezbollah. You want all that to be airbrushed away?
What evidence prompts your scepticism about the Hezbollah connection?
Read what was written: LACK of evidence -- in the face of the logic of antipathies -- prompts the skepticism.
Pakistan is next door to Iran which finances Hezbollah. You want all that to be airbrushed away?
Israel shares borders with Lebanon, which is home to Hezbollah; it was at Israel's instigation that Hezbollah came into being.
Does that constitute "evidence" that Israel supports Hezbollah and is also/likewise complicit in Wassergate (h/t Chris
@ #35)?
Or do you prefer that Israel's involvement be airbrushed away ?
@Pachyderm Pachyderma
La (w)hore Pakistan is most likely in bed with her pimp du jour, China and using the Pakis working for the US Congress to secure
data to be passed on to their handlers at ISI who in turn, pass it on to Beijing. And let's not forget the Saudis... I think you
are absolutely right that the Pakis passed on information to China and any other country willing to pay for it.
"... "According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out." ..."
"According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing
that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo,
NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out."
Heh heh heh the trumpeters Vs the corporatists - every oppressive theocracy should be made to play this game; of course the audience
is susceptible to table-tennis watchers neck from swivelling to follow the dried dog turd bouncing back n forth, but the popcorn
is pretty good.
"... The fact that now the US propaganda machines has accused Russia of "arming the Taliban" ..."
"... I've been expecting this for some time. ..."
"... No sooner had WW II ended than the West started on the Cold War, designed to create fear, panic and hysteria in the US–and Europe–so the Deep State types could regal Americans with tales of a nuclear weapons, missiles, bombers and the like 'gaps' that those devious Rooskies had on the US and we just had to spend all sorts of money to build machines of death to keep 'Old Glory' flying high. And use that excuse to go after people and head-hunt those who didn't goose step to this new artificial reality. ..."
"... When the Iron Curtain fell, within 18 months, the West had a new boogeyman, Saddam and on 9/11, that was enlarged to include the Islamic world, who we just have to fight over there so we don't fight them in Baltimore, not that any sane nation would want to invade most of our big cities, it's too dangerous. ..."
The fact that now the US propaganda machines has accused Russia of "arming the Taliban"
I've been expecting this for some time. Funny how the blame falls on the Russians–without
proof as usual. Little if any mention of the 16 years of U.S. occupation.
Churchill started making speeches; the recent book on the brothers Dulles documents extensively
Allen Dulles' extreme beliefs about Communism, so radical that he favored fascism and Nazis over
the Commies. He became the father of the CIA, and made sure that many in the Nazi spy apparatus
found homes in the United States, then went on a decade long crusade to crush communism in Italy
and several other countries.
It is you who is silly. Writing some nonsense about something in the archives somewhere when
there is evidence in the West that's been right in front of your face? You couldn't be that stupid,
could you?
And by the way, do you know the difference between Trotsky and Stalin? Trotsky wanted world-wide
revolution; Stalin wanted communism in the USSR, no world-wide revolution. Do you know who won
that argument?
You probably don't. Stalin did.
Furthermore, are you familiar with the Game theory basis for the Cold War? It was the lunatic
schizoprhenic John Nash, who was certifiably insane when he cooked it up, and years later, when
he his schizophrenia was on the wane, repudiated his own theory!
The Cold War was cooked up in the West by state actors. Don't talk your nonsense. I agree.
No sooner had WW II ended than the West started on the Cold War, designed to create fear, panic
and hysteria in the US–and Europe–so the Deep State types could regal Americans with tales of
a nuclear weapons, missiles, bombers and the like 'gaps' that those devious Rooskies had on the
US and we just had to spend all sorts of money to build machines of death to keep 'Old Glory'
flying high. And use that excuse to go after people and head-hunt those who didn't goose step
to this new artificial reality.
When the Iron Curtain fell, within 18 months, the West had a new boogeyman, Saddam and
on 9/11, that was enlarged to include the Islamic world, who we just have to fight over there
so we don't fight them in Baltimore, not that any sane nation would want to invade most of our
big cities, it's too dangerous.
"... Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism." ..."
"... Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man." ..."
"Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as
Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up
of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who
committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid
investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million
court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang .
Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals
finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national
security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for
infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating
"terrorism."
Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were
bogus yet he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be
unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against
unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their
man."
From witch hunt there is a very small distance to "show trials". Show me the man and I will find
the crime --
Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria
, head of Stalin's secret police
Notable quotes:
"... several members of the team have come under fire for their previous donations to Democrats, ..."
"... "You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people!" Trump said Thursday on Twitter . ..."
... Yet despite the lawyers' resumes and reputations,
several members
of the team have come under fire for their previous donations to
Democrats,
prompting some critics to cry foul on the investigation
and urge Trump to fire Mueller.
Trump himself has even weighed in:
"You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American
political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people!" Trump
said Thursday on
Twitter
.
The US Deep State witch hunt against President-elect Trump has taken all the distinct
characteristics of "show trials".
Notable quotes:
"... Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition. ..."
"... And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed to find some violation of some law to pin on some person. ..."
"... What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." ..."
"... So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel choices. ..."
The "Sorkinization" of American politics; a cultural phenomenon engendered by the works of
Hollywood director Aaron Sorkin -- in which Washingtonian politics is romanticized as some grandiose
theatrical production, in which the protagonist (normally a liberal archetype) wins against his
unscrupulous foe (usually a conservative stereotype) by simply giving a rousing speech or clever
rhetorical foil. You see it everywhere in Washington, D.C. -- beltway pundits breathlessly waiting
to share together in that idyllic "
Sorkin moment "; whether it was Hillary's hoped-for victory speech last November or, now,
waiting for Special Counsel Robert Mueller astride his white horse to out the "evil Trump clan"
for sins and improprieties.
This, of course, is all a Hollywood fairytale. What currently is taking place under Mueller's
direction resembles not so much a magnanimous crusade for truth and justice; but rather another
example of what happens when bureaucrats are taken off the leash. It becomes the classic tale
of a government lawyer in search of a crime.
Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory
from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all
the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition.
Rather than setting specific parameters
for his investigation, or having them set for him, the order appointing Mueller, by Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein grants Mueller almost limitless leeway in his probe, be it relative to
"any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with
President Trump's presidential campaign (which likely would not constitute a crime), to federal
regulations that relate to crimes that are among the most subjective, such as obstruction of justice
and witness intimidation.
As one might expect, Mueller has taken the ball handed to him, and is off and running; like
Diogenes with his lamp in search of an honest man, but here a prosecutor with a subpoena in search
of a guilty man.
Not bound by any real budget constraints, Mueller already has begun building an investigatory
army with which to haunt the Trump Administration for as long as he wants; or, at least, for as
much time as it takes to find something to prosecute. That Mueller will find something
is a virtual certainty given the vast scope of his appointment, and the lack of oversight by the
Department of Justice now that Attorney General Jeff Sessions hastily (and, in my opinion, needlessly)
recused himself. And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal
laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed
to find some violation of some law to pin on some person.
What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds
Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal
and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets
his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing
the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel
choices.
The troubling, and lasting ramification of this melodrama, however, is the precedent it sets
for future federal investigations. The degree of legal leeway given to Mueller is deeply bothersome.
As law professor John C. Eastman notes in a recent article, the absence of virtually any limits
on Mueller's power harks back to the days of the British empire's use of "writ[s] of assistance"
and "general warrant[s]" to target and harass American colonists through invasive searches of
homes, papers and possessions – with no judicial oversight, probable cause, or expiration date.
"That is the very kind of thing our Fourth Amendment was adopted to prevent,"
writes Eastman , "[i]ndeed, the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance is quite
arguably the spark that ignited America's war for independence."
At the end of all this (if there is an end), America will be left a little more divided (if
that is possible), and the Bill of Rights even weaker than today. If we were living in the "West
Wing," it wouldn't really matter; but we are not living in Sorkin World. We are living in the
real world; where government power run amok has very real and damaging effect on the way of life
envisioned by our Founding Fathers and as enshrined in the United States Constitution.
Podgorica: US Vice President Mike Pence on Wednesday accused Russian-backed agents of attempting to assassinate the prime
minister of Montenegro during an alleged coup attempt last year
Russia`s intentions were laid bare over the past year when Moscow-backed agents sought to disrupt Montenegro`s elections, attack
your parliament and even attempt to assassinate your prime minister", Pence said at the Adriatic Charter Summit.
He said the attack aimed "to dissuade the Montenegrin people from entering our NATO alliance"
On its way down the side of the toilet bowl, Washington will try to drag everyone else with it. I don't think it has any credibility
now, with its constant hysterical blaming of Russia for every single thing that is not to its liking. And the ridiculous pretense
that Montenegro will contribute in any meaningful way to the defensive strength of the NATO alliance is just comical – it has
become all about snatching territory away, allegedly out of Russia's grasp. I hope NATO does pour money into the Baltics like
there's no tomorrow – the Balts will gladly take it, but NATO will see no return on its money, and unless it comes up with a way
you can burn bullshit for fuel they will still depend on Russia for their energy.
"... This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage. ..."
"... Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: ..."
"... Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency. ..."
"... The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. ..."
"... Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed. ..."
"... Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal. ..."
"... In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite? ..."
"... Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers. ..."
"... I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change. ..."
"... The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. ..."
Rex Tillerson, formidably accomplished in global business, was nevertheless as much a neophyte
as his boss when it came to navigating the policy terrain of the D.C. swamp. As is well known, in
building his team he relied on those two neocon avatars, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, who had
originally promoted his own candidacy for secretary of state. But Rice had been a vocal part of the
neocon Never Trump coalition. Her anti-Trump pronouncements included: "Donald Trump should not be
president .He doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president." The Washington Post greeted
her 2017 book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom , as "a repudiation of Trump's
America First worldview."
Thus it wasn't surprising that Rice would introduce Elliott Abrams to Tillerson as an ideal candidate
for State's No. 2 position. This would have placed a dyed-in-the-wool neocon hardliner at the very
top of the State Department's hierarchy and given him the power to hire and fire all undersecretaries
across the vast foreign policy empire. Rice, one of the architects of George W. Bush's failed policies
of regime change and nation building, would have consolidated a direct line of influence into the
highest reaches of the Trump foreign policy apparatus.
Not only was Abrams' entire career a refutation of Trump's America First foreign policy, but he
had spent the previous eighteen months publicly bashing Trump in harsh terms. Cleverly, however,
he had not signed either of the two Never Trump letters co-signed by most of the other neocon foreign
policy elite. Abrams almost got the nod, except for a last-minute intervention by Trump adviser Steve
Bannon, who was armed with every disparaging anti-Trump statement Abrams had made. Examples: "This
is a question of character. He is not fit to sit in the chair of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
.his absolute unwillingness to learn anything about foreign policy .Hillary would be better on foreign
policy. I'm not going to vote for Trump ."
But Abrams' rejection was the exception. As a high profile globalist-interventionist he could
not easily hide his antipathy toward the Trump doctrine. Others, whose track records and private
comments were more easily obscured, were waived in by gatekeepers whose mission it was (and remains)
to populate State, DoD, and national security agencies with establishment and neocon cadres, not
with proven Trump supporters and adherents to his foreign policy.
But how did the gatekeepers get in? Romney may have disappeared from the headlines, but he never
left the sidelines. His chess pieces were already on the board, occupying key squares and prepared
to move.
Once the president opened the door to RNC chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, to Rex
Tillerson at State, to James Mattis as defense secretary, and to H. R. McMaster at NSC, the neocons
just walked in. While each of these political and military luminaries may publicly support the president's
policies and in some instances may sincerely want to see them implemented, their entire careers have
been spent within the establishment and neocon elite. They don't know any other world view or any
other people.
Donald Trump ran on an America First foreign policy, repeatedly deriding George W. Bush for invading
Iraq in 2003. He criticized Clinton and Obama for their military interventions in Libya and their
support for regime change in Syria. He questioned the point of the endless Afghan war. He criticized
the Beltway's hostile obsession with Russia while it ignored China's military buildup and economic
threat to America.
Throughout the campaign Trump made abundantly clear his foreign policy ethos. If elected he would
stop the policy of perpetual war, strengthen America's military, take care of U.S. veterans, focus
particularly on annihilating the ISIS caliphate, protect the homeland from Islamist radicalism, and
promote a carefully calibrated America First policy.
But, despite this clear record, according to Politico and other Beltway journals, the president
has been entreated in numerous White House and Pentagon meetings to sign off on globalist foreign
policy goals, including escalating commitments to the war in Afghanistan. These presentations, conducted
by H.R. McMaster and others, were basically arguments to continue the global status quo; in other
words, a foreign policy that Clinton would have embraced. Brian Hook and Nadia Schadlow were two
of the lesser known policy wonks who participated in these meetings, determining vital issues of
war and peace.
Brian Hook, head of State Department policy planning, is an astute operative and member in good
standing of the neocon elite. He's also a onetime foreign policy adviser to Romney and remains in
close touch with him. Hook was one of the founders, along with Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman, of the
anti-Trump John Hay Initiative. Hook organized one of the Never Trump letters during the campaign,
and his views are well-known, in part through a May 2016 piece by Julia Hoffe in Politico Magazine.
A passage: "My wife said, 'never,'" said Brian Hook, looking pained and slicing the air with a long,
pale hand. .Even if you say you support him as the nominee," Hook says, "you go down the list of
his positions and you see you disagree on every one."
One might wonder how a man such as Hook could become the director of policy planning and a senior
adviser to Rex Tillerson, advising on all key foreign policy issues? The answer is: the Romney network.
Consider also the case of Margaret Peterlin, assigned as a Sherpa during the transition to guide
Tillerson through the confirmation process. Another experienced Beltway insider, Peterlin promptly
made herself indispensable to Tillerson and blocked anyone who wanted access to him, no matter how
senior. Peterlin then brought Brian Hook onboard, a buddy from their Romney days, to serve as the
brains for foreign policy while she was serving as the Gorgon-eyed chief of staff.
According to rumor, the two are now blocking White House personnel picks, particularly Trump loyalists,
from appointments at State. At the same time, they are bringing aboard neocons such as Kurt Volker,
executive director of the McCain Institute and notorious Russia hawk, and Wess Mitchell, president
of the neocon Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). As special representative for Ukraine negotiations,
Volker is making proclamations to inflame the conflict and further entangle the United States.
Meanwhile, Mitchell, another Romney alumnus and a Brian Hook buddy from the John Hay Initiative,
has been nominated as assistant secretary of state for European and Erurasian affairs. Brace yourself
for an unnecessary Cold War with Russia, if not a hot one. While Americans may not really care whether
ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians dominate the Donbass, these guys do.
Then there's Nadia Schadlow, another prominent operative with impeccable neocon credentials. She
was the senior program officer at the Smith Richardson Foundation, where her main job was to underwrite
the neocon project by offering grants to the many think tanks in their network. For the better part
of a decade she pursued a PhD under the tutelage of Eliot Cohen, who has pronounced himself a "Never
Trumper" and has questioned the president's mental health. Cohen, along with H.R. McMaster, provided
editorial guidance to Schadlow for her book extolling nation-building and how we can do more of it.
Relationships beget jobs, which is how Schadlow became deputy assistant to the president, with
the task, given by her boss H.R. McMaster, of writing the administration's National Security Strategy.
Thus do we have a neocon stalwart who wrote the book on nation building now writing President Trump's
national security strategy.
How, we might ask, did these Never Trump activists get into such high positions in the Trump administration?
And what was their agenda at such important meetings with the President if not to thwart his America
First agenda? Put another way, how did Trump get saddled with nearly Mitt Romney's entire foreign
policy staff? After all, the American people did not elect Mitt Romney when they had the chance.
Trump is a smart guy. So is Barack Obama. But even Obama, Nobel Peace Prize in hand, could not
prevent the inexorable slide to violent regime change in Libya, which resulted in a semi-failed state,
tens of thousands killed, and a foothold for Al Queda and other radical Islamists in the Maghreb.
He also could not prevent the arming of Islamist rebels in Syria after he had the CIA provide lethal
arms strictly to "moderate rebels." Unable or unwilling to disengage from Afghanistan, Obama acquiesced
in a series of Pentagon strategies with fluctuating troop levels before bequeathing to his successor
an open ended, unresolved war.
Rumors floating through official Washington suggest the neocons now want to replace Tillerson
at State with Trump critic and Neocon darling Nikki Haley, currently pursuing a one-person bellicose
foreign policy from her exalted post at the United Nations. Not surprisingly, Haley and Romney go
way back. As a firm neocon partisan, she
endorsed his presidential bid in 2011 .
As UN ambassador, Haley has articulated a nearly incoherent jumble of statements that seem more
in line with her own neocon worldview than with Trump's America First policies. Some samples:
"I think that, you know, Russia is full of themselves. They've always been full of themselves.
But that's – its more of a façade that they try and show as opposed to anything else."
"What we are is serious. And you see us in action, so its not in personas. Its in actions and
its what we do."
"The United States calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a
part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over
the peninsula to Ukraine."
One must ask: Is Ambassador Haley speaking on behalf of the Trump administration when she says
it is official U.S. policy that Russia, having annexed Crimea, must return it to Ukraine? Is the
Russo-American geopolitical relationship to be held hostage indefinitely because in 2014 the people
of Crimea voted for their political reintegration into Russia, which they had been part of since
1776?
Since there is as much chance of Russia ceding Crimea back to Ukraine as there is of the United
States ceding Texas back to Mexico, does this mean there is no possibility of any meaningful cooperation
with Russia on anything else? Not even in fighting the common ominous threat from Islamist radicalism?
Has Haley committed the American people to this dead-end policy on her own or in consultation with
the President?
On July 14, the Washington Examiner wrote that "Haley's remarks set the tone for Trump's
reversal from the less interventionist, 'America First' foreign policy he campaigned on." Little
wonder, then, that in a little-noticed victory lap of her own, coinciding with the release of her
book, Condoleezza Rice acknowledged the near complete takeover of Trump's foreign policy team. "The
current national security team is terrific," she said. She even gave Trump her anointed blessing
following their recent White House meeting, during which the septuagenarian schoolboy received the
schoolmarm's pat on the head: " He was engaging," she said. "I found him on top of his brief .asking
really good questions." That's a far cry from her campaign-season comment about Trump that he "doesn't
have the dignity and stature to be president."
American foreign policy seems to be on auto-pilot, immune to elections and impervious to the will
of the people. It is perpetuated by an entrenched contingent of neocon and establishment zealots
and bureaucratic drones in both the public and private sector, whose careers, livelihoods, and very
raison d'etre depend on an unchallenged policy of military confrontation with the prestige,
power, and cash flow it generates. Those who play the game by establishment rules are waived in.
Those who would challenge the status quo are kept out. This is the so-called Deep State, thwarting
the will of President Trump and the people who voted for him.
