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 Al-Attar's license to practice medicine was revoked by the Maryland State Board of Physicians and he had to pay a $50,000 fine for unprofessional conduct, healthcare fraud, and failure to cooperate with an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.
"... 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.
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.
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.
"... Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common good ..."
"... Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare. ..."
Gessen felt
that the Russiagate gambit would flop, given a lack of smoking-gun evidence and sufficient
public interest, particularly among Republicans.
Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that
ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common
good : racism, voter suppression (which may well have
elected Trump , by the way), health care, plutocracy, police- and prison-state-ism,
immigrant rights, economic exploitation and inequality, sexism and environmental ruination --
you know, stuff like that.
Some of the politically engaged populace noticed the problem early on. According to the
Washington political journal The Hill , last
summer ,
Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding
message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the
Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried
about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and
healthcare.
Here we are now, half a year later, careening into a dystopian holiday season. With his
epically low approval rating of 32 percent
, the orange-tinted bad grandpa in the Oval Office has won a viciously regressive tax bill that
is widely rejected by the populace. The bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress
whose current
approval rating stands at 13 percent. It is a major legislative victory for the
Republicans, a party whose approval rating fell to an all-time
low of 29 percent at the end of September -- a party that tried to send a child molester to
the U.S. Senate.
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.
"... 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.
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.
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."
"... 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.
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.
Congressman Tells Rod Rosenstein That James Comey BROKE THE LAW then Rosenstein Agrees! 12/13/17
Congressman Louie Gohmert brings up the fact that past FBI Director James Comey broke federal law and FBI employee policy by intentionally
leaking a memo of his conversations with President Donald Trump to a friend to then leak to the press. Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein then agrees with the Congressman.
"... 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.
Last month Seth Rich, a data analyst who worked for the DNC, was shot near his home in Washington DC. He was on the phone to his
girlfriend when it happened. Police were called to the scene and discovered the young man's body at roughly 4.20am. It was reported
that Rich was "covered in bruises", shot "several times" and "at least once in the back".
The New York Daily News reported:
" police have found little information to explain his death. At this time, there are no suspects, no motive and no witnesses
in Rich's murder.
While initial theories were that the killing was robbery or mugging gone wrong, the Washington Post said:
" There is no immediate indication that robbery was a motive in the attack but it has not been ruled out as a possibility."
Rich's family have also reported that nothing was taken:
" [Rich's] hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they
never took anything."
On August 9th Julian Assange gave an interview on Dutch television in which he seemed to imply that Rich's death was politically
motivated, and perhaps suggest he had been a source for the DNC e-mail leak:
That same day wikileaks tweeted that they were offering a $20,000 dollar reward for information on the killing of Mr Rich.
These are the facts of the case, so far. And they are undisputed.
I'm not going to take a position on the motive for Mr Rich's killing, or possible suspects. But I do want to point out the general
level of media silence. Take these facts and change the names – imagine Trump's email had been hacked, and then a staffer with possible
ties to wikileaks was inexplicably shot dead. Imagine this poor young man had been a Kremlin whistleblower, or a Chinese hacker,
or an Iranian blogger.
If this, as yet unsolved, murder had ties to anyone other than Hillary Clinton, would it be being so ritually and rigourously
ignored by the MSM?
"... In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information." ..."
"... It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Johnson's letter also questions an " insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...." ..."
"... One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. (h/t @TheLastRefuge2 ) ..."
"... That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information is being discussed. ..."
"... And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know they weren't hacked, they were leaked. ..."
"... Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's nothing here. ..."
"... Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets. ..."
"... They have had a year to destroy the evidence. Why should the CIA controlled MSM report the truth? ..."
"... Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means "I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer their statements to figure out what they did. ..."
"... And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7. Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS. ..."
FBI Edits To Clinton Exoneration Go Far Beyond What Was Previously Known; Comey, McCabe, Strzok ImplicatedTyler Durden Dec 15, 2017 10:10 AM 0 SHARES
detailed in a
Thursday letter from committee chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray.
James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok
The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement
with senior FBI officials , including Peter Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor
, E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by
Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in what was a coordinated
conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton's conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information,
and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate
Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.
Heather Samuelson and Heather Mills
Also mentioned in the letter are the immunity agreements granted by the FBI in June 2016 to top Obama advisor Cheryl Mills and
aide Heather Samuelson - who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the remaining 30,000 records to
the State Department. Of note, the FBI agreed to destroy evidence on devices owned by Mills and Samuelson which were turned over
in the investigation.
Sen. Johnson's letter reads:
According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy
Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa,
and an employee on the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise dates of the edits and identities
of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey's statement
in at least three respects .
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department after anti-Trump text messages to his mistress were
uncovered by an internal FBI watchdog - was responsible for downgrading the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal
charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless."
"Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary,
gross negligence is " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.
According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to "gross negligence": "What my client
did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option
but to recommend prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing
defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared
that Hillary had broken the law.
In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification
for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on
Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly
negligent in their handling of that information."
Also removed from Comey's statement were all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in investigating Clinton's
private email server.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the Intelligence Community to assess
potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. The original statement read:
[W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what
indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.
The edited version removed the references to the intelligence community:
[W]e have done extensive work [removed] to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection
with the personal e-mail operation.
Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey's statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors,
changing their language from "reasonably likely" to "possible" - an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase
"Gross negligence." To put it another way, "reasonably likely" means the probability of a hack due to Clinton's negligence is above
50 percent, whereas the hack simply being "possible" is any probability above zero.
It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion
of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
The original draft read:
Given the combination of factors, we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's
private email account."
The edited version from Director Comey's July 5 statement read:
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal
e-mail account.
Johnson's letter also questions an "
insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa
Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected
-- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...."
One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on
August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became
the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to
Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a
counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
(h/t @TheLastRefuge2 )
Transcript , James Comey Testimony to House Intel Committee, March 20, 2016
The letter from the Senate Committee concludes; "the edits to Director Comey's public statement, made months prior to the conclusion
of the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI's public evaluation of the implications
of her actions . This effort, seen in the light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the
Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an "insurance policy" against Mr. Trump's election, raise profound questions
about the FBI's role and possible interference in the 2016y presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel
Mueller's investigation of President Trump ."
Johnson then asks the FBI to answer six questions:
Please provide the names of the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who comprised the "mid-year review team" during the
FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server.
Please identify all FBI, DOJ, or other federal employees who edited or reviewed Director Comey's July 5, 2016 statement .
Please identify which individual made the marked changes in the documents produced to the Committee.
Please identify which FBI employee repeatedly changed the language in the final draft statement that described Secretary Clinton's
behavior as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless. " What evidence supported these changes?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to remove the reference to the Intelligence Community . On what
basis was this change made?
Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to downgrade the FBI's assessment that it was "reasonably likely"
that hostile actors had gained access to Secretary Clinton's private email account to merely that than [sic] intrusion was "possible."
What evidence supported these changes?
Please provide unredacted copies of the drafts of Director Comey's statement, including comment bubbles , and explain the
basis for the redactions produced to date.