This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power.
Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede
in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will
return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base
in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the
needless carnage.
Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: Gettysburg, Gods and
Generals, Copperhead.
This is all very convincing, but the point remains: Trump won and is the one responsible for allowing
all these neocons through the door. Had Pat Buchanan won the nomination and the Presidency back
in the nineties, does anyone believe he would make the same blunders, and not be equipped to find
the right traditional conservatives instead of the establishment DC neocons that try and swamp
every GOP Administration now since Reagan? Trump is simply too naive and doesn't have any feel
for the political ideologies of all of these people, being not much of a political animal himself.
And replacing Priebus with General Kelly isn't likely to change all that. He should be talking
to Ann Coulter and Buchanan as unofficial advisers or something.
Interesting argument, though you ignore other factors besides the conspiratorial-sounding "Romney
network" that account for American interventionist neo-conservatives finding their way back into
power: 1) that they are by far the largest group of people available to staff the government because
of a) the dominance of aggressive liberal internationalism over more restrained realism in graduate
schools which educate these foreign policy specialists; b) an inherent bias of these specialists
not to admit that America cannot influence world events (that would be like a social worker who
didn't believe s/he could usually mediate conflicts). Also, 2) Trump's alleged non-interventionist
beliefs are less well-formed than you imply, you just project on him what you wish to see; a)
you ignore his comments about taking the oil of other countries, an idea the neo-conservatives
had as a way to pay for operations in Iraq; and b) Beliefs closer to Trump's core: that others
not paying their fair share and that America is being taken advantage of, are not incompatible
with the American interventions you oppose.
You can't hijack an executive's policy unless the executive is either hopelessly weak or a faker.
Doesn't matter which.
The only good part is that the fake image of a somewhat less warlike "Trump", stirred up by
the media to destroy Trump, is actually DOING what a real non-interventionist Trump would have
done. EU is breaking away from US control, just as a real antiwar Trump would have ordered it
to do.
Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter
futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American
people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency.
It's good to see Ron Maxwell published in these pages. I watch Gettysburg at least once a year.
And don't think Virginians aren't grateful for Maxwell's role in helping put paid to Eric Cantor's
political career.
The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing.
We didn't vote for this. And we don't want it.
Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging
us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can
be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies
into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy
knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for
neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed.
Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working.
We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal.
"Trump is a smart guy" ..
??
If so; why does he not see this happening all around him? Except for his pompous, ignorant, hands-off
method of governing, that is . The Emperor has no clothes but doesn't seem to know, nor care that
he doesn't
Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security, Texas A&M at the American Conservative
Conference "Foreign Policy in America's Interest" (Nov 15 2016) said:
"In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making
American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful.
Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree
on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate
in the foreign policy establishment.
You see, debate is – basically goes from here to there [Dr. Layne puts his two index fingers
close together in front of his face], like from the 45-yard-line to the 45-yard-line. And why
does it stop there? Because people who try to go down towards the goal line have their union cards
taken away. They're kicked out of the establishment. They're not listened to. They're disrespected.
And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs
system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say,
"Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to
change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think
Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite?
Where is a Trumpian
counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary
and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the
NSC staffers.
I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who
are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign
policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that
will change.
Over time maybe a counter-elite will emerge. But in the short term I see very little prospect
for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see, and so for me the challenge that we
face is really to find ways to develop this counter-elite than can staff an administration in
the future, that has at least what we think are the views that Donald Trump holds."
We're in a new period – a period of learning for President Trump and for those in the administration
who back his anti-establishment foreign policy view. And while it is true that (as Chris Layne
said) "in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are
hoping to see," as we move into the medium and long term, many of us are hopeful that these big
Trumpian foreign policy changes can begin to be made.
A senior administration official familiar with the work of Nadia Schadlow, a national security
expert brought on to help draft the National Security Strategy, tells CR that she will attempt
to produce an NSS as "iconoclastic as our new commander in chief," adding, "the era of milquetoast
boilerplate is over."
The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. Neocons developed
their minds in the Cold war dealing with a western power, the USSR. The problem is that once one
enters the Middle East and Asia one is dealing with languages and cultures of which they [knew]
next to nothing. How many speak Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu such that they understand every
nuance of what is said and unsaid?
When dealing with the arabs and many in Afghanistan everything is personnel and this can go
back 5 generations and includes hundreds if not thousands of people.
Trump has the common sense not to become involved in that he does not understand.
They come back in boxes while those who sent them to their deaths remain in the bags of the "America
Second" group which highjacked our Congress. It's no longer "God Bless America"; it's "God Help
America."
"... U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank. ..."
"... In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian separatists. ..."
"... VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company. ..."
"... CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the election are overblown. ..."
"... After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by "Fancy Bear," a group with ties to Russian intelligence agencies. ..."
"... CrowdStrike's claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media. ..."
"... On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report. ..."
"... The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS. ..."
"... Finally, CrowdStrike deleted a statement saying "deployment of this malware-infected application may have contributed to the high-loss nature of this platform" -- meaning the howitzers -- and excised a link sourcing its IISS data to a blogger in Russia-occupied Crimea. ..."
"... In an email, CrowdStrike spokeswoman Ilina Dmitrova said the new estimates of Ukrainian artillery losses resulted from conversations with Henry Boyd, an IISS research associate for defense and military analysis. She declined to say what prompted the contact. ..."
"... Dmitrova noted that the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community have also concluded that Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager. ..."
"... In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies' findings on Russian election interference, Comey said there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the Democratic servers, but that ultimately a "highly respected private company" was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI. ..."
"... If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our Support Page . ..."
"... Open-source reporting indicates losses of almost 50% of equipment in the last 2 years of conflict amongst Ukrainian artillery forces and over 80% of D-30 howitzers were lost, far more than any other piece of Ukrainian artillery ..."
"... excluding the Naval Infantry battalion in the Crimea which was effectively captured wholesale, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations.' ..."
"... With direct access to an IISS expert, this report could be easily improved. All it would need is a chart or table showing D-30 and other artillery losse from 2007-2017, as well as IISS's attributions of the breakdown of the year-to-year inventory changes (combat losses, non-combat capture, sales, disrepair, etc). Then we could tell whether D-30 combat losses were abnormally high or not. ..."
Last week, I published two posts on cyber security firm CrowdStrike after becoming aware of inaccuracies in one of its key reports
used to bolster the claim that operatives of the Russian government had hacked into the DNC. This is extremely important since the
DNC hired CrowdStrike to look into its hack, and at the same time denied FBI access to its servers.
Before reading any further, you should read last week's articles if you missed them the first time.
Now here are the latest developments courtesy of
Voice
of America :
U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking
during last year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a
VOA report that the company misrepresented data published
by an influential British think tank.
In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy
losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian separatists.
VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference
estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.
CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts
have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the
election are overblown.
After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence
of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by "Fancy Bear," a group with ties to
Russian intelligence agencies.
CrowdStrike's claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media.
On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report.
The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used
aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations,
attributing the figures to IISS.
Finally, CrowdStrike deleted a statement saying "deployment of this malware-infected application may have contributed to
the high-loss nature of this platform" -- meaning the howitzers -- and excised a link sourcing its IISS data to a blogger in Russia-occupied
Crimea.
In an email, CrowdStrike spokeswoman Ilina Dmitrova said the new estimates of Ukrainian artillery losses resulted from
conversations with Henry Boyd, an IISS research associate for defense and military analysis. She declined to say what prompted
the contact.
Dmitrova noted that the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community have also concluded that Russia was behind the hacks of
the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary
Clinton's campaign manager.
Here's the problem. Yes, the FBI has agreed with CrowdStrike's conclusion, but the FBI did not analyze the DNC servers because
the DNC specifically denied the FBI access. This was noteworthy in its own right, but it takes on vastly increased significance given
the serious errors in a related hacking report produced by the company.
As such, serious questions need to be asked. Why did FBI head James Comey outsource his job to CrowdStrike, and why did he heap
praise on the company? For instance, back in January,
Comey referred to
CrowdStrike as a "highly respected private company."
In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies' findings on
Russian election interference, Comey said there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the Democratic servers,
but that ultimately a "highly respected private company" was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI.
Where does all this respect come from considering how badly it botched the Ukraine report?
Something stinks here, and the FBI needs to be held to account.
If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our
Support Page .
As someone that prefers to see all the evidence before drawing conclusions, the latest Crowdstrike report is a step backwards.
One claim has been changed from
"Open-source reporting indicates losses of almost 50% of equipment in the last 2 years of conflict amongst Ukrainian artillery
forces and over 80% of D-30 howitzers were lost, far more than any other piece of Ukrainian artillery."
to
"(from Henry Boyd,IISS): 'excluding the Naval Infantry battalion in the Crimea which was effectively captured wholesale, the
Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations.' "
This leads to more questions than answers. There is an elephant in the room that is not addressed: what happened to the the
80% reduction in D-30 towed-artillery inventories?
Now a casual observer may infer that the 80% number has been revised to 15-20%. However, thsese numbers are measuring **different
metrics**: overall inventory reductions (80%) vs combat losses (15-20%). More importantly, the original 80% number was ALSO provided
by IISS (indirectly) and **has not been disputed** by them (to further muddy the water, Crowdstrike has deleted the reference
to their original IISS data source from which the 80% loss was derived).
The only thing that has really changed is that Crowdstrike had originally attrtibuted 100% of the inventory decline to combat
losses, while now they are going with the IISS assessment which attributes more than 75% of the inventory decline to non-combat
reasons (including the capture of the Naval Infantry Battalion).
Also lost in the new report is any comparison of the D-30 howitzer losses to the losses for other artillery, so we have no
way of knowing if this loss is proportionately higher than for other artillery pieces (which would support Crowdstrike's assertions
about a compromised app).
With direct access to an IISS expert, this report could be easily improved. All it would need is a chart or table showing
D-30 and other artillery losse from 2007-2017, as well as IISS's attributions of the breakdown of the year-to-year inventory changes
(combat losses, non-combat capture, sales, disrepair, etc). Then we could tell whether D-30 combat losses were abnormally high
or not.
"... U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank. ..."
"... In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian separatists. ..."
"... VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company. ..."
"... CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the election are overblown. ..."
"... After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by "Fancy Bear," a group with ties to Russian intelligence agencies. ..."
"... CrowdStrike's claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media. ..."
"... On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report. ..."
"... The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS. ..."
"... Finally, CrowdStrike deleted a statement saying "deployment of this malware-infected application may have contributed to the high-loss nature of this platform" -- meaning the howitzers -- and excised a link sourcing its IISS data to a blogger in Russia-occupied Crimea. ..."
"... In an email, CrowdStrike spokeswoman Ilina Dmitrova said the new estimates of Ukrainian artillery losses resulted from conversations with Henry Boyd, an IISS research associate for defense and military analysis. She declined to say what prompted the contact. ..."
"... Dmitrova noted that the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community have also concluded that Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager. ..."
"... In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies' findings on Russian election interference, Comey said there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the Democratic servers, but that ultimately a "highly respected private company" was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI. ..."
"... If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our Support Page . ..."
"... Open-source reporting indicates losses of almost 50% of equipment in the last 2 years of conflict amongst Ukrainian artillery forces and over 80% of D-30 howitzers were lost, far more than any other piece of Ukrainian artillery ..."
"... excluding the Naval Infantry battalion in the Crimea which was effectively captured wholesale, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations.' ..."
"... With direct access to an IISS expert, this report could be easily improved. All it would need is a chart or table showing D-30 and other artillery losse from 2007-2017, as well as IISS's attributions of the breakdown of the year-to-year inventory changes (combat losses, non-combat capture, sales, disrepair, etc). Then we could tell whether D-30 combat losses were abnormally high or not. ..."
Last week, I published two posts on cyber security firm CrowdStrike after becoming aware of inaccuracies in one of its key reports
used to bolster the claim that operatives of the Russian government had hacked into the DNC. This is extremely important since the
DNC hired CrowdStrike to look into its hack, and at the same time denied FBI access to its servers.
Before reading any further, you should read last week's articles if you missed them the first time.
Now here are the latest developments courtesy of
Voice
of America :
U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking
during last year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a
VOA report that the company misrepresented data published
by an influential British think tank.
In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy
losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian separatists.
VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference
estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.
CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts
have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the
election are overblown.
After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence
of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by "Fancy Bear," a group with ties to
Russian intelligence agencies.
CrowdStrike's claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media.
On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report.
The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used
aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations,
attributing the figures to IISS.
Finally, CrowdStrike deleted a statement saying "deployment of this malware-infected application may have contributed to
the high-loss nature of this platform" -- meaning the howitzers -- and excised a link sourcing its IISS data to a blogger in Russia-occupied
Crimea.
In an email, CrowdStrike spokeswoman Ilina Dmitrova said the new estimates of Ukrainian artillery losses resulted from
conversations with Henry Boyd, an IISS research associate for defense and military analysis. She declined to say what prompted
the contact.
Dmitrova noted that the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community have also concluded that Russia was behind the hacks of
the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary
Clinton's campaign manager.
Here's the problem. Yes, the FBI has agreed with CrowdStrike's conclusion, but the FBI did not analyze the DNC servers because
the DNC specifically denied the FBI access. This was noteworthy in its own right, but it takes on vastly increased significance given
the serious errors in a related hacking report produced by the company.
As such, serious questions need to be asked. Why did FBI head James Comey outsource his job to CrowdStrike, and why did he heap
praise on the company? For instance, back in January,
Comey referred to
CrowdStrike as a "highly respected private company."
In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies' findings on
Russian election interference, Comey said there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the Democratic servers,
but that ultimately a "highly respected private company" was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI.
Where does all this respect come from considering how badly it botched the Ukraine report?
Something stinks here, and the FBI needs to be held to account.
If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our
Support Page .
As someone that prefers to see all the evidence before drawing conclusions, the latest Crowdstrike report is a step backwards.
One claim has been changed from
"Open-source reporting indicates losses of almost 50% of equipment in the last 2 years of conflict amongst Ukrainian artillery
forces and over 80% of D-30 howitzers were lost, far more than any other piece of Ukrainian artillery."
to
"(from Henry Boyd,IISS): 'excluding the Naval Infantry battalion in the Crimea which was effectively captured wholesale, the
Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations.' "
This leads to more questions than answers. There is an elephant in the room that is not addressed: what happened to the the
80% reduction in D-30 towed-artillery inventories?
Now a casual observer may infer that the 80% number has been revised to 15-20%. However, thsese numbers are measuring **different
metrics**: overall inventory reductions (80%) vs combat losses (15-20%). More importantly, the original 80% number was ALSO provided
by IISS (indirectly) and **has not been disputed** by them (to further muddy the water, Crowdstrike has deleted the reference
to their original IISS data source from which the 80% loss was derived).
The only thing that has really changed is that Crowdstrike had originally attrtibuted 100% of the inventory decline to combat
losses, while now they are going with the IISS assessment which attributes more than 75% of the inventory decline to non-combat
reasons (including the capture of the Naval Infantry Battalion).
Also lost in the new report is any comparison of the D-30 howitzer losses to the losses for other artillery, so we have no
way of knowing if this loss is proportionately higher than for other artillery pieces (which would support Crowdstrike's assertions
about a compromised app).
With direct access to an IISS expert, this report could be easily improved. All it would need is a chart or table showing
D-30 and other artillery losse from 2007-2017, as well as IISS's attributions of the breakdown of the year-to-year inventory changes
(combat losses, non-combat capture, sales, disrepair, etc). Then we could tell whether D-30 combat losses were abnormally high
or not.
"... With Trump quite clearly only concerned with his own well-being, the diversion of a patriotic war is the prime choice in times of trouble. The only question that remains is how will his generals will look at the option of getting involved in yet another ruinous war. A war that could have very dangerous implications and unpredictable outcomes. ..."
My conclusion is that the Deep State is winning. Even I've getting numb and increasingly less interested in the twists and
turns of who's investigating whom and why and what are the likely consequences.
I'm reminded of the quote attribute to Lavrentiy Beria: "Show me the man and I will find you the crime."
The likeliest and most obvious choice for Trump on how to escape the Mueller trap seems to have eluded Pat Buchanan: starting
a war in the Middle East to overshadow or bury all investigations into the president's wrongdoings. Engineering a war with Iran
would fit the bill perfectly.
With Trump quite clearly only concerned with his own well-being, the diversion of a patriotic war is the prime choice in
times of trouble. The only question that remains is how will his generals will look at the option of getting involved in yet another
ruinous war. A war that could have very dangerous implications and unpredictable outcomes.
McGovern thinks that it was Brennan boys who hacked into DNC as a part of conspiracy to implicate Russia and to secure Hillary win.
One of the resons was probably that DNC servers were not well protected and there were other hacks, about whihc NSA know. So the sad
state of DNC internet security needed to be swiped under the carpet and that's why CrowdStike was hired.
NSA created 7 million lines of code for penetration and that includes those that were pablished by Wikileaks and designed to imitate
that attackers are coming (and using the language) from: China, North Korea, Iran and Russia.
Also NSA probably intercepts and keeps all Internet communications for a month or two so if it was a hack NSA knows who did it and
what was stolen
But the most unexplainable part was that fact that FBI was denied accessing the evidence. I always think that thye can dictate that
they need to see in such cases, but obviously this was not the case.
Notable quotes:
"... She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps rallies were packed with 10's of thousands. ..."
Love the rest of the talk, but no way did Hillary win. No way did she get the popular vote.
The woman was calling for war and reinstating the draft on men and women. She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps
rallies were packed with 10's of thousands.
At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine
.? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]
If Trump wants to survive he should FIGHT! He call out the Deep State explicitly, using the words "Deep State." and explaining machinations
to the public. This creates a risk for his life, but still this is the only way he can avoid slow strangulation by Muller.
Notable quotes:
"... In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State." ..."
"... Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election - Trump
should pardon whoever - case closed. ..."
"... Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling
Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.] ..."
"... Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....] ..."
In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State."
Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election
- Trump should pardon whoever - case closed.
Trump should say that right now - put the onus on Mueller to do the right thing and not take down the election over small
nothings.
Peace --- Art
... ... ...
Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling
Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]
Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....]
Ray McGovern raise important fact: DNC hide evidence from FBI outsourcing everything to CrowdStrike. This is the most unexplainable
fact in the whole story. One hypotheses that Ray advanced here that there was so many hacks into DNC that they wanted to hide.
Another important point is CIA role in elections, and specifically
John O. Brennan behaviour. Brennan's 25 years with the CIA
included work as a Near East and South Asia analyst and as station chief in Saudi Arabia.
McGovern thing that Brennon actually controlled Obama. And in his opinion Brennan was the main leaker of Trump surveillance information.
Notable quotes:
"... Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment. Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong. ..."
I really like Ray... I watch and listen , he seems to use logic, reason and facts in his assessments.. I'm surprised CIA and the
deep state allow him to operate ... stay safe Ray...
McGovern, you idiot. To try to put Trump on Hillary's level is complete stupidity. The war with Russia or nothing was avoided
with a Trump victory. Remember the NATO build up on the Russian border preparing for a Hillary win? Plus, if Hillary won, justice
and law in the USA would be over with forever. The Germans dont know sht about the USA to say their little cute phrase. Trump
is a very calm mannered man and his hands on the nuke button is an issue only to those who watch the fake MSM. And no the NSA
has not released anything either. Wrong on that point too.
The German expression of USA having a choice between cholera and plague is ignorant. McGovern is wrong ....everyone knew HRC
was a criminal. McGovern is wrong... Jill Stein in not trustworthy. A vote for Jill Stein was a vote away from Trump. If Jill
Stein or HRC were elected their would be no environment left to save. Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment.
Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern
is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong.
Another month or so and the DHS may offer a color-coding system to help the sheeple understand various levels of confidence.
Green - Moderate Confidence Blue - High Confidence Yellow - Very High Confidence Orange - Extremely High Confidence Red - Based
on Actual Fact
The last category may be one of the signs of the apocalypse.
At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign
or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation
Notable quotes:
"... CrowdStrike were recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information. ..."
"... In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you. ..."
"... CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump's favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims in said report, calling their credibility into serious question. ..."
"... "Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys - Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. ..."
"... The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures. ..."
"... Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the market." ..."
"... At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation." ..."
Voice of America (VOA) which is the largest U.S. international
broadcaster and also according to the not-for-profit and independent Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), CrowdStrike were
recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information.
In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you.
CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump's
favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims
in said report, calling their credibility into serious question.
That article doesn't mention Wikileaks at all, so this is not the really the best place to discuss it. But in any case,
my response is: the VOA news article is a good source for the article
Fancy Bear , where it is already appropriately cited.
The VOA article or something like it might also be appropriate for the
CrowdStrike article, so long as we were extremely careful
to follow the source and avoid undue emphasis .
(We would, for instance, have to note CrowdStrike's defense, that its update to the report "does not in any way impact the
core premise of the report...").
Hi all :) For those interested to join or continue this discussion, I suggest we resume in
that other talk page . This would centralize discussion related to that news about CrowdStrike who walked back some of
their key and central claims. Thanks to contributor Neutrality for that suggestion :)
Yes, this is a good place to discuss it because whether Wikileaks was specifically mentioned at all or not, the fact is it's
a central component of what CrowdStrike was investigating so to say it's not appropriate to the article is ridiculous. As for
"does not in any way impact the core premise"...) that's the typical dissembling by entities caught making false claims and conclusions.
It's not a "defense." -- Preceding unsigned
comment added by 72.239.232.139
( talk
) 21:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Michael Alperovitch/ Papa Bear/ Fancy Bear
"Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys
- Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure
(PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular
public key belongs to a certain entity.
The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores
these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that
enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an
entity via digital signatures.
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound
to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one's trust in the validity
of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the
market."
At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign
or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation." --
87.159.115.250 (
talk )
17:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign
or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation
Notable quotes:
"... CrowdStrike were recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information. ..."
"... In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you. ..."
"... CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump's favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims in said report, calling their credibility into serious question. ..."
"... "Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys - Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. ..."
"... The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures. ..."
"... Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the market." ..."
"... At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation." ..."
Voice of America (VOA) which is the largest U.S. international
broadcaster and also according to the not-for-profit and independent Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), CrowdStrike were
recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information.
In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you.
CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump's
favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims
in said report, calling their credibility into serious question.
That article doesn't mention Wikileaks at all, so this is not the really the best place to discuss it. But in any case,
my response is: the VOA news article is a good source for the article
Fancy Bear , where it is already appropriately cited.
The VOA article or something like it might also be appropriate for the
CrowdStrike article, so long as we were extremely careful
to follow the source and avoid undue emphasis .
(We would, for instance, have to note CrowdStrike's defense, that its update to the report "does not in any way impact the
core premise of the report...").
Hi all :) For those interested to join or continue this discussion, I suggest we resume in
that other talk page . This would centralize discussion related to that news about CrowdStrike who walked back some of
their key and central claims. Thanks to contributor Neutrality for that suggestion :)
Yes, this is a good place to discuss it because whether Wikileaks was specifically mentioned at all or not, the fact is it's
a central component of what CrowdStrike was investigating so to say it's not appropriate to the article is ridiculous. As for
"does not in any way impact the core premise"...) that's the typical dissembling by entities caught making false claims and conclusions.
It's not a "defense." -- Preceding unsigned
comment added by 72.239.232.139
( talk
) 21:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Michael Alperovitch/ Papa Bear/ Fancy Bear
"Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys
- Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure
(PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular
public key belongs to a certain entity.
The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores
these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that
enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an
entity via digital signatures.
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound
to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one's trust in the validity
of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the
market."
At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign
or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation." --
87.159.115.250 (
talk )
17:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Now the most strange event: why investigation was outsourced go dubious security firm CrowdStrike, and FBI was completely excluded,
falls in place.
Notable quotes:
"... That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack. ..."
"... copied (not hacked) ..."
"... what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days
before the Democratic convention last July. ..."
"... The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll. ..."
"... "The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have emails
related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own
"forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy
(onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste
job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI. ..."
"... We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate
Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... someone within the DNC who was presumably anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail
so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would
be not on the content of the emails themselves but on Russian meddling in the election. ..."
"... This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak
but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence. ..."
"... As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike
was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that
the Russians were responsible. ..."
"... Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which
is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer,
and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian
template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack."" ..."
"... This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly
aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal in
effect a fraud. ..."
"... Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the
DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the
fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade the
FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would presumably
have quickly exposed the fraud. ..."
"... in the absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever
was a hack. ..."
"... "Guccifer 2.0" might be the creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of
the original leaker seeking to cover his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the
concoction of some opportunistic narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with
him. Unfortunately there are such people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion. ..."
"... If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind
the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections
of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded. ..."
Forensic report by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity implies that DNC/Podesta hacks and "Guccifer 2.0' personas
were concocted to discredit Wikileaks in advance of publication of the DNC/Podesta emails and to cast suspicion on Russia.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ("VIPS"), one of the most formidable commentary groups in the world, which includes
such heavyweights as William Binney, the former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of
NSA's Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center, the former top CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and many others, has published
another in its highly
enlightening series of public memoranda addressed to the President of the United States.
... ... ...
The Key Event
July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected
to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device.
That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack
by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed
on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear
aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack." This was all performed in the East Coast time zone .
.the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named "Guccifer
2.0." The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing
DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton
bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who "hacked" those DNC emails?
The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll.
"The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have
emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to
insert its own "forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling."
. The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a
copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with
a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.
In what I am now going to say I am going to join up the dots in a way that takes me beyond me what the VIPS actually say. If by
doing so I am misunderstanding and misrepresenting the new evidence and I apologise in advance and I would ask them to correct me.
Briefly, the scenario suggested by the new evidence is explained by the VIPS by reference to a brief chronology in this way
The Time Sequence
June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to
publish "emails related to Hillary Clinton."
June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces
that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: On the same day, "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the "hack;" claims
to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move
to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
I have always expressed doubts that "Guccifer 2.0" has any connection either to Russian intelligence or to Wikileaks or was actually
the source of the emails published by Wikileaks..
What this scenario seems to be suggesting is that following the revelation by Julian Assange on 12th June 2016 in a British television
interview that Wikileaks was about to publish damaging emails about Hillary Clinton someone within the DNC who was presumably
anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not
on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would be not on the content of the emails themselves but
on Russian meddling in the election.
This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak
but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence.
Here I should say that I have always thought "Guccifer 2.0" to be a far too crude and obvious persona to be a front for Russian
intelligence. Also I have never understood why – assuming it really was Russian intelligence which stole the emails – they would
want to create such a persona at all. Surely by doing so they would be merely providing more clues leading back to themselves?
As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike
was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that
the Russians were responsible.
Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which
is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer,
and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian
template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack.""
This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly
aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal
in effect a fraud.
Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the
DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the
fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade
the FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would
presumably have quickly exposed the fraud.
The last point of course goes directly to the one which people like Daniel Lazare and "richardstevenhack"have made: in the
absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever was a hack.
If the scenario that appears to be set out in the VIPS memorandum is true then it would seem that there never was a hack and that
the evidence that there was is concocted.
Before proceeding further I should say that there might be contrary arguments to this scenario. "Guccifer 2.0" might be the
creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of the original leaker seeking to cover
his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the concoction of some opportunistic
narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with him. Unfortunately there are such
people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion.
What however argues against these alternative theories is the involvement of Crowdstrike, as well as the FBI's willingness to
be persuaded to accept Crowdstrike's report rather than carry out its forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers.
Perhaps whoever it was who concocted "Guccifer 2.0" was simply lucky that neither the DNC nor John Podesta nor the FBI seem to have
been keen on a proper investigation. However on the face of it that does seem rather unlikely.
Of course it is also open to anyone who does not agree with the scenario outlined by VIPS to contest the conclusions of their
forensic investigation. However if that is to be done successfully then whoever will do it will have to match the expertise in this
field of people like William Binney and Skip Folden. That does look like a rather tall order.
At a relatively early stage of the Russiagate scandal I said that the true scandal – which the concocted Russiagate scandal seemed
intended to conceal – was the illegal surveillance of US citizens during the election.
If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind
the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections
of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded.
That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United
States is in profound crisis.
Far more evidence is needed if what is still only a possibility is to be accepted as true, but the fact remains that unless I
have misunderstood them completely the highly experienced and professional people who make up VIPS have just published a memorandum
which points in that direction.
@zzzzzzz " but the
Deep State knows how to box"
Let's see: "What Are the Democrats Hiding?"
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html
"Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to her
office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences."
Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman
from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing
this matter."
"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information
technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time
right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives
back."
This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially
illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven
blackmailers.
Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange?
"Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to
her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences."
Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman
from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing
this matter."
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/exclusive-fbi-seized-smashed-hard-drives-from-wasserman-schultz-it-aides-home/
"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information
technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time
right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives
back."
This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially
illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven
blackmailers. Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange? " free access
to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers ."
Sounds like you're talking about Debbie and the DNC.
"... Unfortunately for all his bluster about being a fighter, Trump did none of this. ..."
"... Five minutes after he became president he should have been going after Obama and the Clintons and burying the Russian hacking
nonsense before it had time to grow wings. He didn't and now he's paying the price. ..."
My conclusion is that the Deep State is winning. Even I've getting numb and increasingly less interested in the twists and
turns of who's investigating whom and why and what are the likely consequences. I'm reminded of the quote attribute to Lavrentiy
Beria: "Show me the man and I will find you the crime."
Reports of his frustration and rage suggest that he knows he has been maneuvered, partly by his own mistakes, into a
kill box from which there may be no bloodless exit.
He asked for it so he could play tough guy on the world stage. Only a fool, (especially at his age), would actually want the
job, so I hope he doesn't expect any sort of pity party.
When dealing with the left, you can never apologize and never back down. Double down and punch back twice as hard. Anyone on
the alt right could have told Trump this.
Unfortunately for all his bluster about being a fighter, Trump did none of this.
Five minutes after he became president he should have been going after Obama and the Clintons and burying the Russian hacking
nonsense before it had time to grow wings. He didn't and now he's paying the price.
"... This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride. ..."
"... "The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of." ..."
This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald
Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that
supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free
ride.
It is shocking how inept the Trump family and the Russians are. To survive they will have
to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people. It is said that cassette tapes
brought down the Soviet Union. Today we have the internet.
Yesterday I read Tim Hayward's "It's Time to Raise the Level of Public Debate about
Syria". Appendix 1 states the obvious:
"The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie
becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly
difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the
effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth
just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda
campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the
tip of."
"... There was a time when Jonathan Freedland might have been considered an embarrassment to The Guardian but nowadays The Guardian has itself become an embarrassment to Fish and Chip wrappers. ..."
"... I've never spent much time on the JFK assassination since the proof of a conspiracy is overwhelming. If you want more, watch this short video of JFK's Secret Service team being ordered off his limo shortly before he was shot. ..."
Jonathan Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their own
homeland as " a kind of
triumph ," has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life to neurotic attacks on the Trump presidency.
His hyperbolic writings at the Guardian , while making little original contribution to the intellectual debate over the
progress of the Trump administration, have instead revealed much about the paranoid preoccupations of Freedland, the Left, and elements
of the organized Jewish community.
Until recently, Freedland's rantings have been predictable. In Freedland's caricature-like portrayals, Trump
emerges as a shameless, dictator-like figure who "respects no limits on his lust for power." Rarely shy of a dramatic turn of
phrase, Freedland writes about his prior enthusiasm for the Constitution of the United States -- a document he sees as guaranteeing
a multicultural state -- and his growing unease that this same document somehow permitted "a dangerous man" like Trump to assume
office: "Trump is testing my admiration for that document -- testing it, perhaps, to destruction." Freedland has lamented that democracy
in America "now stands naked -- and vulnerable."
Freedland's opposition to the Trump administration, interpreted on the basis of his own words and arguments, is not rooted merely
in generic Leftism. It also comprises an element of ethnic self-interest. Freedland perceives Trump to be obstructive to Jewish social
and political objectives, and this is most apparent in his journalism for the Jewish Chronicle. W hile he rarely, if ever,
mentions his Jewishness to the Guardian 's mass readership, in his writings at the JC Freedland is significantly
less circumspect. In March, for example, he
wrote in the
JC that Trump "is no friend of ours and the correct Jewish stance on Trump was one of vigilant opposition."
Trump's 'crimes,' according to Freedland, have included the White House statement marking Holocaust Memorial Day which did not
mention Jews or antisemitism. Freedland further complains that Trump "has no instinctive sensitivity for Jewish concerns. Any condemnation
of antisemitism has to be either scripted for him or else extracted under pressure. More troublingly, he has an uncanny knack for
speaking to and about Jews in a way that thrills antisemites." More embarrassingly for Freedland, he was one of the most vicious
and persistent critics of Trump's assertion that the bomb threats called into a number of Jewish buildings were probably made by
Jews. At the height of the controversy, Freedland had written:
Trump was asked in a meeting of states attorneys-general about the wave of bomb threats to Jewish community centres. According
to those present, Trump speculated that, rather than taking these incidents at face value, they should consider that "sometimes
it's the reverse, to make people -- or to make others -- look bad." Trump reportedly used the word "reverse" two or three times.
What can this mean, except an implication that these threats to Jewish buildings were made by Jews themselves, to damage Trump?
The notion of "false flag" attacks is a staple theme of the far right. In this context, it is a classic antisemitic trope: that
anti-Jewish attacks are invented by cunning Jews to win underserved sympathy.
How unfortunate for Freedland that this 'classic antisemitic trope' was later very soundly confirmed.
Not one to waste his talents, Jonathan Freedland has for several years published fiction under the pseudonym Sam Bourne. His earliest
pulp novels appear to have been an attempt to cash in on the success of Dan Brown's thriller formula, and the syllable similarity
in the two names shouldn't be considered accidental. In these novels, one can discern Freedland/Bourne using fiction to play out
personal fantasies. For example, The Righteous Men (2006) is a trashy religious thriller which derives its subject matter
from Jewish folklore and has "a faction of the Christian Church" in the 'bad guy' role. The book was later followed by
The Final
Reckoning (2008), a revenge fantasy about a group of so-called "Holocaust survivors" who set out to assassinate former National
Socialists.
To Kill The President , Freedland/Bourne's very recently published 'thriller,' has taken matters to a new extreme, blending
the author's history of anti-Trump journalism with his penchant for fictional ethnic revenge fantasies. Of course, no-one in the
Trump administration is named in the latest novel, but Freedland makes no attempt to disguise his meaning. In the 'feminist' plot
of To Kill the President , a female White House aide (and "avowed liberal") uncovers a conspiracy to murder a recently elected
populist president who unexpectedly won an election against a female Democrat who attracted criticism for being careless with her
email service. The President, described as a "cheat and bigot," offends the political and media establishments with "the tweets,
the lies, the grotesque misconduct, the acts of unwarranted aggression." One scene includes the President grabbing a female assistant
by her genitals in the Situation Room, where staff have been summoned in the middle of the night because the President plans to launch
missiles at China and North Korea.
Using a puppet then, Freedland gets to vent his spleen, casting the most vulgar accusations and insinuations against Trump without
fear of a libel suit.
Freedland's portrayal of Steve Bannon is also noteworthy. The novel's President, an unstable demagogue, is ultimately a marionette
dancing to the tune of a "ruthless chief strategist" with an Irish name -- in this instance Bannon becomes Crawford 'Mac' McNamara.
McNamara/Bannon saunters around the White House as if he is President, talking down to women and acting every inch the alpha male.
The Bannon caricature presented by Freedland has been likened to a "middle aged rock star." One senses that Freedland is made deeply
uneasy by Bannon's opaque role within the White House administration, as well as his perceived masculinity -- not to mention his
opposition to Muslim immigration and his generally populist attitudes. Much could be read into the fact that Freedland offers
no fictional portrayal of Jared Kushner.
The novel thus offers insight into the minds of our opponents. Their fears, insecurities, and yes, their sick fantasies, are right
here in black and white. But most importantly this is a work of incitement. Given the current context of increasingly violent Leftist
conduct and rhetoric, To Kill The President should be interpreted as a very dangerous and deliberately targeted flirtation
with the idea of political assassination. Even Mark Lawson, one of Freedland's colleagues at the Guardian , writes at the
end of his review of
the book: "Even committed Trump-haters may suffer struggles of conscience over what would count as a satisfactory resolution of the
plot." This is a book that, ultimately, get its "thrills" from the prospect of the murder of Donald Trump.
The mainstream publication and promotion of To Kill The President should be interpreted as a stark symbol of the degradation
and co-option of our cultural and political life by neurotic, twisted, and hateful elements within our gates.
There was a time when Jonathan Freedland might have been considered an embarrassment to The Guardian but nowadays The Guardian
has itself become an embarrassment to Fish and Chip wrappers.
Allow me to kickstart this as a JKF thread. From my blog:
Apr 6, 2014 – More Proof
I've never spent much time on the JFK assassination since the proof of a conspiracy is overwhelming. If you want more,
watch this short video of JFK's Secret Service team being ordered off his limo shortly before he was shot.
And this allows me to link the most interesting video on youtube. Did James Files kill JFK? From my blog:
Jul 10, 2016 – James Files Killed JFK?
Youtube has amazing stuff, like James Files explaining how he killed JFK. This is a long interview but very detailed and believable.