We are increasingly faced with the fact that the FBI's top ranks have been filled with political ideologues who helped Hillary
Clinton while pursuing the Russian influence narrative against Trump (perhaps as the "insurance" Strzok spoke of). Meanwhile, "hands
off" recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions and assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein don't seem very excited to explore the
issues with a second Special Counsel. As such, we are now almost entirely reliant on the various Committees of congress to pursue
justice in this matter. Perhaps when their investigations have concluded, President Trump will feel he has the political and legal
ammunition to truly clean house at the nation's swampiest agencies.
All I see in this story is that the FBI edits their work to make sure the terminology is consistent throughout. This is not
a smoking gun of anything, except bureaucratic procedure one would find anywhere any legal documents are prepared.
That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once
the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires
a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information
is being discussed.
Now, if Hillary hadn't been such an arrogant bitch, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If she had just take the locked-down
Android of iOS phone they issued her, instead of having to forward everything to herself so she could use her stupid Blackberry
(which can't be locked down to State Dep't. specs), everything would have been both hunky and dory.
And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know
they weren't hacked, they were leaked.
Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing
will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's
nothing here.
That obongo of all crooks is involved is a sure fact, but I'd like to see how many remaining defenders of the cause are still
motivated to lose everything for this thing...
In other terms, what are the defection rates in the dem party, because now this must be an avalanche.
Please, EVERYONE with a Twitter account send this message Every Day (tell your friends on facebook):
Mr. President, the time to purge the Obama-Clinton holdovers has long passed. Please get rid of them at once. Make your base
happy. Fire 100+ from DOJ - State - FBI. Hire William K. Black as Special Prosecutor
Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for
more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access
to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets.
Of course, they may all be related, since Debbie Wasserman-Shits brought them in and set them up, then intertwined their work
in Congress with their work for the DNC.
Just more theater. Throwing a bone to the few citizens who think for themselves. Giving us false hope the US legal system isn't
corrupt. This will never be prosecuted, because the deep state remains in control. They've had a year to destroy the incriminating
evidence.
Ryan and his buddies in Congress will make strained faces (as if taking a dump) and wring their hands saying they must hire
a "Special" Investigator to cover up this mess.
They tweet that crap all the time. Usually just a repeat with different names, but always blaming a Ruskie. About every 6 months
they hit on a twist in the wording that causes it to go viral.
Before Trump was elected , I thought the only way to get our country back was through a Military Coup, but it appears there
may be some light at the end of the tunnel.
I wonder if that light is coming from the soon to be gaping hole in the FBI's asshole when the extent of this political activism
by the agency eventually seeps into the public conciousness.
you can't clean up a mess of this magnitude. fire everyone in washington---senator, representative, fbi, cia, nsa ,etc and
start over---has NO chance of happenning
the only hope for a non violent solution is that a true leader emerges that every decent person can rally behind and respect,
honor and dignity become the norm. unfortunately, corruption has become a culture and i don't know if it can be eradicated
Just expose the Congress, McCabe, Lindsey, McCabe, Clinton, all Dem judges, Media, Hollywood, local government dems as pedos;
that will half-drain the swamp.
If Trump gets the swamp cleaned without a military coup, he will be one of our greatest Presidents. There will be people who
hate that more than they hate being in jail.
Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means
"I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer
their statements to figure out what they did.
And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty
Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7.
Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS.
I have - it's was NBC Nightly News - they spent time on the damning emails from Strozk. Maybe 2-3 minutes. Normal news segment
time. Surprised the hell out of me.
the "MSM" needs to cover their own asses ...like "an insurance policy" just in case the truth comes out... best to be seen
reporting on the REAL issue at least for a couple minutes..
"... How is your Debbie Wasserman doing -- did not she threatened the DC police investigator for doing his job of investigating the Awan affair? Debbie has been a major protector of the Awan family that accomplished the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity. And how is your Nobel Peace Laureate doing -- collecting nice fees from banksters for his betrayal of democracy in the US? ..."
Are you shocked about Seth Rich murder? Wikileaks has offered a reward to speed up a
search for the murderers, whereas DNC did nothing. Nothing! But the DNC was very active when
certain Mr. Awan needed legal protection.
How is your Debbie Wasserman doing -- did not she threatened the DC police investigator for
doing his job of investigating the Awan affair? Debbie has been a major protector of the Awan
family that accomplished the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity. And how is your Nobel
Peace Laureate doing -- collecting nice fees from banksters for his betrayal of democracy in
the US?
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.
Hillary Clinton "actually listening to the people"??? Nonsense.
Democrats lost because she didn't bother to listen to the concerns of the working class.
Instead, she demonized and ridiculed them. If Democrats don't return to their one-time base
in the working class, we will be doomed to more Donald Trumps and more massive transfers of
wealth from those to work for a living to the very rich.
As a lifetime progressive, I categorically reject the neoliberal political philosophy of
both Clinton and Obama. In addition to being morally wrong, it is foolish, because in
kicking out both the working class and progressives like me, they don't have enough votes
to win elections. I also reject lying in order to undo the will of the American people.
Russia-gate is, from the "evidence" given, total BS.
The will of those stinking (not a word I would use) undesirables at Walmart was to raise
their collective middle fingers at the elites who have abandoned them and thrown them under
the bus. They were voting against phony promises of hope and change. They were voting
against NAFTA and the TPP. And guess what: Plenty of them would have voted for Bernie
Sanders.
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.
"... If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual crimes were committed during them. ..."
"... The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy has come to light. ..."
"... There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks; ..."
"... There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy. ..."
"... If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists. ..."
"... Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would countenance fishing expeditions . It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is now engaging in. ..."
"... Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said. ..."
"... Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved? ..."
"... My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an editorial saying that Mueller should resign. ..."
"... It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take an objective view of its actions. ..."
"... It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced that Hillary Clinton had been cleared. ..."
"... By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election, which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide. ..."
"... They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him. Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans. ..."
"... Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing. ..."
"... Strzok was obviously at a VERY senior pay grade. It would be very surprising if HR had any jobs at Strzok's pay grade. ..."
"... once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there so that it has to be renewed every 12 months... ..."
"... This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did ..."
Almost eighteen months after Obama's Justice Department and the FBI launched the Russiagate investigation, and seven months after
Special Counsel Robert Mueller took the investigation over, the sum total of what it has achieved is as follows
(1) an indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates which concerns entirely their prior financial dealings, and which makes no
reference to the Russiagate collusion allegations;
(2) an indictment for lying to the FBI of George Papadopoulos, the junior volunteer staffer of the Trump campaign, who during
the 2016 Presidential election had certain contacts with members of a Moscow based Russian NGO, which he sought to pass off –
falsely and unsuccessfully – as more important than they really were, and which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion
allegations; and
(3) an indictment for lying to the FBI of Michael Flynn arising from his perfectly legitimate and entirely legal contacts with
the Russian ambassador after the 2016 Presidential election, which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion allegations,
and which looks as if it was brought about by an
act of entrapment
.
Of actual evidence to substantiate the claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election Mueller has
so far come up with nothing.
Here I wish to say something briefly about the nature of "collusion".
There is no criminal offence of "collusion" known to US law, which has led some to make the point that Mueller is investigating
a crime which does not exist.
There is some force to this point, but it is one which must be heavily qualified:
(1) Though there is no crime of "collusion" in US law, there most certainly is the crime of conspiracy to perform a criminal act.