The first question that arises is why this guy finally talked. This is answered in this short video that you should watch first.
James Files may be phony, but he is a former CIA/US Army Special Ops guy, a known gangster, and if he is a fraud, he is first
rate actor with great knowledge about the underworld who spent years preparing for this interview. I'm not sure what to think
about his story, but he is an interesting and likable guy!
There are websites that attempt to dismiss Files, and even one dedicated to discrediting him: James Files Fraud. But one must
ask who has the time and motivation to devote a website just to counter a youtube interview? Our CIA has thousands of people employed
in counter-intelligence. They have the time, resources and media contacts to refute "conspiracy theorists" like 9-11 and JFK.
This includes full time "floggers" commenting on websites and maintaining the "truth" at Wikipedia.
The Files interview is very interesting and I highly recommend watching it all, before it disappears. I recall watching a youtube
interview with his prison warden that has disappeared. The warden summoned Files to his office to find out why he refused to see
prominent visitors. He became convinced of Files' detailed account of shooting JFK, and was angered to learn that FBI agents had
managed to interview Files in his prison without his knowledge.
Just like retired boxer Mike Tyson was a sort of poster boy for racism, Freedland is sort of a poster boy for anti-Semitism.
He gives Nazi sympathisers the chance to say that perhaps the fuhrer wasn't totally wrong.
Revealing, Jonathan Freedland supports strict Israeli immigration laws which specify JEWS ONLY, while he demands massive 3rd
world immigration into the US & Europe.
"Trump's 'crimes,' according to Freedland, have included the White House statement marking Holocaust Memorial Day which did
not mention Jews or antisemitism."
Jonathan Freedland is the very essence of those that promote fraud for profit.
Freedland's opposition to the Trump administration, interpreted on the basis of his own words and arguments, is not rooted
merely in generic Leftism. It also comprises an element of ethnic self-interest. Freedland perceives Trump to be obstructive
to Jewish social and political objectives, and this is most apparent in his journalism for the Jewish Chronicle.
The above article can usefully be read in conjunction with the following Occidental Observer piece published on Unz.com a couple
of months ago, in the runup to the recent General Election:
They did it to W as well look at it as putting the R in taRget, because there are rarely Ds in their sites in any sales volume
or venue or media that matters.
Freedland has written endlessly about how Israel needs to be supported as an independent homeland for the Jewish people. You
can't even buy land if you are not Jewish in Israel.
But in the UK, he regards the independence arising from Brexit, and any lessening of immigration, as complete disasters. What
would he feel if only Christians could be citizens and buy land in the UK?
@NoseytheDuke
True. Guardian has become the lowest of the presstitutes.
As for the ethnicity-minding Jonathan Freedland, "a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse
of the British people in their own homeland as "a kind of triumph," it should be stickered to him every day that the supposedly
super-moral state of Israel has not taken a single Syrian refugee fleeing the death and destruction of the ziocons' design. "
every country in the region and many nations around the world have hosted Syrian refugees Except Israel. Even a symbolic government
proposal to host 100 Syrian orphans was eventually dropped."
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/26/fear-and-trepidation-in-tel-aviv-is-israel-losing-the-syria-war/
How have many Syrian Anne Franks have been refused to come to Israel by the Israeli supremacists or were murdered by the Israel-friendly
"moderate fighters" of ISIS/Al Qaeda variety?
"Since the start of the conflict, Israel bombed targets in Syria as it saw fit, and casually spoke of maintaining regular contacts
with certain opposition groups. On June 18, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel has been giving "secret aid" to Syrian
rebels, in the form of "cash and humanitarian aid."
@Ludwig
Watzal Yeah a "self-fulfilling prophecy" with a big push from outside forces . like relentless never-ending propaganda from
slimeballs like Freedland. That was the author's point.
The simple, direct yet elegant style of Mr. Joyce should be studied by a few more Unz commenters.
The Guardian is the disgusting institution, it runs on a massive bequest.
One can be sure that some Soros foundation will step in when it is running out. They are sharing common goals.
Unbelievably, they had two articles of interest last week, one by the vain Hadley Freeman, an interview with her co-ethnics
or co-religionists, depending on the day, it is seeming, with the Goldman family, of the other victim of wrongful death at the
hands of OJ. I would recommending it for your reading. I am sure that it is easy to find. I think that the Goldman family is making
big profits from OJ, but he was a creep and the cause of two wrongful deaths, so am thinking he is deserving it.
The other was about the experience of Yazidi women under IS. Full of the occasional sentence about how bad the Syrian govt.
and Assad are, which I see is a lie, I have read real testimonials from real British people, not wealthy, of how kind Assad was
in his opthalmolagy practice.
That was also worth reading, despite the clear propaganda parts. I am forgetting the name of the writer.
Really, the Guardian is typified by its pnrtrait photos of the writers. Freedland is one of the worst, in the sense
of false consciousness.
Still, almost all of them are photographed for their portrait photos, side-on, and sneering at the reader over the shoulder,
seems to being their house style.
I used to comment there at times (only a very few mths), different u-name to here, even got an editor's pick once, on worker's
rights.
Their Comment is Free has the stench of somethimg out of Orwell's 1984, far from free, more mild than some of my posts here,
were there, they are such hypocrites and liars, disallow things for nothing. CiF? GTFO!
Never formally banned, but never to returning. I still reading at times with great cynicism, but they are the crap.
For the lighter touch, not being a U.S.A. person, never knew much abt. American football until much later, but saw OJ in
Capricorn One as a child, so he is having some connection with 'Moon landings were the fake' conspiracy theories. Amusing
to me.
Mr. Joyce, thank you for interesting writing, I am reading it at your main site at times, too.
@jilles
dykstra I suppose the Guardian changed after Soros bought it .
I don't believe that's actually correct. But until your post I wasn't aware that there was any connection, however murky, between
the Guardian and Soros. The best I can find is the following, can you suggest anything more definitive?
Friedland, the author of the phantasy fiction in which President Trump gets killed, is a typical specimen of the "neurotic,
twisted, and hateful elements within our gates".
What exactly the multi-culti, LGBTQ, identity-obsessed, ultra liberals have against Trump beats me just as much as a three-legged
transgender alien might. A psychotic one can understand; a deluded soul one can pity or ignore; a fanatic of the traditional right/left
variety one can plan to deal with; but how on earth does one come to terms with the nominally sane but dangerously fanatical no-holds-barred
warriors from the loony left who are prepared to destroy all and everything? Intellectual battle would be about as useful as reasoning
with a psychotic, and physical battle with pansies is not an enticing prospect either. Political debates and re-elections would
also not resolve the matter with people who have no respect for any facts, laws, or systems other than their own. Perhaps the
only solution might be to cast them off to outer space to colonize their own planet, per Stephen Hawking's prescription for the
human race.
Seriously, the degree of seething hate, lying, hypocrisy, and fanaticism we see in the new breed of self-proclaimed "progressives"
is cause for serious worry. I despair and beg keener minds to propose solutions.
Jonathan Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their
own homeland as "a kind of triumph," has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life to neurotic attacks
on the Trump presidency. His hyperbolic writings at the Guardian,
How many "British people" have requested, or demanded, his demotion from his job place at the Guardian?
The fewer they have been, the righter has he been in behaving and writing the way he has.It is happens over a non-brief time
span, it means that it works. If it works, it's right.
Same as for the "neurotic". What is insanity? Only what is disliked by the crowd, or those with power. It's not this journalist's
case (or he would have lost his job), so "neurotic" doesn't apply to him.
"... If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded." ..."
"... That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United States is in profound crisis ..."
"... Lastly, I couldn't figure out why Sen Warner suggested on a Sunday morning show awhile back that Zero 'choked' that is until I read the recent article by Time magazine describing the 19-Page DHS Plan to post national guardsmen at polling sites throughout the USA. It's startling to learn all of this after the fact, to say the least. But know the D's had a plan for election day, of course, first having to sell the narrative about a Russian cyber attack, but the Secretary's of State appeared to have stopped that project in its tracks...hence, Warner's 'choked' comment. ..."
karlof1 @35 - Thanks for the link to Mercouris' article. What he is realizing is what many
have been alluding to for quite some time.
"
If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it
correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than
this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which
sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded."
"
That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the
political and constitutional system of the United States is in profound crisis
."
The U.S. government is in a 'profound crisis.'
It is impossible to forget that Hillary was the anointed one to follow zero. The moment
the numbers came in on the eve of the election showing Trump beat the 'chosen' one was the
moment the United States government entered the crisis.
What little we are slowly learning is that Zero politicized every department charged with
conducting the affairs on behalf of the people. What we learned shortly after Trump took
office from an investigation conducted by Sen Grassley of the Sen Judiciary committee was the
tip of the iceberg, that was all of the financial settlements from the banking industry
following the 2008 financial meltdown went into a DOJ slush fund that was then dispersed to
support groups like Black Lives Matter, La Raza and many, many more. Sessions ended those
funds from being handed out within the first couple of month's of his taking office.
It was little reported. But think about the millions upon millions in those settlements.
As well, I'd be remiss not to make note, but as part of the numerous settlements, DOJ would
suggest, as part of the deal, that the bank or business settling make a 'tax deductible'
donation to organizations of the DOJ's choosing. This was once the Chicago way of doing
business, maybe it still is.
Had the 'anointed' one won trust these groups, good or bad, would have only grown and
continued their disruptive practices on the streets of anywhere USA. Had that continued
cities like Baltimore, Chicago, NYC, etc would have been begging for federal help to cease
such disruption aka Martial Law.
I could go on and on about the many projects/programs Zero put in place only to have the
anointed one to carry them through to fruition. All such programs ended on the eve of the
election.
Also take notice that there has not been a horrific shooting since at least October, maybe
even September, here in the U.S. One might want to ask why?
Lastly, I couldn't figure out why Sen Warner suggested on a Sunday morning show awhile
back that Zero 'choked' that is until I read the recent article by Time magazine describing
the 19-Page DHS Plan to post national guardsmen at polling sites throughout the USA. It's
startling to learn all of this after the fact, to say the least. But know the D's had a plan
for election day, of course, first having to sell the narrative about a Russian cyber attack,
but the Secretary's of State appeared to have stopped that project in its tracks...hence,
Warner's 'choked' comment.
Oh, there was a plan in place alright, and we're only at the beginning of the curtain
being pulled back. In the meantime those radical leaders in congress who hide behind the D or
R label are more than happy to grind the people's business to a complete halt.
"... The Trump administration lost the initiative when Trump failed to strike at the security state's Achilles heel: international
repudiation of CIA impunity. He could still do a few things to turn the flank of CIA's attacks: ..."
"... Submit a good-faith ratification package for the Rome Statute ..."
"... The Rome Statute is first and foremost a commitment to prosecute or extradite officials suspected of serious crimes. Systematic
and widespread CIA torture is the open-and-shut case, but the US command structure is also provably guilty of the crime of aggression.
..."
The Trump administration lost the initiative when Trump failed to strike at the security state's Achilles heel: international
repudiation of CIA impunity. He could still do a few things to turn the flank of CIA's attacks:
* Pardon Sirhan Sirhan
* Order immediate release of NARA records in accordance with law
* Submit a good-faith ratification package for the Rome Statute
* Give tacit approval to international exposure of nuclear and biological weapons proliferation by CIA
This will provoke a crisis where the soft coup is constrained by concerted pressure from civil society and the international
community.
The Rome Statute is first and foremost a commitment to prosecute or extradite officials suspected of serious crimes. Systematic
and widespread CIA torture is the open-and-shut case, but the US command structure is also provably guilty of the crime of aggression.
US victims including Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen have ratified the Convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations
to war crimes and crimes against humanity, so the US cannot run the clock out, as it has tried to do by failing to criminalize
torture and decriminalizing its favorite war crimes, outrages against human dignity and denial of the rights of trial. CIA proliferation
is a boiling issue in the treaty bodies but it's completely suppressed from US public awareness.
If Trump can't take the bull by the horns, CIA* is going to destroy him.
* This is CIA in Fletcher Prouty's sense, including deep-cover CIA agents inserted throughout the three branches of government.
The DCI has the get-out-of-jail card, so this is all CIA's show. All the other agency 'factions' work for CIA
Wally, yer one of the good guys, and your faith in Trump has aspects of charm, but the neocons have numerous ways to make
him cave.
He could only be a dictator in the style you're suggesting if he had the backing of the military and or the big money crowd
and I just don't see it. His ability to "do good" for the American masses is as severely limited as that of all his predecessors,
unfortunately.
The system was designed to protect the interests of the most powerful money bag crowd while convincing the masses that whatever
is good for GM is good for the USA, so to speak.
@jacques sheete Wally, yer one of the good guys, and your faith in Trump has aspects of charm,
but the neocons have numerous ways to make him cave.
He could only be a dictator in the style you're suggesting if he had the backing of the military
and or the big money crowd and I just don't see it. His ability to "do good" for the American
masses is as severely limited as that of all his predecessors, unfortunately.
The system was designed to protect the interests of the most powerful money bag crowd while
convincing the masses that whatever is good for GM is good for the USA, so to speak. During the
campaign, I assumed Trump had a lot more behind him than he appears to have after the inauguration.
He needed to have a few key power centres four-square behind him, and to bring a dozen bloody-minded
executive operators with well-considered plans to "hoist the black flag and start cutting throats"
at key Departments and Agencies.
So far, it appears that instead of Seven Samurai, he brought the Seven Dwarfs. Our remaining
hope is that it's all part of a "clever plan", but that hope is just a hope
His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise
from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably,
perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now on
full alert as to who & what to bring with him.
@Erebus During the campaign, I assumed Trump had a lot more behind him than he appears to
have after the inauguration. He needed to have a few key power centres four-square behind him,
and to bring a dozen bloody-minded executive operators with well-considered plans to "hoist the
black flag and start cutting throats" at key Departments and Agencies.
So far, it appears that instead of Seven Samurai, he brought the Seven Dwarfs. Our remaining
hope is that it's all part of a "clever plan", but that hope is just a hope...
His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise
from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably,
perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now on
full alert as to who & what to bring with him.
His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to
rise from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably,
perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now
on full alert as to who & what to bring with him.
You nailed it. Even if they do eventually succeed in foiling Trump, things will never be the
same again. The whole world is watching the circus in Washington, and so Washington's brand ('democracy')
is now shot. 2016 was indeed an annus mirabilis!
"... In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'. ..."
"... The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad. ..."
"... The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. ..."
"... Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents. ..."
"... Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with Russia were acts of treason. ..."
"... The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'! ..."
"... Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound " ..."
"... Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order. ..."
The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive
elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation
has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and
the George W. Bush victory over 'Al' Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in
these cases, the 'defeated' candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying
and peaceful protests to register their opposition.
These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration
of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive
institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements
threatened the entire electoral order.
We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including
the electoral process and the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.
Regime Change in America
In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often
intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global
domination. This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama's administration
where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine
– under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'.
The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined
in US policy. All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process.
The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional
norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.
Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and
quasi-official mass media. The US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic
process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.
The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated
and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity
of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries.
Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the
political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect. The
mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex
scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.
Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the
legitimacy of the November 2016 election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump's victory,
a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect even before he takes office
– by claiming Trump was an 'enemy agent'.
The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail
members of the Electoral College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state
electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.
Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia
campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and
US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress
and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with
Russia were acts of treason.
The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate
'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump
was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British
intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate
media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take
the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero'
and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the
CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'!
Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication
by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited,
the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures
hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership
was involved in a domestic coup d'état.
CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his
skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly
charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief
Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts
(of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound "
Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power
dictating policy to an elected US president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens
the physical security of the incoming leader.
From a Scratch to Gangrene
The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and
rightist politicos, the corporate mass media and the 'progressive' websites and pundits providing
ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated 'regime change'.
Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many – they are now being degraded
and discarded in a march toward an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and 'in`telligence'
hierarchy.
Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump,
the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany .
A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and
imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits
their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New
York. http://petras.lahaine.org/
...It is more than 200 kilometres from the current Russian frontier with Belarus and the
historical border with the territory which for a thousand years has been occupied by
Lithuanian, Polish, German and Russian imperial as well as Soviet forces. Kushner's
grandparents
actually came from Navahrudak
(Навагрудак), spelled in Russian as
Новогрудок (Novogrudok). The
meaning of the word, which was first used for the place in the 11
th
century, is
"new little town". When the Germans arrived in July 1941, there were 20,000 residents, 10,000
of whom, including the Kushners, were Jewish. The Kushners escaped; the majority who didn't
were killed. Kushner reveals he doesn't know. His, and everyone else's mistake, is 834
kilometres off the mark.
...But Kushner admits that during the campaign he "had incoming [sic] contacts with people
from approximately 15 countries." He also had "hundreds" of "calls, letters and emails from
people outside the United States." He says he asked Henry Kissinger for "advice on policy for
the candidate, which countries/representatives with which the campaign should engage, and what
messaging would resonate." He says he spoke once for "less than a minute" with Russian
Ambassador Sergei Kislyak at an April 2016 Trump campaign speech in Washington, when the
Russian was accompanied by three other foreign ambassadors; Kushner doesn't name them.
He denies any record of receiving or remembering two reported telephone calls with Kislyak
between April and November, and had forgotten his name when, on November 9, an official
congratulatory note arrived for Trump from President Vladimir Putin. From November 9 to January
20, Kushner says he received "over one hundred contacts from more than twenty countries They
included meetings with individuals such as Jordan's King Abdullah II, Israel's Prime Bibi
Netanyahu, Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Luis Videgaray Caso and many more."
A neophyte in foreign affairs as Kushner confesses himself to be, he doesn't reveal that
Videgaray and he set up candidate Trump's visit to Mexico City to meet the Mexican President on
August 31. The Mexican reaction to that was extremely hostile. Videgaray was forced to resign
as finance minister on September 7, but promoted to foreign minister on January 4. Videgaray
might be charged with colluding with the Americans to advance himself, with Kushner as
co-conspirator, but no senator on the Intelligence Committee is reported to have asked Kushner
about that.
Kushner may not know the nicknames of Videgaray or King Abdullah, but he certainly refers to
the Israeli prime minister as Bibi, an appellation well-known to Israelis and Jews worldwide.
His official name is Benjamin, and there is ample evidence that Kushner has been familiar with
Netanyahu for many years. Kushner's father is also widely reported in Israel as Netanyahu's
personal friend. Kushner's slip in yesterday's evidence was to reveal just how familiar he is
with that foreign official, who met with Trump and Kushner for a campaign appearance in Israel
in June, five months before Election Day.
The special relationship between Israel and the US cannot be collusion – that's a rule
of US politics. The rule wasn't quite so fixed in the 1980s when the FBI caught US officials at
spying, stealing and smuggling on behalf of Israel, and sent one of them to prison;
click for
details
Nor can God and the Orthodox Jewish group known as Chabad-Lubavitch be reported as colluding
in Trump's victory, despite the evidence that Kushner and his wife Ivanka prayed for it at a
Lubavitcher shrine on the weekend before the poll.
The Israeli and Jewish community media
also
claim
the possibility that Kushner's pilgrimage reminded God to intervene when there was a
suspected assassination attempt against Trump in Arizona at the same time.
The inadvertence of these slips in Kushner's statement reinforces his claim that he knows
the difference between collusion with Russians and special relationships with Mexican, Israeli
and Lubavitcher friends. The US press and the US appear convinced of the same thing.
... ... ...
Simes (Дмитрий
Саймс), son of Jewish dissidents
expelled
from the Soviet Union to the US in 1978, is the
Uriah Heep
of Russian-American advisors,
ingratiating themselves to both sides and making a living out of obsequious intermediation. He
was Richard Nixon's factotum when the disgraced president visited Moscow. Nixon died in 1994
leaving Simes his think-tank as an inheritance. Its motto is "America's Voice for Strategic
Realism". Kissinger is the honorary
chairman
, succeeding the American
International Group (AIG) fraudster Hank Greenberg.
Helmer provides a wealth of background about people and their role, institutions and
practices. It is the kind of information that puts things in quite a different light -- and it
turns out to be intriguing.
Apparently, the Kremlin really wanted to get in touch with Trump -- and tried it in a
serious way (gifts that should have been laden with personal symbolism for Kushner, sending
that high-powered Gorkov banker, letting the ambassador pester Kushner for meetings). All for
naught, due to spectacularly poor assessment of the other party by the Russians, and a
clueless Trump team (with Kushner supremely ignorant of his supposedly cherished
Eastern-European Jewish heritage).
The picture of that milieu full of go-betweens, cats' paws, and assorted parasites is not
pretty. Contrarily to the often agape descriptions of "Putin's regime", the Russians appear
to have been rather incompetent in that specific occurrence.
"Apparently, the Kremlin really wanted to get in touch with Trump -- and tried it in a
serious way" – Well, I think the dirt on offer was of the wrong kind, no?
Funny you got here first "Visitor".
Somebody is always first by definition. There was always a mad rush to be the "Me first
commenter number One!" over at James Klunster's blog, for example.
"reveals just how ignorant Kushner, his legal and other advisors are of Russia"
It is a big deal that Kushner didn't know the proper spelling of the town his grandparents
came from? Heck, I don't even know the name of the town my grandparents came from –
much less how to spell it.
Interesting point on Mexico and Israel / collusion
For better or worse I think there are more US citizens who know who Bibi is and not many
who know the nickname of the King of Jordan.
1. I've come across the nickname Bibi so many times and I am only a casual reader of
mainstream news.
Perhaps it is that many people in the mainstream media who are 'personal friends' of
Bibi.
2. You know your grandparents home town either when they sat down with you and showed it
to you on a map with its English spelling on an American map, or an old map with unknown
words on it (a Belarussian one maybe), or they talked about it many times, so that you know,
but only know how to say it (however imperfectly). Then, when it came for you to write it
down the first time (or may not have to the first time, but the first time someone more
familiar with the area reads it), you didn't get the spelling exactly right, and even
confused it with any town.
I think the stupidity is anyone on the left buying into this fake McCarthyite Russia scare -- just because a racketeering war criminal lost the election. For one, Hillary took naked
bribes from Russia. As Secretary of State, Hillary received millions in bribes to approve the
transfer of 20% of our uranium assets to Russia:
And the Podesta Group, founded by John Podesta, took money from Russia's largest bank,
Sherbank, just last year, to lobby for a lessening of sanctions:
and
"Finally, the idea that the DNC was hacked by Russia is so flimsy "
regardless of the fact that all major USA intelligence services have said Russia did hack
DNC.
google "Russia hacked DNC".
I think that the average American reading this article would half-way through roll their
eyes and say this is so micro nit-picky that there is no there there.
No kidding. My summary of the first objection: "Kushner would certainly known that his
grandfather was from Novafreakingrad, Ukraine, not Novafrakingrad, Russia if the idiot hadn't
realized he was reading the wrong cyrillic alphabet."
Or something like that. I'm usually interested in trivia, but this strained my limit to
the breaking point. Like Bill Smith said in his comment above, most of us would be hard
pressed to know what country our forbears came from, let alone what city. I think if this is
the dumbest thing Kushner writes or says while he's working for the White House, he'll be the
best Director of the Office of American Innovation evah – even if every other President
had at least two of them.
God forbid that we talk to the Russians! Oh my. Far better to start a nuclear war that
ultimately involves all of the nuclear powers, even the North Koreans. Then we can solve
climate change by gifting the planet back to the extremophiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile
Shake and bake. A billion years from now, Earth will be covered with multitudinous
expressions of life.
Millions of Americans colluded with the Russians and elected DJ Trump. IMO, largely
because they are sick of this constant war-mongering. The second World War only lasted for 5
years!
Military industrial complex needs your money my friend. Nothing personal. This is strictly
business :-)
"Millions of Americans colluded with the Russians and elected DJ Trump. IMO, largely
because they are sick of this constant war-mongering. The second World War only lasted for 5
years!"
The last thing MIC cares is what millions of Americans, who elected Trump, want.
If the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, ostensibly on a fact
finding mission re the Trump administration's alleged collusion with Russian government
officials and business people, take their assignment seriously they could use Helmer's brisk,
no-nonsense just the facts ma'am approach as a template for their proceedings. The key word
being "if"
Reading the American and European press it's striking how the reporting on countries in
the 'axis of MIC designated evildoers' is almost always grossly, or hilariously, depending on
your disposition, reductionist. While Western countries have a complex and multilayered
system of government administration the "evil" countries are ruled by bad dudes with one name
(North Korea's Kim Jong-un excepted) – Putin, Assad, Saddam, Gadaffi – who have
absolute control over civilians military alike. It really is a South Parkesque view of the
world. One can imagine a Putin or Assad grimly overseeing a trembling clerk issuing licenses
at a provincial DMV, because Leader Knows Best of course.
Back in the real world this cartoonish dumbing down means every action – real,
alleged or made up – the West doesn't like is traced back to The Leader. If a military
unit goes nuts and slaughters a bunch of non-combatants , a nasty but not uncommon occurrence
in wartime, it must be because The Leader ordered it. The Syrian Arab Army, to name one
example, becomes "Assad's Army" and is composed of "soldiers loyal to Bashar al-Assad". The
media would
never
talk about a Western, or "allied" army like this.
In the transcript Helmer cites, Gorkov's gifts to Kushner, something that might only be an
innocent overlooking of protocol, can easily be spun in such a way that it becomes part of
that evil rascal Putin's ploy to influence an American president. That's why these committees
and hearings are a joke that belong in a low-budget sequel to Dr. Strangelove. Every person
with a functioning brain knows there is a double-standard at play here. Even the maniacal
partisan nutjobs agitating for Cold War 2.0 would have to admit this if logic and reason
still have any meaning.
Demonization of Putin is very profitable. This new round of McCarthyism enforced on the
country proved to be the strategy chosen by neoliberal elite to return Dems to power and
suppress populists within the party. Smash critique of neoliberalism equating them with
Russian agents, who are trying to undermine the state.
There were rumors that original McCarthyism campaign partially was designed to suppress
"leaks" about export of nazy scientist and spies in the USA after WWII that Communists and
Trotskyites tried to expose.
Talk about a nothing burger about Kushner and Russia other than his aficionado to be
Bibi's US puppet-in-law. If Trump has any Russian connections its through his first wife
Ivana Trump. According to wikipedia, Ivana Trump nee Zelníčková was born
February 20, 1949 in the Moravian town of Zlín, Czechoslovakia. From 1948 to 1990,
Czechoslovakia was part of the Soviet bloc. Donald Jr speaks fluent Czech.
Now the Clintons Russian connection of selling and buying 'Merica
uranium/speechifer/foundation grab bag of goodies makes the Trump Russian investigation look
like its run by a whole buncha nut job congress critters who fell off the turnip truck conned
into playing a shell game.
"... Harris also has ties to billionaire Democratic Party donor George Soros, who was one of the two owners of OneWest Bank at the time. Coincidentally, before Harris passed on the opportunity to file action against OneWest Bank, Soros was pouring money into California criminal policy initiatives that Harris was pushing. ..."
"... TheLos Angeles Times ..."
"... Billionaire George Soros held a closed door conference with wealthy donors in November 2016 that addressed how to "take back power" and was attended by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. ..."
"... On the weekend of Trump's inauguration, David Brock hosted a retreat for the most prolific Democratic donors to figure out how to "kick Donald Trump's a--." ..."
Harris' meetings with Clinton's donors signal that they are rallying behind her as the
2020 Democratic presidential nominee. Harris has emerged as a leading figure in the Trump
Resistance;
Politico
reported
that
the hearings regarding Trump's connections to Russia have enabled the
Democratic
Party
to frame her as Trump's most aggressive critic. In response to one of the
hearings she was involved in, she
launched
the slogan "courage not courtesy." However, despite this catchy slogan,
Harris has historically lacked the courage to hold her donors accountable when they have
broken the law.
The nomination of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin provoked criticisms over his tenure
as CEO of OneWest Bank. In 2013, California prosecutors claimed to have discovered over
1,000 foreclosure law violations, but the California Attorney General's office failed to
file any action against the bank. At the time, Kamala Harris was California's attorney
general. Many questioned why Harris didn't take any action given the evidence her office
uncovered.
"We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it's a decision my office
made," Harris
told
The
Hill
. "We pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the
facts lead us."
Harris' vague defense is insufficient. The Democratic Party has branded her as a leader
of the Trump Resistance without addressing why Harris avoided a criminal investigation that
involved donors to her campaign.
In 2011, Mnuchin's wife at the time, Heather Mnuchin,
gave
$8,750
to Harris' 2011 campaign. OneWest Bank
donated
$6,500 to Harris' 2011 election. Heather Mnuchin also
donated
$850 to Harris' 2014 election for California attorney general.
In 2014, the Center for American Progress
graded
California's campaign donor recusal laws a "C." The state's lax laws allowed Harris to
decide not to recuse herself from deciding whether or not to prosecute OneWest Bank.
Harris also has ties to billionaire Democratic Party donor George Soros, who was one of
the two owners of OneWest Bank at the time. Coincidentally, before Harris passed on the
opportunity to file action against OneWest Bank, Soros was pouring money into California
criminal policy initiatives that Harris was pushing.
In 2011, Harris' former aide Lenore Anderson was
hired
as
campaign manager for Californians for Safety and Justice, which was financed by Soros' Open
Society Foundations. In 2014,
TheLos Angeles Times reported, "The organization
operates under the umbrella of a San Francisco-based nonprofit clearinghouse, which
effectively shields its donor list and financial operations from public view." The report
cited
that since 2012 Soros had led a four-year, $16 million campaign to change
California criminal policy, which Harris was deeply involved in as California attorney
general. Lenore Anderson also
led
Vote
Safe, another Soros' funded organization.
In 2014, Soros and hedge fund billionaire John Paulson
sold
OneWest
for $3.4 billion. In 2015, Soros donated the
maximum amount
to Harris' Senate campaign. Also in 2015, Harris
spoke
at
Soros' 2020 Vision Conference in San Francisco with House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi and at
Soros' Democracy Alliance Conference
.
This background information on Harris' relationship to her donors provides context as to
why the
Democratic
establishment
is rallying behind her. However, any politician that doesn't hold
corporate and special interests accountable only results in more corruption.
Since Hillary Clinton's unexpected loss to
Donald
Trump , her donors have strategized with Democratic leadership about how to revive the
failing party.
Billionaire George Soros
held a closed door
conference with wealthy donors in November 2016 that addressed how to "take back power" and
was attended by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
On the weekend of Trump's inauguration,
David Brock
hosted a
retreat for the most prolific Democratic donors to figure out how to "kick Donald Trump's
a--."
On July 15, Page Sixreported that Sen. Kamala Harris, a potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, met
with top Clinton donors in the Hamptons.
Many figures in Clinton's inner circle attended,
including Clinton's 2008 Campaign National Finance co-Chair Michael Kempner, donors Dennis Mehiel and Steven Gambrel, and Democratic National Committeeman Robert Zimmerman. Harris also
attended a separate luncheon
hosted by one of Clinton's top lobbyist bundlers, Liz Robbins.
And used this possibility again to advertize his hypothesis that Russians hacked the elections... Should not be a rule for former
CIA directors to keep mouth shut ?
Notable quotes:
"... And Brennan is not exactly a tabula rasa. As he observed in his comment, his ire derives from the claims over Russian alleged interference in the U.S. election, a narrative that Brennan himself has helped to create, to include his shady and possibly illegal contacting of foreign intelligence services to dig up dirt on the GOP presidential candidate and his associates. The dirt was dutifully provided by several European intelligence services which produced a report claiming, inter alia, that Donald Trump had urinated on a Russian prostitute in a bed previously slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama. ..."
I was particularly bemused by the
comment
by former CIA Chief John Brennan who denounced Trump's performance during the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg over the lack of
a hard line against Putin and his failure to support the "word of the U.S. intelligence community" about Russian interference in
the recent election. In an interview Brennan complained "He said it's an honor to meet President Putin. An honor to meet the individual
who carried out the assault against our election? To me, it was a dishonorable thing to say."
Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter
has demonstrated how the "word" of U.S. intel is not exactly what it might seem to be. And Brennan is not exactly a tabula
rasa. As he observed in his comment, his ire derives from the claims over Russian alleged interference in the U.S. election, a narrative
that Brennan himself has helped to create, to include his shady and possibly illegal contacting of foreign intelligence services
to dig up dirt on the GOP presidential candidate and his associates. The dirt was dutifully provided by several European intelligence
services which produced a report claiming, inter alia, that Donald Trump had urinated on a Russian prostitute in a bed previously
slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama.
And along the way I have been assiduously trying to figure out the meaning of last week's reports regarding the contacts of Trump
Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort with two alleged Russian agents while reportedly seeking the dirt on Hillary.
As it turns out, there
may not have been any discussion of Hillary, though possibly something having to do with irregularities in DNC fundraising surfaced,
and there may have been a bit more about the Magnitsky Act and adopting Russian babies.
Barring any new revelations backed up by actual facts revealing that something substantive like a quid pro quo actually took place,
the whole affair appears to be yet another example of a politically inspired fishing expedition. This observation is not necessarily
naivete on my part nor a denial that it all might have been an intelligence operation, but it is an acceptance of the fact that probing
and maneuvering is all part and parcel of what intelligence agencies do when they are dealing with adversaries and very often even
with friends. It does not necessarily imply that Moscow was seeking to overthrow American democracy even if it was trying to advance
its own interests.
JohnHelmer.net:
THE IMPROPER ASSOCIATION (MAYBE CRIME) OF VICTOR PINCHUK WITH HILLARY,
BILL AND CHELSEA CLINTON, COVERED UP BY THE US MEDIA, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND THE
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
The case of the $13 million paid to the Clinton family by the Ukrainian oligarch Victor
Pinchuk, in exchange for personal favours and escalation of the war against Russia, was
reported in detail throughout 2014. Click to read the opener, and more.
Early this month there has been fresh investigation of Pinchuk's money links with the
Clintons, owing to the start of Ukrainian government inquiries into the theft of billions of
dollars of International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans to Ukraine – money then transferred
to Ukrainian commercial banks including Pinchuk's Credit Dnepr bank, and then loaned to
offshore entities controlled by Pinchuk but apparently not repaid. Theft of the IMF money was
first reported here in connection with Igor Kolomoisky's operation of Privat Bank
Any person who sites neocons like Mike Morell is very suspicious, to say the least. Pat
Buchanan is no exception, for now on...
Notable quotes:
"... Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn. ..."
"... Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality. ..."
"... journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much hope. ..."
"... Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic? ..."
"... People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for. ..."
"... Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. ..."
"... The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. ..."
"... Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President), imo. ..."
"... He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper and Mika etc etc etc ..."
For a year, the big question of Russiagate has boiled down to this: Did Donald Trump's
campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC? And until last week, the answer was
"no." As ex-CIA director Mike Morell said in March, "On the question of the Trump campaign
conspiring with the Russians there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There's no little
campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark."
Well, last week, it appeared there had been a fire in Trump Tower. On June 9, 2016, Donald
Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with Russians -- in anticipation of promised dirt
on Hillary Clinton's campaign. While not a crime, this was a blunder. For Donald Jr. had long
insisted there had been no collusion with the Russians. Caught in flagrante, he went full
Pinocchio for four days.
And as the details of that June 9 meeting spilled out, Trump defenders were left with egg on
their faces, while anti-Trump media were able to keep the spotlight laser-focused on where they
want it -- Russiagate.
This reality underscores a truth of our time. In the 19th century, power meant control of
the means of production; today, power lies in control of the means of communication.
Who controls the media spotlight controls what people talk about and think about. And
mainstream media are determined to keep that spotlight on Trump-Russia, and as far away as
possible from their agenda -- breaking the Trump presidency and bringing him down.
Almost daily, there are leaks from the investigative and security arms of the U.S.
government designed to damage this president.
Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting
between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the
firing of Flynn.
An Oval Office meeting with the Russian foreign minister in which Trump disclosed that
Israeli intelligence had ferreted out evidence that ISIS was developing computer bombs to
explode on airliners was leaked. This alerted ISIS, damaged the president, and imperiled
Israeli intelligence sources and methods.
Some of the leaks from national security and investigative agencies are felonies, not only
violations of the leaker's solemn oath to protect secrets, but of federal law. Yet the press is happy to collude with these leakers and to pay them in the coin they seek.
First, by publishing the secrets the leakers want revealed. Second, by protecting them from
exposure to arrest and prosecution for the crimes they are committing.
The mutual agendas of the deep-state leakers and the mainstream media mesh perfectly. Consider the original Russiagate offense. Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks. And who was the third and indispensable party in this
"Tinker to Evers to Chance" double-play combination?
The media itself. While deploring Russian hacking as an "act of war" against "our
democracy," the media published the fruits of the hacking. It was the media that revealed what
Podesta wrote and how the DNC tilted the tables against Bernie Sanders. If the media believed Russian hacking was a crime against our democracy, why did they
publish the fruits of that crime? Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic
political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page
1?
Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge
that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic
disloyalty and criminality.
Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to
fence them once stolen and repainted.
Some
journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of
their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what the
real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much hope.
And thus does democracy die in darkness.
Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government
who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs
not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out?
Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members
of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic?
Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck.
People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal.
Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell
the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald
Trump both for who he is and what he stands for.
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly
undermining your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please
write this out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe
then it will sink in.