Should it ever be established that members of the Trump campaign arranged with the Russians for the Russians to hack the DNC's
and John Podesta's computers and to steal the emails from those computers so that they could be published by Wikileaks, then since
hacking and theft are serious criminal acts a criminal conspiracy would be established, and it would be the entirely proper to do
to bring criminal charges against those who were involved in it.
This is the central allegation which lies behind the whole Russiagate case, and is the crime which Mueller is supposed to be investigating.
(2) The FBI is not merely a police and law enforcement agency. It is also the US's counter-espionage agency.
If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that
the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election
from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual
crimes were committed during them.
Since impeachment is a purely political process and not a legal process, should it ever be established that there were such secret
contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in
jeopardy, then I have no doubt that Congress would say that there were grounds for impeachment even if no criminal offences had been
committed during them.
The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts
or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United
States in jeopardy has come to light.
Specifically:
(1) There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of
John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks;
and
(2) There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election
which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy.
Such contacts as did take place between the Trump campaign and the Russians were limited and innocuous and had no effect on the
outcome of the election. Specifically there is no evidence of any concerted action between the Trump campaign and the Russians to
swing the election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump.
As I have previously discussed, the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is
not such evidence .
If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has
been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community
on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists.
Why then is the investigation still continuing?
Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would
countenance fishing expeditions. It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is
now engaging in.
How else to explain the strange decision to subpoena Deutsche Bank for information about loans granted by Deutsche Bank to Donald
Trump and his businesses?
Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading
international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is
quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said.
Yet in the desperation to find some connection between Donald Trump and Russia it is to these absurdities that Mueller is reduced
to.
Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions
in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved?
My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been
partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about
the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos.
Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an
editorial saying that Mueller
should resign.
The indictment against Manafort and Gates looks sloppy and rushed. Perhaps I am wrong but there has to be at least a suspicion
that the indictments were issued in a hurry to still criticism of Mueller of the kind that was now appearing in the Wall Street Journal.
Presumably the reason the indictment against Flynn was delayed was because his lawyers had just signaled Flynn's interest in
a plea bargain, and it took a few more weeks of negotiating to work that out.
It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour
and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take
an objective view of its actions.
In fact the Wall Street Journal was more right than it perhaps realised. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the FBI's
actions are open to very serious criticism to say the least, and that Mueller is simply not the person who can be trusted to take
an objective view of those actions.
Over the course of the 2016 election the FBI cleared Hillary Clinton over her illegal use of a private server to route classified
emails whilst she was Secretary of State though it is universally agreed that she broke the law by doing so.
The FBI does not seem to have even considered investigating Hillary Clinton for possible obstruction of justice after it also
became known that she had actually destroyed thousands of her emails which passed through her private server, though that was an
obvious thing to do.
It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced
that Hillary Clinton had been cleared.
By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and
that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election,
which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and
Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide.
In other words it was because of the FBI's actions in the first half of 2016 that Bernie Sanders is not now the President of the
United States.
In addition instead of independently investigating the DNC's claims that the Russians had hacked the DNC's and John Podesta's
computers, the FBI simply accepted the opinion of an expert – Crowdstrike – paid for by the DNC, which it is now known was partly
funded and was entirely controlled by the Hillary Clinton campaign, that hacks of those computers had actually taken place and that
the Russians were the perpetrators.
As a result Hillary Clinton was able to say during the election that the reason emails which had passed through those computers
and which showed her and her campaign in a bad light were being published by Wikileaks was because the Russians had stolen the emails
by hacking the computers in order to help Donald Trump.
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. The first meeting apparently took place in early 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 continued to be so 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 belonging to involved the campaign team 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 officially whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI obtaining the FISA warrants.
This was so even though officials of the FBI – including former FBI Director James Comey – have slipped out in earlier Congressional
testimony that it did.
This is also despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been provided by the Justice Department
and the FBI 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 Justice Department and the FBI 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 who supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn. It is not clear whether this
covers the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017 during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian
ambassador. However it is likely that it does.
If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's lying to the FBI during this interview which made up the case
against him and to which he has now pleaded guilty. It is potentially even more important given the strong indications that Flynn's
interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was
a set-up intended
to entrap him by tricking him into lying to the FBI.
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 the official within the FBI who was provided
by Steele with the Trump Dossier and who would have made the first assessment of 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 has however only
disclosed his sacking now, five months later and only 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 which Congressman Jordan had in mind during his angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
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 which was shown by the US intelligence chiefs to President elect Trump during their stormy meeting with him on
8th January 2017.
The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this 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 which supposedly 'proved' 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 when questioning witnesses about their supposed 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
all the surveillance warrants the FBI 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 the key official within
the FBI who decided that the Trump Dossier should be given 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 also has 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 Hillary
Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
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 very likely was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks – as he
very likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when it was finally concluded that the Trump Dossier upon which all
the FBI's actions were based could not be verified.
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.
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 in order 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 that
the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what
I said nine months ago in March .
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 primary 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 carried out 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.
Top Clinton Aides Face No Charges After Making False Statements To FBI
Neither of the Clinton associates, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, faced legal consequences for their misleading statements,
which they made in interviews last year with former FBI section chief Peter Strzok.
These are acts to overthrow the legitimate government of the USA and therefore constitute treason. Treason is still punishable
by death. It is time for some public hangings. Trump should declare martial law. Put Patraeus and Flint in charge and drain the
swamp like he promised...
Absolutely. This is not political, about justice or corruption or election coercion, this is about keeping the fires lit under
Trump, no matter how lame or lying, in the hopes that something, anything, will arise that could be used to unseat Trump. Something
that by itself would be controversial but ultimately a nothing-burger, but piled upon the months and years of lies used to build
a false consensus of corruption, criminality and impropriety of Trump. Their goal has always been to undermine Trump by convincing
the world that Trump is evil and unfit using nothing but lies, that without Trump's endless twitter counters would have buried
him by now. While they know that can't convince a significant majority that these lies are true, what they can do is convince
the majority that everyone else thinks it true, thereby in theory enabling them to unseat Trump with minimal resistance, assuming
many will simply stand down in the face of a PERCEIVED overwhelming majority.
This is about constructing a false premise that they can use minimal FACTS to confirm. They are trying and testing every day
this notion with continuing probes and jabs in hopes that something....anything, sticks.
Mueller is a lot of things, but he is a politician, and skilled at that, as he has survived years in Washington.
So why choose KNOWN partisans for your investigation? He may not have known about Strzok, but he surely knew about Weitsmann's
ties to HRC, about Rhee being Rhodes personal attorney,..so why put them on, knowing that the investigations credibility would
be damaged? No way most of this would not come out, just due to the constant leaks from the FBI/DOJ.
What is the real goal, other than taking Trump down and covering up FBI/DOJ/Obama Admin malfeasance? These goons are all highly
experienced swamp dwellers, so I think there is something that is being missed here..
" The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year
the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
"
Oh, bull crap. None of them believed a word of it, and at least some of them were in on the dossier's creation.
They just wanted to put over their impeach/resist/remove scam on us deplorables so they could hang on to power and maintain
secrecy over all their years of criminal activity.