There is nothing there. Let the media cry Russia Russia Russia forever. Trump can do other things. People will lose interest in this. This is different from Watergate because there really was a burglary and a coverup. There's nothing remotely like this here.
1. If Russians really did it, they did it on their own. Trump team had nothing to do with
it.
2. If Russians didn't do it, this is just the media wasting its resources and energy on
nothing.
Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be
distracted by Trump does something real. Because Buchanan lived through Watergate, I think he's over-thinking this. It's like
dejavu to him. Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the
control of globalists.
But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but
unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing.
Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the
integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or
deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's.
"Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks."
What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually
lying creeps?
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
No it's not.
The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period
where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an
unsuitable one slip past them.
This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the
trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of
worse barbarians.
Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and
their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President),
imo.
There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he
covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election"
black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest
credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true
criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to
influence US politics.
Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?
Clearly not, as far as anybody knows based upon information in the public domain. There's
no evidence Russia's government hacked anything anyway. A meeting by campaign representatives
with Russians claiming to have dirt on Trump's rival is not evidence of collusion in
hacking.
Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian
intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.
Again, Buchanan seems to be needlessly conceding ground to known liars and deluded
zealots.
If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and
should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding
and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's)
elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics
by Israel in particular.
If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about
foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious
"influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically
including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country.
That would quickly result in the shutting down of mainstream media complaints about
foreign influence.
@NoseytheDuke
Yup, His name was Seth Rich . (and let us never forget Michael Hastings and the Smith Mundt
Modernization Act put in place for a Hillary win/steal.)
Yipes -- What is the matter with Buchanan? Is he taking weird prescription drugs for
Alzheimers ?
He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that
the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper
and Mika etc etc etc
It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.
It already didn't end well and it pains me to say this. What it may become only is worse.
At this stage I don's see any "better" scenarios. The truth has been revealed.
The strenuous effort of "Resistance" passengers in the Limousine-of-State to shove Donald
Trump out of the driver's seat continues into what would normally be the news-wasteland of
midsummer. Last week it was the smoking popgun of Trump Junior's meeting with a Russian lawyer
purported (by British music promoter Rob Goldstein) to be associated with the "Russian Crown
Prosecutor" (no such office in a country without a monarch).
The news caused the usual commotion among the very media mouthpieces who publish anti-Trump
allegations as a staple for their "Resistance" readerships. By the way, this blog might be
described as anti-Trump, too, in the sense that I did not vote for him and regularly inveigh
against his antics as President - but neither is Clusterfuck Nation a friend of the
Hillary-haunted Dem-Prog "Resistance," in case there's any confusion about where we stand. If
anything, we oppose the entirety of the current political regime in our nation's capital, the
matrix of rackets that is driving the aforementioned Limousine-of-State off the cliff of
economic collapse. Just sayin'.
"Resistance" law professors, such as Lawrence Tribe at Harvard, were quick to holler
"treason" over Junior's meet-up with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Russian-American
lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin. Well, first of all, and not to put too fine a point on it, don't you
have to be at war with another nation to regard any kind of consort as "treason?" Last time I
checked, we were not at war with Russia - though it sure seems like persons and parties inside
the Beltway would dearly like to make that happen. You can't call it espionage either, of
course, because that would purport the giving of secret information, not the receiving of
political gossip.
Remember, the "Resistance" is not going for impeachment, but rather Section 4 of the 25
th
Amendment. That legal nicety makes for a very neat-and-clean surgical removal of
a whack-job president, without all the cumbrous evidentiary baggage and pain-in-ass due process
required by impeachment. All it requires is a consensus among a very small number of high
officials, who then send a note to the leaders in both houses of congress stating that said
whack-job president is a menace to the polity -- and out he goes, snippety-snip like a
colorectal polyp, into the hazardous waste bag of history. And you're left with a nice clean
asshole, namely Vice President Mike Pence.
Insofar as Pence appears to be a kind of booby-prize for the "Resistance," that fateful
reach for the 25
th
Amendment hasn't happened quite yet. It is hoped, I'm sure, that
the incessant piling on of new allegations about "collusion" with the Russians will get the
25thers over the finish line and into the longed-for end zone dance.
More interestingly, though, the meme that has led people to believe that any contact between
Russians and Americans is ipso facto nefarious vectors into the very beating heart of the
"Resistance" itself: the Clintons.
How come the Clintons have not been asked to explain why -- as reported on The Hill blog -- Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars to give speech in Russia (surely he offered them
something of value in exchange, pending the sure thing Hillary inaugural) ...
or what about the $2.35 million "contribution" that the Clinton Foundation received after
Secretary of State Hillary allowed the Russians to buy a controlling stake in the Uranium One
company, which owns 20 percent of US uranium supplies, with mines and refineries in Wyoming,
Utah, and other states, as well as assets in Kazakhstan, the world's largest uranium
producer?
Incidentally, the Clinton Foundation did not "shut down," as erroneously reported early this
year. It was only its Global Initiative program that got shuttered. The $2.35 million is
probably still rattling around in the Clinton Foundation's bank account.
Don't you kind of wonder what they did with it? I hope Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller
wants to know.
Susan Rice has implicated herself (and by extension Obama) in a felony. Comey has lied
under oath and stolen government property. Lowrenta has commited obstruction of justice and
the world now knows that Natalia V was given "a special visa" by the State Department... in
June of 2016! ...in order to even be present at a meeting with Jr set up by an associate of
FusionGPS one Ron Goldstone in which, a "former Soviet counter-intelligence officer" was
present who also was allowed (even though the Alinsky press won't report it) to roam freely
around the Obama WH in a group tour...cuz... RUSSIAN SPIES! ...lol.
OBAMA White House played HOST to RUSSIAN associate of Russian Atty Natalia the same day as
the Trump Tower meeting June 9, 2016 - according to Obama's White House log. Natalia's
translator, Samochornov was a contractor with Obama's State Dept. Per FBI insider Obama
speaks Russian.
Yeah,you missed 'The Russians are coming the Russians are coming'24/7 7 days a week for 8
months now and counting,with no proof yet of any wrongdoing whatsoever nor any explanation in
concrete terms of exactly how those pesky Rooskies could possibly have 'meddled in our
elections' let alone any proof of same. No,just morning 'til night 'the russians are coming
the Russians are coming.The left has collectively lost its mind in a very public way.How any
sentient being could any longer pay them any mind is a mystery to me
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
They did not find anything yet, but they have money and will continue digging till the next Presidential
elections. This is just a witch hunt. If, for example members of Us congress are subjected to the same
level of scrutiny probably over 50% would be already charged for criminal activities ;-) Trump is still
standing... BTW it would be interesting where NEIL MacFARQUHAR got all this information. Were intelligences
agencies involved?
MOSCOW , Russian Island, near the port city of Vladivostok in the far east, was a decaying former
military base and home to a scattering of cattle when President Vladimir V. Putin suddenly envisioned
it as a $1.2 billion campus where he could welcome heads of state for an Asia-Pacific conference.
That sent Kremlin officials scrambling to find a developer to transform a site lacking fresh water,
a pier or roads. They rejected numerous bids before one of them took a flier on a man known mostly
for his glamorous shopping malls: Aras Agalarov of the Crocus Group.
A little more than three years later, in 2012, Mr. Putin opened the spectacular
Far Eastern Federal University , some
70 modern buildings built in a crescent overlooking the sparkling Pacific Ocean.
Not long after, Mr. Putin pinned a blue-ribboned state medal, the Order of Honor, on Mr. Agalarov's
chest at a dazzling Kremlin ceremony. Soon, a string of demanding, more prominent projects followed:
a stretch of superhighway ringing Moscow; two troubled stadiums for the 2018 World Cup, including
one in a Baltic swamp.
Mr. Agalarov, 61, also worked on a project with a future president, Donald J. Trump. Last week,
the Russian developer and his crooner son and heir, Emin, were thrust into the swirl of speculation
about whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election.
Their names popped up in emails about arranging a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian
lawyer who claimed to have incriminating information about Hillary Clinton, but the president and
his son have both insisted that nothing of value was provided.
"This is obviously very high-level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's
support for Mr. Trump , helped along by Aras and Emin," wrote Rob Goldstone, a music producer and
publicist working for Emin.
While there is no indication beyond what was said in the emails that the Agalarovs were serving
as a conduit between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, wealthy and well-connected businessmen are
often called on to do the bidding of the Russian government.
Kremlin analysts stress that its red, crenelated walls conceal not a well-oiled machine but a
hornet's nest of interests and influences competing to dominate an Erector Set of ad hoc policies
and sudden opportunities, many of them highly lucrative.
When it comes to exploiting those opportunities, the Kremlin often ignores its own bureaucrats,
diplomats and other agents in favor of someone it thinks will get the job done , a charmed group
whose members rise and fall in status along with their usefulness to Mr. Putin and his top aides.
In that context, analysts find it entirely plausible that the Kremlin would tap Mr. Agalarov,
a construction tycoon with a web of contacts to Mr. Trump, as a way to pass information to the Trump
presidential campaign.
"In a sense, almost no one is a direct agent of the Kremlin, but almost anyone can become one
if the need arises," said Ekaterina Schulmann, a political scientist at the Russian Presidential
Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
Aleksei A. Navalny, the leading opposition figure in Russia and an anticorruption campaigner,
says he has no doubt that the Agalarovs would do the bidding of the Kremlin if asked.
In a blog post, Mr. Navalny refers to Yuri Chaika, the Russian state prosecutor , a position equivalent
to the United States attorney general , whom Mr. Goldstone identified in his emails as the source
of the information on offer at the Trump Tower meeting. Mr. Chaika, a staunch Putin loyalist, has
been in that position since 2006.
In the view of Mr. Navalny, a bitter opponent of Mr. Putin, it makes perfect sense that information
passed from the Kremlin through Mr. Chaika and Mr. Agalarov to Mr. Trump, as the security services
could easily have used such a trusted channel to reach out to the Trump campaign.
That is no more than informed speculation, yet there are deep connections among the men. After
Mr. Navalny released a documentary in 2015 accusing Mr. Chaika of corruption, for example, Mr. Agalarov
rose to his defense. Writing in the newspaper Kommersant, he said the film mixed fact and fiction
and echoed the work of Joseph Goebbels, the chief Nazi propagandist.
Natalia Veselnitskaya , the lawyer who met with the younger Mr. Trump, and her former husband
both worked in the prosecutor's office of the Moscow region, the district surrounding the capital,
and would have been under Mr. Chaika's overall umbrella.
Ms. Veselnitskaya has done some legal work connected to real estate for Mr. Agalarov's company
in Russia, according to media interviews given by the family lawyer in the United States, Scott Balber.
Mr. Trump entered this circle with the 2013 Miss Universe contest, carried out with the help of
lower-level bureaucrats and Mr. Agalarov, who paid $20 million to bring the pageant to his family's
Moscow concert pavilion, Crocus City Hall.
It would be natural for the Kremlin, aware of that relationship, to reach down to that level to
try to get something done with the Trump campaign, analysts said.
"If you are a business person, you are supposed to do something that the Kremlin asks you; you
are otherwise free to pursue your own interests. That is how Russia works," said Mrs. Schulmann,
noting that most would be eager to respond to any such call as an expression of loyalty.
In this particular case, the Kremlin has denied any involvement, saying it was not in touch with
Mr. Agalarov and did not even know the lawyer, Ms. Veselnitskaya. It is unclear precisely what was
discussed at the meeting with members of the Trump team. Participants have said that it dealt largely
with an American law called the Magnitsky Act, which blacklists those suspected of human rights abuses
in Russia, and a ban on the adoption of Russian children, and that nothing of significance was given
to the campaign.
Mr. Agalarov, in a Russian radio interview, called the story around the meeting , that it was
about information damaging to Hillary Clinton , a "fabrication."
The Crocus Group did not respond to a request to interview Mr. Agalarov.
For Mr. Agalarov, the involvement in the Trump administration's Russia scandal is at best an unwelcome
diversion in a career of steady if not always spectacular success.
He was born in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, then part of the Soviet Union, where he studied
computer engineering and was a member of the Baku City Committee of the Communist Party.
He went to Moscow to study, and even before the collapse of the Soviet Union began trying to fill
pent-up Russian demand for Western goods, especially computers.
What started as a modest trading company grew into a business organizing trade fairs that eventually
mushroomed into the Crocus Group, a real estate empire that encompasses mammoth shopping malls, a
chain of hypermarkets, an exposition center, restaurants, luxury housing developments and other enterprises.
Forbes magazine puts Mr. Agalarov 51st on
its list of the richest Russians, with a fortune estimated at $1.7 billion.
"He is not the biggest retail guy, but Crocus City Mall was the first luxury mall to appear in
Moscow," said Darrell Stanaford, a 20-year veteran of the Russian real estate world as the former
managing director in Moscow for the CBRE Group, a Los Angeles-based commercial real estate firm.
"He likes the glitz. It is high-end luxury, so that is why he becomes such a good matchup for Trump."
Mr. Agalarov keeps a modest footprint on social media, mostly by standing next to his photogenic
son: on their luxury Moscow golf course development, for example, or
posing with Robert De Niro
at the opening of one of the two Nobu restaurants in Moscow where they are partners.
Mr. Trump pops up from time to time. On his Inauguration Day, both Agalarovs
posted old pictures
of themselves with him, along with effusive praise for their old friend.
Aside from the 2013 Miss Universe contest, it is not known what business ties, if any, the Agalarovs
have with Mr. Trump, or with any other American companies. They clearly have an affinity for the
United States, however, naming one chain of shopping malls "Vegas" and another luxury residential
complex "Manhattan."
In November 2013, after the buzz of the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow had subsided, Mr. Trump
met privately with a group of elite Russian businessmen, including the head of Russia's state-owned
Sberbank at one of the Nobu restaurants in Moscow.
The elder Mr. Agalarov had been talking with Mr. Trump about building a Trump Tower in Moscow
as part of a $3 billion real estate project involving hotels, a shopping center and office space.
Sberbank was ready to make it happen. About a week after the meeting, the bank announced a "strategic
cooperation agreement" with the Crocus Group to finance about 70 percent of the ambitious project,
including, potentially, a building bearing the Trump name.
"It was one of the 14 buildings that we planned to build here," Mr. Agalarov's son Emin said in
a March interview with Forbes, adding that if Mr. Trump "hadn't run for president, we would probably
be in the construction phase today."
The Sberbank financing , reported at the time as the biggest real estate development loan the
bank had made , was another measure of the Agalarovs' increasingly close connections to the centers
of power in Russia.
In another indication, the Crocus Group was written into a 2014 bilateral treaty with the government
of Kyrgyzstan to help that country integrate into Russia's regional alliance, the Eurasian Economic
Union.
In that deal, worth $127 million, the Crocus Group was designated the "single supplier" of services
to integrate the two countries' bureaucracies and reinforce the new customs common border, by, for
example, building new border posts.
By naming the company in an international treaty, the Russian government avoided opening the work
to competitive bidding, ensuring that the Crocus Group won the contract, Edil Baisalov, a former
Kyrgyz presidential chief of staff, said in a telephone interview.
In Kyrgyzstan, he said, the apparent giveaway to Kremlin-connected insiders became known as "Crocusgate."
Mr. Agalarov mentions occasionally how difficult it is to earn money on public works, telling
the newspaper Vedomosti in 2015 that he had to buy a larger Gulfstream jet to make the cross-continental
trek to Vladivostok to check on progress at the Far Eastern Federal University. On that project,
he said, he spent more than $100 million of his own money because the official plans skipped significant
costs like roads and landscaping. He won some of it back in court.
Statements about losing money are all part of the game, analysts said, noting that construction
costs on Russian infrastructure routinely run 30 percent higher than for comparable projects in Europe.
"It is showing the wounds that he got in the service of the motherland," said Ms. Schulmann, the
political scientist. "You see how indifferent I am to profit when I do a service for the Kremlin.
I have to make sacrifices."
Mr. Agalarov, however, was more candid than most when asked whether it is altruism that leads
him to respond when the Kremlin calls. In the interview with Vedomosti, he said, "There are things
that you cannot turn down."
"... "Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. " ..."
"... "It's been nearly a year since the FBI started an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Since then, the investigation has turned toward examining links between Russia and President Donald Trump's associates and members of
his campaign, and even possible obstruction of justice by Trump. ..."
"... The investigation has been the go-to news item and topic of many heated conversations since last July, at least in DC . But
outside of the nation's capital, many voters aren't as concerned about possible Trump ties to Russia. ..."
"... When I recently visited my hometown and one other small town in Michigan that went for Trump, I talked with residents about
the investigation. Nearly every single person I spoke with said the same thing: The media just needs to leave Trump alone, and the Russia
investigation is a distraction. ..."
"... "I'm tired of hearing about the Russia thing. Let it go and move on. The media is the one that's propagating it. They just
won't let it die," said Nancy Androsky, a longtime resident whose grandchildren go to school in the area. ..."
"... Conversations with residents of Linden and Argentine, which are located between the cities of Detroit and Flint, confirmed
what recent polls have shown -- that Republicans don't think the Russia investigation is a big deal. More than half of Republicans think
the investigation is a political distraction, according to Vox's Alexia Fernández Campbell's analysis of a June CBS News poll. Only
one in five consider it a critical security issue. ..."
"... And while nine out of 10 Democratic voters said that an investigation into Russian involvement in the election is somewhat
or very important, only 35 percent of Republicans agreed , according to a February poll by Quinnipiac University . ..."
"... More important to the residents of Linden and Argentine Township than the Russia investigation are promises Trump made on the
campaign trail: building a stronger military, restricting immigration by refugees and asylum seekers, and creating jobs for middle-class
Americans. ..."
"... And around 60 percent of people in the two towns voted for Trump in the last election, up from the approximately 50 percent
of people who voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012. ..."
"... Despite the fact that he has yet to follow through on many of his campaign promises, including softening his position on China's
currency manipulation, failing to build a wall on the US-Mexico border, and struggling to repeal and replace Obamacare, his supporters
keep saying "give him a chance." ..."
"... "I think Trump will be a lot better than our previous president. I think he's going to get things done," said Rich Marshbanks,
the owner of a local barbershop. "I think he's basically a good man. His heart's in the right place." ..."
"... It's not surprising that nearly every person I talked with said they supported Trump. With a combined population of approximately
6,500 people, the towns of Linden and Argentine are stereotypical small-town America. They're the kind of place where you'll run into
at least one person you know at the only grocery store in town and the smell of cow manure from nearby dairy farms occasionally wafts
in the air. ..."
"... "This is such a close-knit community," said Sharon Stone, the editor of the Tri-County Times, a newspaper covering several
towns in the area. "They love the small hometown feel, but all of the perks of having everything available to them. We have so many
lakes in this area, and there's quite a bit of money in this area." ..."
"... These towns are also almost entirely white -- 96 percent of Linden residents and 97 percent of Argentine residents identified
as white on the 2010 census. ..."