The FBI is a fraud on the sheeple. Indoctrinated sheeple believe FBI testimony. The M.O. of the FBI is entrapment of victims
and entrapped witnesses against victims using their Form 302 interrogations. The FBI uses forensic evidence from which gullible
juries trust the FBI financed reports. Power corrupts. The power to be believed because of indoctrination corrupts absolutely.
Keep your powder dry. Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes.
All this crap comes down to ONE THING: Sessions ... why he refuses to fire a mega-conflicted and corrupt POS Mueller...
Investigative reporter Sarah Carter hinted (last Friday?) that something big would be happening "probably within the next forty-eight
hours". She related this specifically to a comment that Sessions had been virtually invisible.
I will make a prediction:
THE COMING WEEK WILL BE A TUMULTUOUS WEEK FOR THOSE OBSESSED BY THE "RUSSIA COLLUSION CONSPIRACY" .
First, Sessions will announce significant findings and actions which will directly attack the Trump-Russia-Collusion narrative.
And then, the Democrats/Media/Hillary Campaign will launch a hystierical, viscious, demented political counter attack in a
final onslaught to take down Trump.
They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him.
Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein
does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans.
When Trump tries to get out of the trap by leaking he is thinking about firing Sessions, Lispin Lindsey goes on television
to say that will not be allowed too happen. If he fires Sessions, Congress would not approve ANY of Trump's picks for DOJ-leaving
Rosenstein in charge anyway.
Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew
it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing.
There is good reason for optimism: Trumpus Maximus is on the case.
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.
The design has been exposed. It is now fairly clear WHAT the conspirators did.
We now enter the neutralization and mop-up phase.
And, very likely, people who know things will be EAGER to talk:
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.
Bloomberg fed a fake leak that Mueller had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank. Democrats (Schiff) on the House Intelligence Committee fed fake information about Don Jr. that was leaked to CNN. Leading to
an embarrassing retraction. ABC's Brian Ross fed a fake leak about the Flynn indictment. Leading to an embarrassing retraction.
Maybe the operation that Sessions set up some time ago to catch leakers is bearing fruit after all. And Mueller should realize
that the ice is breaking up all around him.
once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just
the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there
so that it has to be renewed every 12 months...
This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse
Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did, in the classic method of diversion. Sideshow magicians have been doing it for millenia--"Look
over there" while the real work is done elsewhere. The true believers don't want to believe that Hitlary and the Democrap party
are complicit in the selling of Uranium One to the Ruskies for $145 million. No, no, that was something completely different and
Hitlary is not guilty of selling out the interests of the US for money. Nope, Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
Yep, that's it.
Mueller is now the official head of a shit show that's coming apart at the seams. He was too stupid to even bring on ANY non-Hitlary
supporting leftists which could have given him a smidgen of equibility, instead he stacked the deck with sycophant libtard leftists
who by their very nature take away ANY concept of impartiality, and any jury on the planet would see through the connivance like
glass. My guess is he's far too stupid to stop, and I happily await the carnage of his actions as they decimate the Democrap party.
"... 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.
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.
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.
Currently in the USA only nationalist politicians display some level of courage and
authenticity. That's why they attract people.
The problem with superdelegates in Democratic Party is just the tip of the iceberg of the "Clinton transformation" of the
party. The Part is
now neoliberal party that have nothing to do with the democracy. At best it would qualify as a
moderate Republican wing.
Notable quotes:
"... This endless compromise won't work. The odds of the Dems intentionally trading their Big Money Corporate Supporters like Monsanto for the Working Class is somewhere between slim and none, at least in my lifetime. ..."
"... If the superdelegates were limited to currently serving Democratic members of Congress, currently serving Democratic state governors, and current or former Democratic Presidents and Vice-Presidents, it would be a huge improvement. ..."
"... No lobbyists, no big city mayors, and no state party bosses (unless they are also in one of the other permitted categories). ..."
"... I suppose it doesn't help that I watched the Truman & Wallace episodes of Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States" last night. But even before that I've been haunted by the image of shadow on the steps of Sumitomo Bank in Hiroshima, Japan. Recalling that image, the DNC's betrayals of the American people, and the short-sighted and self-serving actions of those who rule us -- detailed in trivialities by Norman Solomon -- combined these give fuller meaning to the comment Bernie Sanders made about those who rule us and their greatest concern about their place on the Titanic. ..."
"... Team D cares not a whit for its voters, but it cares very much for the concerns of big donors. ..."
"... under the new rules, those superdelegates would have to tie their votes on the convention's first ballot to the outcome of primaries and caucuses. In 2016, all superdelegates were allowed to support either candidate. ..."
"... In other words, will the practice of Clinton or the Clintonites locking the superdelegate vote up early just be merely reshaped by this process, with a new sheen of faux democracy, rather than inhibited? ..."
"... This is why the comment above by Quanka is astute: You have to tell the Democrats (and Republicans) that you won't owe your vote to them. And that you are going to burn down the party if it doesn't serve the commonwealth. ..."
"... See my post below when it comes out of moderation; Our country does have a progressive/populist tradition, but everything possible is done to erase it from contemporary memory. Now buried to memory is the history of the Non-Partisan League of North Dakota, the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, and even the Reform Republicanism of the early 1900's (Wisconsin's Robert M. La Follette for instance). ..."
"... I hate to tell you, but the New York City subway actually costs $2.75. Another testament to the neoliberal con game, as practiced by the Metropolitan Transit Authority. ..."
"... What is ironic about this issue of superdelegates is that the so called "Democratic" party has them and the party of the elite, the Republicans, do not (well, they do, but at a much smaller % and they are required to vote for whoever won their respective state primary). What is also ironic is that the reason the Dems came up with this system was to prevent blowouts in the election. Carter and McGovern had gotten trounced. The feeling was that "wiser" heads, i.e. experienced politicians could steer the party toward a more electable candidate. And how did that work out for them? First time superdelegates voted in 1984, Mondale lost 49 out of 50 states to Reagan. ..."
"... The Democrat Party is run by a bunch of careerist hacks. This is why the GOP is actually more "democratic" (and got hijacked by Trump): because it's not run by careerist hacks who are more concerned about protecting their rice bowls than they are about being responsive to the electorate. These hacks got paid a billion dollars to run the losing 2016 campaign -- they "won" the election by their self-serving metric, and now get to pay themselves to "resist" the administration that they caused to be elected through their self-serving careerism. ..."
"... And now with current 'RussiaGate' nonsense and the rest of it, and all the wars, including the genocidal destruction of Libya, and some other things, I can never again vote for a Democrat, and I won't vote for a Republican either. I voted for a Socialist once but those votes were not counted because he could not satisfy the requirements to get on the ballot -- petitions and registering in over 200 districts in the state. No one decent gets through the machine. ..."
"... The DNC's Unity Commission's behavior confirms that the real goal of the leadership of the DNC is exactly the opposite of the name of the commission. So what is their real goal? To prevent the emergence of a progressive majority. In fact, this has been their goal for decades; and in fairness, they have been very successful in realizing it to the detriment of the majority of We the People. ..."
"... While I was at the post office, I had a conversation with a longtime friend who is now in the Arizona House of Representatives. She just got elected last year. Even though she is officially a Democratic Party member, she ran as a progressive and that's how she rolls in the House. Get this, she spent this morning addressing a conservative youth group and they loved it. Compared to what they usually hear from politicians, they found her speech refreshing. It was all about balanced policy, and if she posts a video, I will share it. Perhaps the DNC will pay attention. ..."
"... I approve of bringing up this suppressed history of our country's leftist, progressive, socialist, even communist strands, not to mention the multi racial and class political alliance, social organizations, and very frequently personal connections including marriages. Don't forget that the power structure used propaganda, legislation, the law, and armed mobs that often especially, but not only, in the South with rope necklaces, lead poisoning, or if you were "lucky" multi-decade prison terms, or just merely having your home/church/business burnt. This has never really stopped. Like when Jim Crow continues by other means, so did the anti-organization. Chicago, Detroit, the South,etc. Sadly, the black misleadership also help, albeit without the violence, after MLK and others, were no longer a problem. ..."
"... So centuries of poor whites, blacks, native Americans, religious leaders, even some business leaders and some upper class people, struggling together, usually dealing with violence and murder have been dropped into the memory hole. ..."
"... Some days I just want to start screaming and not stop. ..."
The Report is fair, but supporting things like reduction of Super Delegates from the
mid-700s to mid-200s is wrong! Complaining about lack of democracy within the Party means
getting rid of them altogether! That's just one small example.
This endless compromise won't work. The odds of the Dems intentionally trading their
Big Money Corporate Supporters like Monsanto for the Working Class is somewhere between slim
and none, at least in my lifetime.
It is a good start. If the superdelegates were limited to currently serving Democratic
members of Congress, currently serving Democratic state governors, and current or former
Democratic Presidents and Vice-Presidents, it would be a huge improvement.
No lobbyists, no
big city mayors, and no state party bosses (unless they are also in one of the other
permitted categories).
I can't point to any particulars -- but I felt something disingenuous about Norman Solomon
-- something 'off'. An even meaner thought came to mind as I listened to his complaints and
details of the DNC machinations -- Norman Solomon would be perfect to work for unity in the
Green Party. He could make theater of herding the Green cats and accomplish nothing in
particular.
I suppose it doesn't help that I watched the Truman & Wallace episodes of Oliver
Stone's "Untold History of the United States" last night. But even before that I've been
haunted by the image of shadow on the steps of Sumitomo Bank in Hiroshima, Japan. Recalling
that image, the DNC's betrayals of the American people, and the short-sighted and
self-serving actions of those who rule us -- detailed in trivialities by Norman Solomon --
combined these give fuller meaning to the comment Bernie Sanders made about those who rule us
and their greatest concern about their place on the Titanic.
But this time the DNC has no dying Roosevelt to tack a Truman onto.
Aye! and you can't burn a thing down by continuing to send it money, or lend it undying
support, or by continuing to vote for their horrible lesser evil moderate republican
candidates.
I quit the damned party as loudly as i could in november 2016 emails to all and sundry,
chewing them all new ones, as it were.
i never heard a word back, of course and the AI that runs the damned thing keeps sending
me emails begging for cash; and surveys,lol which i send back to them with my chicken scratch
all in the margins with my outrage and my considered opinions. i assume all that goes unread,
as well. perhaps if i incorporated and obtained a po box in the caymans or pulau or
somewhere
Short-term (2018)–Norman Solomon is right. Only the Democratic party is in a
position to defeat the rightists. In the longer term, Howie Hawkins's recent argument for a
new, genuinely working-class party is more convincing to me. It's a lot more work,
though.
The DNC may be becoming irrelevant, but individual Democratic politicians can monetize
their current positions as they stock their personal lifeboats before the Bernie Sanders
mentioned Titanic goes down..
Instead of thinking short term and trying stay in the Dim party real left wing people need
to take the long term view and start a new party which will be the only way forward.
In the draft proposal, a special national party commission calls for keeping some 400
members of the Democratic National Committee as automatic delegates to the convention.
But under the new rules, those superdelegates would have to tie their votes on the
convention's first ballot to the outcome of primaries and caucuses. In 2016, all
superdelegates were allowed to support either candidate.
And yet
Cohen and other Democrats stressed, however, that commission members have been busy
circulating amendments ahead of the commission's weekend gathering in metro Washington.
So, which superdelegates will remain and with what actual
constraints, and how far does this move the system away from the status quo? In light of
Solomon's interview, I do wonder about actuarial sleigh-of-hand here. Is there a way of
affecting a likely purge of 2020 Sanders/"grass-roots" aligned superdelegates now? Is there a
way of suggesting that the superdelegates must vote as the states' primaries/caucuses (thus
defanging them) but then not actually imposing any real penalty of these "party elders" and
such? (Will 2020 be about "unfaithful superdelegates voting their conscience against the
party rules for the greater good"?)
In other words, will the practice of Clinton or the Clintonites locking the
superdelegate vote up early just be merely reshaped by this process, with a new sheen of faux
democracy, rather than inhibited?
The report itself is worth reading. I downloaded it a while back when Lambert and Yves
first posted it.
Solomon gets Moore wrong. Moore is not a neo-fascist or fascist. Moore represents some
very deep-seated religious ideas that are prevalent in the South and in the border states.
When Naked Capitalism and other sources report a bishop of an African-American church making
rather ambiguous comments about the rock with the Ten Commandments, we see an ancient
religious attitude emerging:
Yet as many Southerners point out, the South has a progressive / populist tradition. And
where are the Democrats? To me, this is part of the thorough corruption of the party and its
deterioration into a fan club. Too many Democrats are looking for fascists and Rooskies.
People are fleeing the party, and various Democrats living the "Don't know much about
history" aspect of U.S. culture are desperately trying to pin the fascist label on people.
And what is the solution being offered? Fly in Jon Ossoff? He didn't live in the
congressional district where he ran anyway, going counter to another deeply held U.S.
tradition, that you live in your district.
This isn't about "smart" or not smart thinking. This is about people being so thoroughly
corrupt in their thinking that they can only frame questions corruptly and give corrupt
answers. Maybe I'm being hard on Solomon, but looking for Benito Mussolini in Alabama is
wrong history, wrong metaphor, wrong diagnosis, wrong meme.
Next up? The question and and answer of "gentle" "entitlement" "reform." Corrupt from its
very inception.
This is why the comment above by Quanka is astute: You have to tell the Democrats (and
Republicans) that you won't owe your vote to them. And that you are going to burn down the
party if it doesn't serve the commonwealth.
See my post below when it comes out of moderation; Our country does have a
progressive/populist tradition, but everything possible is done to erase it from contemporary
memory. Now buried to memory is the history of the Non-Partisan League of North Dakota, the
Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, and even the Reform Republicanism of the early 1900's
(Wisconsin's Robert M. La Follette for instance).
Watt4Bob: You refer here and below to the states along the inland sea, in a sense, the
rather eccentric Great Lakes States. I'd add:
–Chicago agitators and the Haymarket "Riot" (which the police caused)
–The United Auto Workers (Flint strike among others).
–Unions and Youngstown.
–Jane Addams and her own ideas about building community and building peace.
–The Milwaukee Socialists and the mayoralty there.