"... Stone described the area as "passionate," but since the last election, people have become disenchanted with politics. "It's
almost like they're completely fed up with politics in general on both sides," said Stone. "It's not necessarily just the whole Russian
thing that's going on. It's just politics in general." ..."
"... And based on the conversations I had with people in the area who agreed to talk with me, that definitely seems to be true.
People said they feel ignored by the Washington establishment, hate the "liberal media," and couldn't care less about the Russia investigation.
..."
"... "It's a waste of time and energy for us out here in the hinterlands for us to worry about what's going on in the cesspool in
Washington," said Norman Schmidt, Argentine's treasurer who has been on the board for more than 20 years. "And it's a swamp. It really
is a swamp."" ..."
"... If the Kremlin interfered in the US presidential elections, how come those wily Russkies failed to make the majority of voters
at the ballot box nationwide vote for Trump yet at the same time managed to make the majority of voters in the Rust Belt and rural USA
not vote for that mendacious shrew Clinton? ..."
"... Russian "sleepers" in Pittsburgh, Muskogee etc? ..."
"Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. "
If they keep up their obsession with Russia – YES!
Also – relevant article, which shows that this "rural/Red State American consensus", apparently, keeps up, despite the constant
propaganda barrage from the mainstream biased media. Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vox is dye in the wool liberal outlet
with handshakable agenda.
"It's been nearly a year since the FBI started an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Since then, the investigation has turned toward examining links between Russia and President Donald Trump's associates and members
of his campaign, and even possible obstruction of justice by Trump.
The investigation has been the go-to news item and topic of many heated conversations since last July, at least in DC .
But outside of the nation's capital, many voters aren't as concerned about possible Trump ties to Russia.
When I recently visited my hometown and one other small town in Michigan that went for Trump, I talked with residents about
the investigation. Nearly every single person I spoke with said the same thing: The media just needs to leave Trump alone, and
the Russia investigation is a distraction.
"I'm tired of hearing about the Russia thing. Let it go and move on. The media is the one that's propagating it. They just
won't let it die," said Nancy Androsky, a longtime resident whose grandchildren go to school in the area.
Conversations with residents of Linden and Argentine, which are located between the cities of Detroit and Flint, confirmed
what recent polls have shown -- that Republicans don't think the Russia investigation is a big deal. More than half of Republicans
think the investigation is a political distraction, according to Vox's Alexia Fernández Campbell's analysis of a June CBS News
poll. Only one in five consider it a critical security issue.
And while nine out of 10 Democratic voters said that an investigation into Russian involvement in the election is somewhat
or very important, only 35 percent of Republicans agreed , according to a February poll by
Quinnipiac University .
More important to the residents of Linden and Argentine Township than the Russia investigation are promises Trump made
on the campaign trail: building a stronger military, restricting immigration by refugees and asylum seekers, and creating jobs
for middle-class Americans.
And around 60 percent of people in the two towns voted for Trump in the last election, up from the approximately 50 percent
of people who voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.
Despite the fact that he has yet to follow through on many of his campaign promises, including softening his position on
China's currency manipulation, failing to build a wall on the US-Mexico border, and struggling to repeal and replace Obamacare,
his supporters keep saying "give him a chance."
"I think Trump will be a lot better than our previous president. I think he's going to get things done," said Rich Marshbanks,
the owner of a local barbershop. "I think he's basically a good man. His heart's in the right place."
It's not surprising that nearly every person I talked with said they supported Trump. With a combined population of approximately
6,500 people, the towns of Linden and Argentine are stereotypical small-town America. They're the kind of place where you'll run
into at least one person you know at the only grocery store in town and the smell of cow manure from nearby dairy farms occasionally
wafts in the air.
"This is such a close-knit community," said Sharon Stone, the editor of the Tri-County Times, a newspaper covering several
towns in the area. "They love the small hometown feel, but all of the perks of having everything available to them. We have so
many lakes in this area, and there's quite a bit of money in this area."
These towns are also almost entirely white -- 96 percent of Linden residents and 97 percent of Argentine residents identified
as white on the 2010 census.
Stone described the area as "passionate," but since the last election, people have become disenchanted with politics. "It's
almost like they're completely fed up with politics in general on both sides," said Stone. "It's not necessarily just the whole
Russian thing that's going on. It's just politics in general."
And based on the conversations I had with people in the area who agreed to talk with me, that definitely seems to be true.
People said they feel ignored by the Washington establishment, hate the "liberal media," and couldn't care less about the Russia
investigation.
"It's a waste of time and energy for us out here in the hinterlands for us to worry about what's going on in the cesspool
in Washington," said Norman Schmidt, Argentine's treasurer who has been on the board for more than 20 years. "And it's a swamp.
It really is a swamp.""
If the Kremlin interfered in the US presidential elections, how come those wily Russkies failed to make the majority of voters
at the ballot box nationwide vote for Trump yet at the same time managed to make the majority of voters in the Rust Belt and rural
USA not vote for that mendacious shrew Clinton?
"... Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier ..."
"... it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. ..."
"... Though it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative. ..."
Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons
to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence
conspiracy theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky
law, not the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton
democrats.
Though it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting
became something they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.
"... When governments do the hacking themselves, or sponsor others who do it for them, it is usually because they want to hone their countries' offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. In short, they are developing weapons and testing them. ..."
"... Sometimes, though, they do more than that. The best known example occurred some ten years ago when the United States and Israel introduced the Stuxnet virus into Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, destroying roughly a fifth of that country's nuclear centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control. ..."
"... For the stewards of the American empire, inconvenient international laws apply to others, not the United States. It is therefore unclear what, if anything would change if cyber weapons too were forbidden. ..."
"... How proficient America's cyber warriors are at defending "the homeland," the post-9/11 term for the former "Land of the Free," is an open question. There is no doubt, however, that, at the very least, the United States leads the way in developing cyber surveillance capabilities. ..."
"... The story used to be that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that reports of Russian meddling are correct. The official line now is that only four have weighed in decisively, the four actually in the know. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Putin says the Russians did not meddle; and Julian Assange has said many times that the source of the DNC documents that Wikileaks published was not the Russian state. It has become fashionable in mainstream circles to vilify Assange, but the fact remains that his integrity, and Wikileaks', is well established. ..."
"... Though portrayed as the devil incarnate, Putin is a skilled and worldly statesman, intent on advancing Russia's interests, as he understands them. He is therefore a liar by vocation, just as all serious politicians are. ..."
"... ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
If Vladimir Putin is half as clever as his demonizers make him out to be, he must have figured out a long time ago that, to get
inside Donald Trump's head, clinical psychologists with expertise treating male adolescents would be more useful than the Russian
hackers, real or imaginary, that Western media obsess over.
Why even bother with hackers? The little that goes on between Trump's ears is all there in his tweets.
But, of course, if the idea is to develop capabilities for waging wars in the cyber sphere, good hackers are worth their weight
in gold. If Putin isn't working on that, he is not doing his job.
These days, hackers are everywhere -- including Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet republics. The United States has more
than its fair share too, as do the UK and other Western countries. Some work for intelligence services, directly or indirectly; many,
probably most, do not.
When governments do the hacking themselves, or sponsor others who do it for them, it is usually because they want to hone
their countries' offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. In short, they are developing weapons and testing them.
Sometimes, though, they do more than that. The best known example occurred some ten years ago when the United States and Israel
introduced the Stuxnet virus into Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, destroying roughly a fifth of that country's nuclear centrifuges
by causing them to spin out of control.
Needless to say, governments are not the only players; far from it. Many, probably most, hackers are not connected, even indirectly,
with state intelligence services. Some of them may be "terrorists," according to one or another understanding of that fraught and
contested term. It is safe to assume that most of them are not. They hack for the fun of it or because they can.
There are legally binding, though sometimes ineffective, conventions that prohibit the use of a few especially heinous kinds of
weapons -- poison gas is a well-known example. Cyber weapons are not similarly proscribed. Hackers can be, and sometimes are, subject
to domestic prosecution, but, between state actors, anything goes.
In much the same vein, international law does not prohibit states from interfering in the political affairs, or elections, of
other states. Insofar as sovereignty still matters in our globalized neoliberal world, meddling of that kind plainly violates the
spirit of the law, but it is not legally proscribed.
For the stewards of the American empire, inconvenient international laws apply to others, not the United States. It is therefore
unclear what, if anything would change if cyber weapons too were forbidden.
What is clear, however, is that, for at least the past seven decades, the United States has interfered in one way or another in
nearly every election that American government officials wanted to influence – either to prevent outcomes they opposed or to secure
results they favored.
No corner of the world has been immune, but since the demise of the Soviet Union made meddling in the political affairs of Russia
and other former Soviet republics easier, Washington has been especially intent on throwing its weight around in that part of the
world – always in ways that put Russian national interests in jeopardy.
The "digital revolution" has greatly exacerbated the problem, making meddling a lot easier than it used to be.
How proficient America's cyber warriors are at defending "the homeland," the post-9/11 term for the former "Land of the Free,"
is an open question. There is no doubt, however, that, at the very least, the United States leads the way in developing cyber surveillance
capabilities.
It is no slouch either when it comes to hacking into well-protected industrial and government servers around the world – to spy
or to meddle or, as with those centrifuges in Iran, to sabotage.
Russia can do those things too – perhaps just as well, more likely not, but certainly well enough.
It may therefore be time, now that the Cold War is back, to revive a version of the old Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine, updated
for the digital age.
* * *
Thanks to digitalization and the many ways in which computers nowadays are able to communicate with each other, state and non-state
actors can meddle – or worse – more effectively than in the past.
Inasmuch as quality emerges out of quantity, as dialecticians inspired by Hegel would say, meddling has therefore become qualitatively
more problematic than it used to be.
Thus, with Cold War insanity coming back into vogue -- promoted by the entire political class, no longer just by Clinton retainers,
and by the media flacks who serve them -- meddling is taking new forms.
Some things don't change, however. As long as it keeps spending more money on "defense" than the Russians do, the United States
will retain the dominant position. Despite the best efforts of Cold Warriors to scare Americans into acquiescence, everyone now concedes
that this was how it was with nuclear weapons and missiles and much else during the original Cold War. It is how it is today too,
now that cyber weapons are added into the mix.
Nevertheless, as in the past, the War Party's spokespersons will insist that we are not spending nearly enough. Lying through
their teeth, JFK and his people concocted a "missile gap" some six decades ago. No one should be surprised, with the 2018 midterm
elections looming, when a "cyber weapons gap" opens up.
The death merchants and mad dog generals must be salivating at the prospect. Silicon Valley plus the military-industrial complex,
Eisenhower's euphemism for death merchants and military brass, now dominate the real economy. Over them all, there is Wall Street;
a far greater menace now than in Eisenhower's time. The too-big-to-fail-or-jail miscreants there must be salivating most of all.
It was public opinion that made the original Cold War possible, and so it is again. This is why the "liberal press" has been pulling
out all the stops – vilifying Russia and demonizing its President.
But there are at least two reasons why they will have a harder time getting the result they want now than their counterparts had
long ago.
For one, they don't have a President on board this time, except occasionally when all the stars are lined up right. Unlike his
post-War predecessors, from Truman on, Trump has no geopolitical goals. Instead, he wants to make "deals" that he thinks will make
him look good, but that will only make him richer.
Trump is no more anti-imperialist than Cecil Rhodes, and he doesn't have an internationalist bone in his body. But, during the
campaign, he did find it expedient to strike a kind of pre-War isolationist pose.
Since that could in principle lead him sometimes to do the right thing -- albeit for bad, even noxious reasons – there were a
few observers who were inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Inasmuch as the alternative was a continuation of the liberal
imperialism of the Obama era, who could blame them?
What they actually did, however, was give Trump way too much credit. The man has no ideological convictions to speak of. For all
practical purposes, his mind is a blank slate, susceptible to being swayed by whomever he talked to last or by the last pundit he
watched on TV.
However, where Russia is concerned, he did, and still does, seem to have sounder instincts than his rivals. For Trump, instincts
are all; and his instincts are dangerously off on almost everything. But not on this.
No doubt, his business involvements have a lot to do with it. So, very likely, does the fact that he could care less what others
think. It probably also helps that he has no ties to the foreign policy establishment or to the so-called deep state.
Whatever the reasons, Trump does seem less in thrall to the delusions that shape this latest outbreak of Russophobia in political
and media circles than other politicians at the national level. Indeed, even at this late date, he actually does seem to want to
diminish, not exacerbate, tensions between the world's two major nuclear powers.
Bravo to him for that.
The other reason why Cold Warriors today have their work cut out for them, in ways that their counterparts after the Second World
War did not, is that the justifications they are obliged to offer for treating Russia as an enemy are preposterous on their face.
Half a century ago, the Soviet Union was, in Churchill's words, "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma." Churchill
went on to suggest that much of the mystery would dissipate if observers would think more carefully about Russia's national interests.
That insight was among the first casualties of the rush to (cold) war that Churchill himself did so much to promote.
And so, an Iron Curtain descended over the Soviet Union and its "satellites," just as he said it would -- making it possible for
the "free world's" propagandists to spin all kinds of yarns about Communist "subversion" and ill intent.
Cyber curtains are harder to construct. What could previously be kept opaque is therefore now ineluctably clear to anyone who
cares to look.
This is why all the brouhaha over Russian meddling in the 2016 election would hardly even merit discussion, but for the fact that
the stakes are so high, and because so many gullible people take it seriously.
Never mind that nothing actually came from the alleged meddling, except further confirmation of what everybody already knew: that
the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, was working hard to assure that the Sanders insurgency would be defeated, and that Hillary
Clinton would be the party's nominee.
Leave aside too the glaring hypocrisy of the United States, of all countries, objecting to election meddling. Evidently, the consensus
view among mainstream politicians and in mainstream media circles too is that, in the United States, "what's sauce for the goose"
is emphatically not also "sauce for the gander."
Forget genuinely "fake news" reports as well; for example, the claim that the Russians hacked into electoral grids in Vermont
and elsewhere. There is no solid evidence for them; and, as one would expect, they disappear down the memory hole just as soon as
they serve their purpose.
Reports of Russian hacking that bear on infrastructure security, financial transactions, trade, industrial processes, and other
vital economic and military concerns would, if true, be genuinely worrisome were the recently revived Cold War to heat up.
With so many of the leading lights of the American political and media establishments working so diligently to make that happen,
this is a cause for concern. But not even the most determined warmongers have been able to come up with a plausible story about how
Russian hacking affected the election that put Donald Trump in the White House.
War Party propaganda notwithstanding, the claim that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election is hardly gospel truth. Nevertheless,
it merits investigation.
The story used to be that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that reports of Russian meddling are correct. The official
line now is that only four have weighed in decisively, the four actually in the know.
Meanwhile, Putin says the Russians did not meddle; and Julian Assange has said many times that the source of the DNC documents
that Wikileaks published was not the Russian state. It has become fashionable in mainstream circles to vilify Assange, but the fact remains that his integrity, and Wikileaks', is
well established.
Though portrayed as the devil incarnate, Putin is a skilled and worldly statesman, intent on advancing Russia's interests, as
he understands them. He is therefore a liar by vocation, just as all serious politicians are.
For profound historical reasons, slightly different, slightly less liberal and more authoritarian, norms obtain in Russia's political
sphere than in most Western countries; and, needless to say, like everyone else everywhere, Putin and his constituents are creatures
of their time and place.
On the whole, though, the demon of the hour seems no less governed by moral, customary or legal constraints than others in similar
positions. Even in responding to events in Ukraine and Syria, he has been more scrupulously observant of international law than Barack
Obama or Donald Trump.
His word may not be as good as gold, but it is a lot better than the CIA's. Indeed, when it comes to lying, the CIA is second
to none. It has been known too to politicize intelligence when it suits its purposes or the purposes of the American government,
insofar as the two diverge. The Bush-Cheney administration's "weapons of mass destruction" is only the best-known recent example.
I would therefore venture that of all the relevant parties weighing in, the American intelligence community is the least credible.
But we are so bombarded with the party line on Russian meddling that it is hard not to succumb to the belief that there surely must
be some there there. That (ultimately irrational) consideration apart, there is every reason to remain skeptical of everybody's assessments.
For the time being and perhaps for some time to come, agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take.
The news that people close to Trump -- his son, his son-in-law, his campaign manager -- met with a lawyer whom they believed to
be acting on behalf of the Russian government, and who probably was, changes nothing.
According to Donald Junior's emails, they did it to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Needless to say, "opposition research" is part of electoral politics nowadays; they all do it.
The problem in this case is the involvement of someone with ties to the Kremlin. Had the story been that Trump or someone close
to him hired homegrown detectives to dig up dirt on Clinton, the news probably wouldn't even have gotten Rachel Maddow's hackles
up.
Or had the famiglia arranged a meeting for the same purpose with persons connected to some other country – Israel is
an obvious example, but not the only imaginable one – that would be fine too.
Apparently, it is the Russian connection that is toxic.
For the anti-Trump political class and their mainstream media friends, Junior's emails are the Holy Grail, the "smoking gun."
But all they show is that there was contact between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Except on the dubious theory
that the provision of information is an emolument of the kind that the Constitution proscribes, there was nothing even remotely criminal
about that meeting in Trump Tower. There was not even anything unusual; campaigns look for dirt where they can find it, and they
talk to foreign sources all the time.
Trump's flacks say that the purported smoking gun is actually no big deal.
It grieves me to say it, but they are right.
What those emails provide is evidence of the stupidity of the Trump family (no surprise there!) and close Trump associates (ditto).
To make anything more of it is, to say the least, a stretch.
***
Narratives that center on Russian meddling in the 2016 election are one thing; well-researched investigations of connections between
Trump, the Trump family, and the Trump campaign, on the one hand, and Russian oligarchs, mobsters, spies, and assorted sleaze balls,
on the other, are something else altogether.
Inasmuch as birds of a feather generally do flock together, there probably are quite a few contacts of that sort to uncover.
Unfortunately, though, in the fog of neoconservative, Russophobic propaganda that has settled in over our shores, these issues
have become confounded.
On the meddling in the last election question, the jury is still out on which liars to believe. Does it really matter, though?
It does to proponents and opponents of the War Party. The former are desperate for reasons to find Putin culpable of something,
anything; the latter understand the importance of not letting them have their way.
It matters too to feckless Democrats (is there any other kind?) hoping to ride anti-Trump loathing back to power in 2018. It is
all they have going for them.
But it hardly matters at all for the integrity of American democracy -- notwithstanding the self-righteous blather that currently
surrounds the issue.
The danger to democracy – what little of it we have -- is not coming from hackers, Russian or otherwise, government sponsored
or freelance. At this historical moment, it is coming mainly from the voter suppression efforts of Republican state officials and
the Trump White House.
Republican donors are culpable too. They are the ones who bankroll the governors and state legislators who are leading the charge
against (small-d) democracy.
How ironic that one of the things the Russians are supposed to have hacked into are state voting rolls. It is fatally unclear
why they would care about that, just as it is brutally obvious why Republicans would. But this doesn't phase the War Party's propagandists
one bit.
The story they are going with for now is that Putin wants Americans to lose faith in the democratic process. Why would he even
care?
During the original Cold War, when the Soviet Union was supposedly intent on world domination, there were ways of answering that
question. The answers were disingenuous, to say the least, but they could at least be made to seem plausible. Good luck with that
now!
In any case, if Putin really did want to undermine faith in American democracy, he would be a little late to the gate; and he
would be redundant. Who needs a foreign autocrat to do what Democrats and Republicans are already doing better?
Meanwhile, even with Junior's emails, Trump is still there; and unless Republicans turn on him, which, for now, seems unlikely
– or unless, more unlikely still, he decides he has had enough -- there is where he will remain.
Meanwhile too, the Democratic Party, having made itself irrelevant, is still scapegoating Russians. What a dangerous, albeit bipartisan,
spectacle – unreconstructed Clintonites working side by side with the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
All this does, though, is increase the likelihood that, in the process, the world will stumble into a war that, this time around,
really will be a war to end all wars.
"... "We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter. ..."
"... "Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment. That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than 22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper, Ohio Democratic Party chairman. ..."
"... The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump. ..."
ucgsblog says:
July 16, 2017 at 7:21 pm Sorry about being MIA, I'm probably going to be MIA until mid-August,
but in the meantime, here's an interesting article:
"We know that we can be an America that works for everyone, because we believe that our diversity
is our greatest strength. And we believe that when we put hope on the ballot we do well, and when
we allow others to put fear in the eyes of people we don't do so hot," Tom Perez, chairman of the
Democratic National Committee.
___
"We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not
talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic
Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter.
___
"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take
your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize," Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible.
___
"I focus a lot on good-paying jobs, student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal
the Affordable Care Act. Those are the issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think
(the Russia investigation) has to interfere with our conversation about every day matters in people's
lives," Jason Crow, Democratic candidate in Colorado's 6th Congressional District.
___
"Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making
that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment.
That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than
22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to
Hillary Clinton.
___
"We will both defend the integrity of our democracy (on the Russian investigation) and we will
defend access to health care for tens of millions of people. The resistance is big enough and sophisticated
enough to track both of those urgent and important issues," Anna Galland, executive director of Moveon.org
Civic Action.
___
"All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage
and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're
a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs
and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper,
Ohio Democratic Party chairman.
___
"We need to be able to explain what we're for just as emphatically as who we are against. Voters
need to hear you talking about them more than they hear you talking about yourself, your opponent
or the president." Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana.
!!!!!!-
The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia"
I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite
a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is
someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump.
Looks like the DNC is slowly starting to realize what voters want, despite inner party special
interest groups. Levin and Crow summarize mainstream Democrats, so I'll just requote them:
"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take
your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize I focus a lot on good-paying jobs,
student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Those are the
issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think (the Russia investigation) has to interfere
with our conversation about every day matters in people's lives"
Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned.
Say what you will about Trump, but he certainly made politics a lot more entertaining to watch. Not
sure if that's good or bad, but I'm getting popcorn.
"... Many leading liberals suspect , now with a little more evidence, that Trump worked with Russia to win his election. But we've long known that huge corporations and wealthy individuals threw their weight behind the billionaire. ..."
"... The top priority in Congress right now is to move a health bill that would gut Medicaid and throw at least 22 million Americans off their insurance -- while loosening regulations on insurance companies and cutting taxes on the wealthiest by over $346 billion . ..."
"... As few as 12 percent of Americans support that bill, but the allegiance of its supporters isn't to voters -- it's plainly to the wealthy donors who'd get those tax cuts. ..."
"... every single state ..."
"... Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
Der Spiegel's instantly infamous Donald Trump cover.
I've always been a little skeptical that there'd be a smoking gun about the Trump campaign's
alleged collusion with Russia. The latest news about Donald Trump, Jr., however, is
tantalizingly close.
The short version of the story,
revealed
by emails
the
New York Times
obtained, is that the president's eldest son was
offered "some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" and "would be
very useful to your father."
More to the point, the younger Trump was
explicitly
told this was "part of Russia
and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Donald, Jr.'s reply? "I love it."
Trump Jr. didn't just host that meeting at Trump Tower. He also brought along campaign
manager Paul Manafort and top Trump confidante (and son-in-law) Jared Kushner.
We still don't have evidence they coordinated with Russian efforts to release Clinton
campaign emails, spread "fake news," or hack state voting systems. But at the very least, the
top members of Trump's inner circle turned up to get intelligence they
knew
was part
of a foreign effort to meddle in the election.
Some in Washington are convinced they've heard enough already, with Virginia senator (and
failed VP candidate) Tim Kaine calling the meeting "
treason
."
Perhaps. But it's worth asking: Who's done the real harm here? Some argue it's not the
Russians after all.
"The effects of the crime are undetectable," the legendary social critic
Noam Chomsky says
of the alleged Russian meddling, "unlike the massive effects of
interference by corporate power and private wealth."
That's worth dwelling on.
Many leading liberals suspect , now with a little more evidence, that Trump worked
with Russia to win his election. But we've long known that huge corporations and
wealthy individuals threw their weight behind the billionaire.
That gambit's paying off far more handsomely for them -- and more destructively for the rest
of us -- than any scheme by Putin.
The evidence is hiding in plain sight.
The top priority in Congress right now is to move a health bill that would gut Medicaid and
throw at least 22 million Americans off their insurance -- while loosening regulations on
insurance companies and cutting taxes on the wealthiest by
over
$346 billion
.
As few as
12 percent of
Americans
support that bill, but the allegiance of its supporters isn't to voters -- it's
plainly to the wealthy donors who'd get those tax cuts.
Meanwhile,
majorities
of Americans
in
every single
congressional district support efforts to curb local
pollution, limit carbon emissions, and transition to wind and solar. And majorities in
every single state
back the Paris climate agreement.
Yet even as scientists warn large parts of the planet could soon become uninhabitable, the
fossil fuel-backed Trump administration has put a climate denier in charge of the EPA, pulled
the U.S. out of Paris, and signed legislation to let coal companies
dump toxic ash in local waterways
.
Meanwhile, as the administration escalates the unpopular Afghan war once again, Kushner
invited
billionaire military contractors
-- including Blackwater founder Erik Prince -- to advise on
policy there.
Elsewhere, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon and other architects of the housing crash are advising
Trump on
financial
deregulation
, while student debt profiteers
set policy
at the Department of Education.
Chomsky complains that
this
sort of collusion is often "not considered a crime but
the normal workings of democracy." While Trump has taken it to new heights, it's certainly a
bipartisan problem.
If Trump's people did work with Russia to undermine our vote, they should absolutely be held
accountable. But the politicians leading the charge don't have a snowball's chance of redeeming
our democracy unless they're willing to take on the corporate conspirators much closer to home.
Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and the editor of
Foreign Policy In Focus.
Yet another classic "Yascha about Russia... " propaganda theme variation (
Gessen style Russophobia). This time he is from Germany, though. Some people would do everything to earn a living.
Notable quotes:
"... Judging by the comments in "Professor" Mounk's Twitter feed, the vast majority are pretty much wise to the deception. Whether
this holds for the retweets I don't know. But I'm pretty sure we are witnessing the decay of the establishment. ..."
"... Lemoine ( http://www.twitter.com/phl43) destroys the liberal media bullshit narrative piece by piece. I haven't found a more
thorough discussion anywhere else online. It's well worth reading just for its clarity and strength of argumentation. ..."
"... Illuminating how widely quoted and passed on is the rubbish of Yascha Mounk, and 'et al'. What does this say about the publications
and outlets that give such dishonesty a megaphone? They must lose credibility. ..."
"... Paul Craig Roberts has written at various times words to the effect that just about all public and private institutions in
the US are now corrupt. It's hard to find examples that refute that thesis. ..."
"... so this is what Harvard has to offer. and to think having a Harvard education used to mean something. ..."
"... Nice to see at least one US Journalist take on and destroy two prominent Neocons. Here Tucker Carlson takes on Lt Col Ralph
Peters and Max Boot. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/07/13/tucker-carlson-neocon-slayer/ ..."
"... The Corporate Media is owned by 6 corporations as a result of (liberal?) Bill Clinton admin enacting Republican (with Democrat
Complicity) "Media Consolidation" aka monopolies. ..."
"... One Media owner is GE which also manufactures aircraft engines and weaponry and seeks government contracts for same. ..."
"... Charles C. Johnson said he also suggested that Smith get in touch with Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the alias 'Weev'
and has collaborated with Johnson in the past. Auernheimer--who was released from federal prison in 2014 after having a conviction for
fraud and hacking offenses vacated [on appeal - May 2014] and subsequently moved to Ukraine . ..."
"... American lies should be put in context. The USA is a dying country, that is all but unmanageable, in the midst of its second
Civil War (fought mostly in the media now, but the erosion of country's national fabric is immense and keeps worsening). In such circumstances,
finding external enemy in order to redirect the destructive energy outward is simply a matter of national survival. That's why we have
the anti-Russia frenzy. ..."
"... That's how great countries fracture and disappear. It' ugly, and will only get uglier. ..."
The U.S. borg is vehemently trying to set up Russia as an enemy of the "west". Their anti-Russian propaganda has become part of
the campaign against U.S. President Trump who seeks détente with Russia. It requires intense efforts to denigrate the country, its
citizens and its leaders. Here is an example of how such propaganda is fabricated.
a Lecturer on Political Theory at Harvard University's Government Department, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Transatlantic Academy
of the German Marshall Fund, and a Nonresident Fellow at New America's Political Reform Program.
Need a reminder of the human cost of dictatorship? All these are journalists who criticized Putin--and died under mysterious circumstances
The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin is dully elected and not a dictator. The Russian Federation may not be
a "liberal democracy", but it is a democracy. The picture is old. It shows all Russian journalists who died during their work since
1991. Most of them died as war- or crime-correspondents and were not involved in politics at all. The death of most of those journalists
is not mysterious. Getting blown up by artillery during the wars in Chechnya, Yugoslavia or Ukraine is no mystery at all. Most of
these journalists never criticize Putin. They were already dead before Putin had any significant political role.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) lists 82 killed
Russian journalists since 1992, most of them died due to war or related to civil crimes or corruption. There are about 80 portraits
of journalists in the picture Mounk tweeted.
Two recognizable portraits and names therein are of Vlad Listyev, a TV entertainment producer
killed in 1995 over some controversy about lucrative
advertisement on public TV. Another portrait is of Dmitry Kholodov, killed in 1994 while investigating mafia connections within the
Russian military. At the time of their death Putin was a minor bureaucrat in Saint Petersburg. He did not gain power until he became
acting president at the end of 1999.
According to the CPJ numbers more Russian journalists
were killed during the eight years of Yeltsin's presidency (1992-2000) than in the 17 years of Putin's presidencies since. Mounk
claims "All these are journalists who criticized Putin ..." when more than half of them were already dead before Putin became known
and to power. It was during the time of the "
Harvard boys " who robbed Russia blind that most of these journalist were killed. The Russian system, thanks to the Harvard driven
"reforms" and criminal privatization under Yeltsin, is a rough terrain for investigating oligarchs and mafia businesses. But there
is
no evidence , none at all, that Putin was ever involved in the decease of any journalist.
The first original publishing of the Mounk picture may have been as early
as 2009 . A piece on journalists remembrance
in Russia from 2014 already includes the pic. The reverse
image search
shows
that the picture has been has been used by several news-outlets since.
Every aspect of the Mounk tweet is a lie.
But Mounk's lies have by now been re-tweeted over 22,000 times. Many of those who see it will believe the claims he makes. They
will trust a widely publish Harvard academic. But the tweet, as well as nearly all other claims about Russia one sees in "western"
media, is pure propaganda. It is like the editorial in today's New York Times that
claims "Russia's oil-dependent economy [is] in trouble" while all Russian economic numbers turned positive and all indicators
point to accelerating growth
. It is fake news.
The anti-Russian propaganda campaign is now part of the "liberal" campaign against U.S. president Trump. It is
failing . Trump's support is steady if not increasing despite daily new revelation about his (non existent) "collusion with Russia"
and the (non existing) "Russian interference" in the U.S. election.
The purveyors of the propaganda stories are in despair. Each and every new fire they try to stoke dies off within a day or two.
The temptation then is to invent and push ever bigger lies about Trump, Russia and their non-existing connections.
The fake news Mounk spits out, and which disqualify him as an academic, is a sign of their accelerating panic.
Posted by b on July 16, 2017 at 11:06 AM |
Permalink
Judging by the comments in "Professor" Mounk's Twitter feed, the vast majority are pretty much wise to the deception. Whether
this holds for the retweets I don't know. But I'm pretty sure we are witnessing the decay of the establishment.
Reminder these journalists and academics are so evil they actually want to repeal and replace the historic American nation with
a variety of mystery meat immigration (invasion).
Lemoine ( http://www.twitter.com/phl43) destroys the liberal
media bullshit narrative piece by piece. I haven't found a more thorough discussion anywhere else online. It's well worth reading
just for its clarity and strength of argumentation.
Apart from the two you mentioned, you can make out several other names right off the bat, like Soviet journalist Alexander
Kaverznev who died in 1983 and Gennadiy Kurennoy who died together with colleague and fellow Gosteleradio SSSR journalist Viktor
Nogin in an armed ambush in Yugoslavia, during the war in 1991. Also visible is Andrey Pralnikov, who died in 1997 after finally
succumbing to radiation injuries he sustained in 1986 during his on-site coverage of the Chernobyl accident (he wrote a book about,
too).
In short, the portraits in that room are just Soviet and Russian journalists that have died on the job, regardless of how these
deaths occured, and it goes back to the 1980s at least. Quite obviously, of the actual violence-related deaths the vast majority
are from the 1990's, since there's been a rather dramatic downwards trend since Putin assumed office.
On his blog (I don't know if it's still up) Fedia Kriukov did an in-depth assessment of the cases post-2000 (i.e. the ones
actually "under Putin") and found that several had nothing to do with the journalists' professional activities, but were just
the results of them dealing with the criminal underworld themselves, some were the results of violence not targeting them but
targeting people they happened to be covering at the time (e.g. Scott in 2002 and Khasanov in 2004), some were just pure bad luck,
and out of the very few that actually were clear targeted killings it always had to do with organized crime (Domnikov, Politovskaya,
Klebnikov).
And this is where the aforementioned downwards trend comes in, because the only correlation between journalists being murdered
and the Putin period is strongly negative, and the reason is that the chief cause of investigative journalists being murdered
- rampant organized crime and corrupted local law enforcement and officials - has been tackled rather successfully since 2000.
Illuminating how widely quoted and passed on is the rubbish of Yascha Mounk, and 'et al'. What does this say about the publications
and outlets that give such dishonesty a megaphone? They must lose credibility.
Paul Craig Roberts has written at various times words to the effect that just about all public and private institutions
in the US are now corrupt. It's hard to find examples that refute that thesis.
I interpret PCR's words to at core mean that dishonesty, including evil omission, is now in the United States pervasive, normalized,
institutionalized, 'mandatory' for those who want to remain 'gainfully employed' or accepted by those institutions.
That famous quote often identified with Orwell "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act" is
the opposite side of that same coin.
This culture of bs is of course much broader than the US. We have the now famous confession by Udo Ulfkotte that much German
media is corrupt, CIA controlled, bought and paid for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1lWKyRI10w
Another obscure but telling example: we have in Canada a book by Dr. Chopra titled 'Corrupt to the Core', detailing the situation
at Health Canada during Chopra's long employment there.
And the WHO has been a snake in the grass for example when it comes to radioactivity and human health, for two generations
allowing the nuclear powers that in effect act as censoring and misleading gatekeepers for material on that subject emanating
from the WHO. http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who
Perhaps I am engaging in wishfukl thinking but it seems to me we are seeing more and more signs of the breakdown of that systematic
and comprehensive dishonesty machine that has infiltrated so many institutions and required and rewarded dishonesty in so many
people? And along with that breakdown, the declining power of even so-called 'distinguished' institutions to wield power on behalf
of lies. The 'appeal to whatever authority' seems to be losing much of its previous punch.
The recent increase in disclosures and public awareness of institutionalized pedo-predation is an example. Trump's election
in the face of an unprecedented media and elite hostility, and extreme by same support for Clinton, to me suggests there is more
than just a leak in the disgusting dike sustaining dishonesty as default position.
And when it comes to Putin, his popularity not just in Russia has been sustained or even grown in the face of an extreme mass
media demonization effort.
The process puts me in mind of that scene from the Wizard of Oz where the wicked Witch is melting away, truth/water as deadly
nemesis.
so this is what Harvard has to offer. and to think having a Harvard education used to mean something.
two are the choices here, either malice or incompetence. I want to believe it is merely because he is incurious and is getting
enough positive feedback from his echo chamber but fear he knows full well what he is doing.
What is the endgame? How will rotten relations with Russia improve the lives of US citizens? If not the general population,
then who stands to gain?
Senate to examine financial records of firm behind notorious Trump-Russia dossier
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
letter requesting permission for the smearing of Jean Seberg.
page two of request for permission to smear of Jean Seberg
letter granting permission for the smearing of Jean Seberg.
Click for full size picture of the Haber Article that launched the smear.
memo that accompanied copy of the Haber story sent to FBI files.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
Click for full sized page.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
New
York Times![[That Darned Cat]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/darncat1.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[That Darned Cat]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/darncat2.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Skidoo page 1]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/skidoo1.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Skidoo page 2]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/skidoo2.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Skidoo page 3]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/skidoo3.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Skidoo page 4]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/skidoo4.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Seberg Letter Page 1]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/SEB/seberg1.jpg)
letter requesting
permission for the smearing of Jean Seberg.![[Seberg Letter Page 2]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/SEB/seberg2.jpg)
page two of
request for permission to smear of Jean Seberg![[Seberg Letter Page 1]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/SEB/seberg3.jpg)
letter granting
permission for the smearing of Jean Seberg.![[Seberg Letter Page 2]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/SEB/seberg4.jpg)
Click for full
size picture of the Haber Article that launched the smear.![[Seberg Letter Page 1]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/SEB/seberg5.jpg)
memo that
accompanied copy of the Haber story sent to FBI files.![[Lennon 1]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon01.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 2]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon02.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 3]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon03.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 4]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon04.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 5]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon05.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 6]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon06.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 7]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon07.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 8]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon08.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 9]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon09.gif)
Click for
full sized page.![[Lennon 10]](http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/CELEB/lennon10.gif)
Click for
full sized page.