–The whole rambunctious structure (if it's a structure) of neighborhood associations in
Chicago, where many of those involved in the Harold Washington campaign got their start.
–Henry Gerber, the Society for Human Rights, and the first agitation for acceptance of
gay people, 1924, Chicago. Who even knew that midwesterners thought about politico-sexual
themes?
Yes, there is very talented group of people here who simply have to cut down on the
distractions and get back to work.
Socialism was actually a powerful movement -- with elected officials -- all throughout the
Upper Midwest during the so-called Progressive Era and the 1920s. Part of this was a result
of German settlements; any Midwestern town with a significant population of Germans
(especially from Hamburg) had a strong socialist impulse. Often this was manifest in the
elected officials, but even where the Socialists didn't win elections, they were able to
influence policy.
I have little patience for the so-called "Democrats" who, as you said above "don't know
much about history".
Thank you for bringing those points up. I'd say that buzzwords like fascist and Nazi are
bull horned (as opposed to Republican dog whistles) only as a means to distract from actual
policy issues (vis-a-vis Bernie), but I wonder if it is the case that even the most cynical
Clintonites believe their own BS at this point. These narratives have taken on a life of
their own.
I don't think Norman Solomon has bad intentions. If anything he is appealing to pragmatism
and reason too strongly in a political environment that is unreasonable. Bernie does a much
better job at blowing the emotional horn just enough to fit the political zeitgeist while
maintaining an engine of actual policy issues to move his political machine. Historically,
this has always been a successful strategy for socialists, Americans love fire-brands.
As far as Norman's claims of fascism I just don't see how tossing around those terms adds
any strategic value to the political struggle against the right. It just comes across as
preaching to the choir. We (the left) all know Moore is an ass, calling him fascist doesn't
make that any more evident. The trick is trying to understand why he is still viable
politically to a significant number of people despite being an ass. This was the mistake made
with Trump. To loosely paraphrase Adolph Reed, calling something fascist or Nazi and $2.25
will get me a ride on the subway but it does nothing to develop action to counter right wing
agendas. The normalization of the right (Republicans) does not occur because they have
"better ideas" (their current tax bill shows they aren't even trying to appeal to 99% of
society) it is because the current left option in the USA (Democrats) are offering
no ideas , or certain members are not allowed to express ideas because of corporate power and
corporate-supported political power. Assuming I am directing this at the DNC, then who is
actually supporting the so-called fascists?
As goes fascism in the United States, I don't really think anyone has a good
definition. Some see it as a politics that are largely aesthetic as opposed to based on
discourse or debate. Some see it as a marriage of corporate power with state power with
police and military supremacy. By those two measures I think the USA is already deeply
fascist. Though it seems by the current measures, the only thing that make someone
unequivocally fascist (or Nazi) is their being a bigot. This simplistic view of fascism is an
insult to history, and all the people that either died fighting fascism or were sacrificed at
its political altar.
I hate to tell you, but the New York City subway actually costs $2.75. Another
testament to the neoliberal con game, as practiced by the Metropolitan Transit
Authority.
What is ironic about this issue of superdelegates is that the so called "Democratic"
party has them and the party of the elite, the Republicans, do not (well, they do, but at a
much smaller % and they are required to vote for whoever won their respective state primary).
What is also ironic is that the reason the Dems came up with this system was to prevent
blowouts in the election. Carter and McGovern had gotten trounced. The feeling was that
"wiser" heads, i.e. experienced politicians could steer the party toward a more electable
candidate. And how did that work out for them? First time superdelegates voted in 1984,
Mondale lost 49 out of 50 states to Reagan.
I think a little history would be useful at this point to help us understand that we've
been this way before.
As concerns the Minnesota Farmer-Labor party which later merged with the Minnesota
Democratic Party to form the DFL, which has lately devolved, IMO, Wellstone and Franken not
withstanding, to much more closely resemble the party of Clintonism than the party of the
young Hubert Humphrey.
The Minnesota Farmer–Labor Party emerged from the Nonpartisan League in North Dakota
and the Union Labor
Party in Duluth, Minnesota, on a platform of farmer and labor union protection,
government ownership of certain industries, and social security laws.[2] One of the primary
obstacles of the party, besides constant vilification on the pages of local and state
newspapers, was the difficulty of uniting the party's divergent base and maintaining
political union between rural farmers and urban laborers who often had little in common
other than the populist perception that they were an oppressed class of hardworking
producers exploited by a small elite.
That 'divergent base' thing ring a bell anyone?
"The farmer approached problems as a proprietor or petty capitalist. Relief to him meant
a mitigation of conditions that interfered with successful farming. It involved such things
as tax reduction, easier access to credit, and a floor under farm prices. His individualist
psychology did not create scruples against government aid, but he welcomed it only as long
as it improved agricultural conditions. When official paternalism took the form of public
works or the dole, he openly opposed it because assistance on such terms forced him to
abandon his chosen profession, to submerge his individuality in the labor crew, and to
suffer the humiliation of the bread line. Besides, a public works program required
increased revenue, and since the state relied heavily on the property tax, the cost of the
program seemed likely to fall primarily on him.
At the opposite end of the seesaw sat the city worker, who sought relief from the
hunger, exposure, and disease that followed the wake of unemployment. Dependent on an
impersonal industrial machine, he had sloughed off the frontier tradition of individualism
for the more serviceable doctrine of cooperation through trade unionism. Unlike the
depressed farmer, the unemployed worker often had no property or economic stake to protect.
He was largely immune to taxation and had nothing to lose by backing proposals to dilute
property rights or redistribute the wealth. Driven by the primitive instinct to survive,
the worker demanded financial relief measures from the state."
The upper-midwest was fly-over land long before the Wright brothers, and it makes perfect
sense that the the Minnesota Farmer-Labor, and its predecessor, the Non-Partisan League of
North Dakota should sprout here, where the effects of elite neglect/abuse and the related
Great Depression had left We the People feeling mis/unrepresented by the two
national parties.
Of course it's good to remember that Hubert Humphrey, and the Minnesota Democratic party
did not embrace the populist revolt until it had been successful on its own, in electing
multiple Minnesota Governors, Senators, and Representatives in the 1920-30's, but embrace it
they did, and from 1944 until the 1970's, the DFL stood for something a bit more than the
local franchise of the National Party.
I strongly encourage you to follow the links in the quotes above, you'll find the history
of, among other things, the Bank of North Dakota, still the only state-owned bank in the
country, founded in 1919 to allow ND farmers to break the strangle-hold that banks in
Minneapolis and Chicago held over the farmers of the northern plains, and demand of working
people for free, universal health-care.
So far, the Democratic party, sadly, including the DFL, seems dedicated to putting down
the populist revolt by its neglected base, but with some hard work maybe this time around we
can figure out how to shorten the time between being resisted and being embraced.
The enemies are perennial, so are the solutions, but populism did have a season of
successes in the first half of the 20th century, and there is no reason to think it couldn't
happen again.
Remember too, the Non Partisan League of
Alberta Canada, and was one of the principal champions of universal healthcare that Canadians
now enjoy.
I think incumbent Governors and Congress members have earned the right to be a super
delegate by virtue of having won their own election. Their re-election will be affected by
the top of the ticket.
If Repubs had been blessed with super delegates, would Trump have still won?
July 2016, after the primaries were over, the WaPo, that bastion of Dem estab groupthink,
suggested the GOP adopt super delegates to avoid another surprise primary outcome. And we see
how well not having super delegates turned out for the GOP.
"There are probably a few missteps I am forgetting. Priebus's spinelessness may well
result in an irretrievably divided party, not to mention a humiliating loss in a critical,
entirely winnable election. Priebus's successor had better learn some lessons from 2016. He
or she might also consider using super delegates. It turns out party grownups are needed.
This cycle they've been AWOL."
The Democrat Party is run by a bunch of careerist hacks. This is why the GOP is
actually more "democratic" (and got hijacked by Trump): because it's not run by careerist
hacks who are more concerned about protecting their rice bowls than they are about being
responsive to the electorate. These hacks got paid a billion dollars to run the losing 2016
campaign -- they "won" the election by their self-serving metric, and now get to pay
themselves to "resist" the administration that they caused to be elected through their
self-serving careerism.
They're not going to let go of the self-licking ice cream cone that the Democrat Party has
become until their comprehensive election losses make it obvious to the Wall Street Wing that
they're wasting their money. That day may be coming soon; however, the current coup d'etat in
Washington may render a party of $27 donors irrelevant
This: "until their comprehensive election losses make it obvious to the Wall Street Wing
that they're wasting their money. "^^^
A similar sentiment was included in all of the flurry of angry emails i sent hither and
yon when I quit the demparty right after the election. ie: the current course of pleasing the
donors is unsustainable if they continue to chase off their own base. what are the donors
paying for?
one would presume a voice in gooberment .meaning won seats,lol.
without voters, why would any self respecting conglomerate continue to shell out dough to the
demparty?
of course, all the hippie-punching and other abuse of their base makes perfect sense if the
demparty is, in truth, a ringer party for the oligarchs a pressure relief valve, like on the
side of a water heater
if, in other words, they pretend to be the "opposition" and "for the people"(tm) so all
us'n's don't go rabid and Wobbly.
This seems a more and more likely explanation every week.
Perhaps old age and failing memory is to blame, but I can't remember not hearing the
nonsense arguments of 'vote for the lesser of two evils and reform from within', and the fear
mongering about the right or Republicans winning. (Republicans used to have sort-of 'liberal'
members, like Lowell Weicker, who would make current Democrats look like fascists -- well, a
lot of them are really ). It never worked and everything just gets worse.
And now with current 'RussiaGate' nonsense and the rest of it, and all the wars,
including the genocidal destruction of Libya, and some other things, I can never again vote
for a Democrat, and I won't vote for a Republican either. I voted for a Socialist once but
those votes were not counted because he could not satisfy the requirements to get on the
ballot -- petitions and registering in over 200 districts in the state. No one decent gets
through the machine.
I've given up on both parties, and their phony elections -- there are no solutions there.
What is needed is to see through the games and destroy the machine. Not easy but there is no
other way. Solomon is part of the machine, and the so-called 'progressives' are not
progressive. We are at the point where the only possible solutions are radical -- striking at
the root. The collapse of the empire and capitalism (corporatism -- just a larval stage of
fascism) is coming one way or another because it is not sustainable -- and that which cannot
be sustained will not be. It's like how slavery and feudalism reached a point where they
could no longer survive as dominant systems, nor returned to as such (similar to how the gold
standard, or non-tech agricultural society can not be universally restored). The writing
finger moves on.
We can either see how the global wind of history and culture is blowing and intelligently
move ahead with it, or we can destroy ourselves. The action must be on the streets, in the
workplace, from the masses, in collective consciousness, and world wide. Democrat shills like
Solomon and clowns like Trump should be ignored as symptomatic noise.
The DNC's Unity Commission's behavior confirms that the real goal of the leadership of
the DNC is exactly the opposite of the name of the commission. So what is their real goal? To
prevent the emergence of a progressive majority. In fact, this has been their goal for
decades; and in fairness, they have been very successful in realizing it to the detriment of
the majority of We the People.
Thank you for shining the light on this latest episode of their actions for their
financial benefactors.
Just got back from running errands. While I was at the post office, I had a
conversation with a longtime friend who is now in the Arizona House of Representatives. She
just got elected last year. Even though she is officially a Democratic Party member, she ran
as a progressive and that's how she rolls in the House. Get this, she spent this morning
addressing a conservative youth group and they loved it. Compared to what they usually hear
from politicians, they found her speech refreshing. It was all about balanced policy, and if
she posts a video, I will share it. Perhaps the DNC will pay attention.
it's really not possible for the leaders at the national level of the Democratic Party
to have a close working relationship with the base when it's afraid of the base.
And strangely, this is a big reason for why after three plus decades, I am no longer an
active member of the party. If you treat the majority of American nation as dangerous,
deplorable, or at best just dumb, please don't be shocked when people start either start
ignoring you, or just try to get rid of.
I approve of bringing up this suppressed history of our country's leftist,
progressive, socialist, even communist strands, not to mention the multi racial and class
political alliance, social organizations, and very frequently personal connections including
marriages. Don't forget that the power structure used propaganda, legislation, the law, and
armed mobs that often especially, but not only, in the South with rope necklaces, lead
poisoning, or if you were "lucky" multi-decade prison terms, or just merely having your
home/church/business burnt. This has never really stopped. Like when Jim Crow continues by
other means, so did the anti-organization. Chicago, Detroit, the South,etc. Sadly, the black
misleadership also help, albeit without the violence, after MLK and others, were no longer a
problem.
So centuries of poor whites, blacks, native Americans, religious leaders, even some
business leaders and some upper class people, struggling together, usually dealing with
violence and murder have been dropped into the memory hole.
Some days I just want to start screaming and not stop.
"... The Demopublican War Party: United to shovel more money into the maw of the oligarch class while stealing dollars, services, and servitude from the working class. Reverse Robin Hood/Reverse Socialism in full effect. ..."
"... Currently, we have $20T debt but the U.S. govt is borrowing at short term rates in order to get this amazingly low debt service. ..."
"... Does anyone else believe that this is the game the U.S. govt is playing? If it is then I wonder what the consequences are in keeping short term interest rates at artificially low levels in perpetuity. ..."
"... I'll start taking the "deficit hawks" seriously when they start talking Defense procurement reform. Until then, its just "balance the budget on the backs of widows and orphans". ..."
"... For those who are fortunate enough not to live in these Benighted States: have pity upon us, especially those of us who done our best to fight against this horror show. Democraps are either just as bad or worse bc of their duplicity. The GOP is, at least, totally loud and proud of who they are, and no more dog whistles for them. ..."
"... poll end of October 2017 shows widespread fed up with government policies and war https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/news/cki-real-clear-politics-foreign-policy-poll/ ..."
"... It is impressive how the Democrats do nothing, but nothing at all against the catastrophic tax 'reform', instead - me too! ..."
"... I am still waiting on my Reagan trickle down. Reagan and fellow thieves stole social security funds to make their deficit look lower. Those funds have not been paid back....approximately $3,000,000,000,000. Now the dead beats are planning on slipping out of town. ..."
"... We should go back to the 1960 tax structure , the one in place after eight years of Eisenhower, so it should get plenty of Republican support, yes? ..."
"... You are already seeing the consequences of artificially low short term rates. Negative yielding sovereign European debt - meaning you pay to lend to some European governments. ..."
"... People don't understand what money is our how it is and can be created. They imagine it is like gold and limited in supply so that government can spend only from a finite supply which they must obtain by taxes or loans that require interest to be paid. This fable is about as true as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Money has no value but as an instrument of exchange. It can be created by government to pay for benefit of a nation. Instead we allow private bankers to create money via loans (no printing press needed its just a line item on a spread sheet on their computers which shows up in the borrowers account) The privately owned central bank system limits or increases the supply by various means in a cyclical manner which leads to boom and bust cycles in the economy. The rich get richer after each bust cycle since they have cash to acquire assets available at depressed prices ..."
"... There's no reason why with the current state of technology so much money is needed to campaign for office. Almost as if the MSM is conditioning us to believe it necessary. There's no reason some one can't run a campaign using social media, YouTube and video conferencing instead of advertising (on same MSM) travelling long distances to campaign rallies and broadcast advertising. Microdonations and volunteering assistance can take care of the rest. If there is a will, there's a way to run an outsider as a candidate. The recent death of Anderson reminded me of his difficulties running, but he ran at a time when none of these technologies existed. ..."
"... Churning out extra dosh works when it is part of a larger plan to increase productivity by encouraging people outta pointless 'shit industry' service jobs into either outright production like manufacturing or primary industry, or infrastructure investment like railways, roads, bridges & renewable energy projects. Just pumping fresh new bills into health n education will be great for those who work in these sectors, but is unlikely to create much flow on to the rest of the population. ..."
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Thursday said the tax cuts included in the tax reform
package Republican lawmakers crafted in conjunction with the Trump Administration have to be
deficit neutral so as to conform with budget reconciliation rules.
The U.S. Republican tax cut plan that President Donald Trump wants passed by the end of the
year is unlikely to trigger a big deficit expansion because it will spur more investment and
job growth, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan told Reuters in an interview on
Wednesday.
"Paul Ryan deficit hawk is also a growth advocate. Paul Ryan deficit hawk also knows that you
have to have a faster growing economy, more jobs, bigger take-home pay, that means higher tax
revenues ," Ryan told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday."
The tax overhaul legislation that Ryan shepherded through the House -- the Senate takes up
its version this week -- would add at least $1 trillion to budget deficits over the next
decade, even when accounting for economic growth, according to independent tax analysts.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Wednesday said House Republicans will aim to cut spending
on Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs next year as a way to trim the federal deficit .
"We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle
the debt and the deficit ," Ryan said during an interview on Ross Kaminsky's talk radio
show.
And no. The Democrats aren't any better. Look at the trillions Obama handed to Wall Street.
That wasn't even a tax cut, it was a give-away. Obamacare is a sham, willfully constructed in
way that makes sure it can't survive. The Democrats only pretend to care for the people. As
soon as they again have a majority and fake intent for pro-social reforms the Repubs will again
whine about the deficit and the Democrats will be happy to fold.
The Demopublican War Party: United to shovel more money into the maw of the oligarch class
while stealing dollars, services, and servitude from the working class. Reverse Robin
Hood/Reverse Socialism in full effect.
Indeed. Two faces, same coin. The msm desperately wants to keep the relevant the age-old
rope-a-dope of the Demotards vs. Rethuglicans 2K17! Jesus, ever-loving-Christ, though, you
fuck with social security and Medicare and you bring on the wrath of AARP's membership.
Release the BLUE-HAIRS!
Can't wait, but that is another struggle for another day. In the mean time, I notice that
even the mention of Paul Ryan elicits a shudder. Such a slime.
It [was] a remarkably low $240B as of 2016. Does this mean that the Fed can just keep short term
rates low or even reduce them, vis-a-vis the Japanese model, and allow U.S. govt debt to grow
to arbitrarily high levels?
Currently, we have $20T debt but the U.S. govt is borrowing at short term rates in order
to get this amazingly low debt service. Now let's suppose over the next 50yrs our national
debt grows to a ridiculous $100T, if the fed puts short term rates at 0.1% then our annual
debt service will still be at the same levels or less.
Does anyone else believe that this is the game the U.S. govt is playing?
If it is then I wonder what the consequences are in keeping short term interest rates at
artificially low levels in perpetuity.
Here's to the evolving True Political
Awakening .
Move beyond the two-faced monkeys; the 2-faced division-makers; the 2 lying parties. Move
beyond them into yourself, your own mind and thoughts, owned by no-one; a critical and
independent thinker who seeks the truth.
I'll start taking the "deficit hawks" seriously when they start talking Defense procurement
reform. Until then, its just "balance the budget on the backs of widows and orphans".
There was a large mound formed recently over the grave of former Republican senator from WI
Bob Lafollette Sr., this protrusion was caused by his rapidly spinning corpse.
For those who are fortunate enough not to live in these Benighted States: have pity upon us,
especially those of us who done our best to fight against this horror show.
Democraps are either just as bad or worse bc of their duplicity. The GOP is, at least,
totally loud and proud of who they are, and no more dog whistles for them.
The Democrats, all while the GOP Tax SCAM was being shoved down our gobs, wasted all of
their time and "emotions" on a witch hunt to toss Al Franken outta the Senate. Franken is not
my favorite Senator by a long shot, but this is yet another chapter of the Democraps ACORNing
their own purportedly in the name of "taking the moral high ground." My Aunt Fanny.
Complicit, greedy, conniving, venal, deplorable bastards the whole d*mn lot with the
possible exception of Bernie Sanders (no great shakes but the pick of the litter).
Ugh. Don't get me started on all of those dual Israeli/USA citizens in riddling our
Congress. They are ALL in favor of this Jerusalem travesty with Schmuck Schumer leading the
charge. That's not about Trump... or not much about Trump. I place blame on worthless scum
like Schumer.
This is why people voted for Trump: they could see the worthlessness of both parties. Of
course, voting for Trump was a complete Mug's game, as for sure, the way things have turned
out was a foregone conclusion.
I am still waiting on my Reagan trickle down. Reagan and fellow thieves stole social security
funds to make their deficit look lower. Those funds have not been paid back....approximately
$3,000,000,000,000. Now the dead beats are planning on slipping out of town.
We should go back to the 1960 tax structure , the one in
place after eight years of Eisenhower, so it should get plenty of Republican support, yes?
top rate on regular income: 91%
top rate on capital gains: 25%
top rate on corporate tax: 52%
The top income tax tier back then was $400,000 - adjusted for inflation to 2017 dollars,
that's about $10 million. So anyone with an income of $10 million would still get a take-home
pay of $1 million a year. Seems like the right thing to do, doesn't it?
Good one b, the demodogs will stoop their feet point figures so they can raise lots of
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to pay their friends the consultants and lose more seats. It's what they do
best.
I've almost given up. It's not just amerika; lookit Australia this week where the citizens
are being distracted by a same sex marriage beatup which should have been settled in 5
minutes years ago - meanwhile the last vestiges of Australia's ability to survive as a
sovereign state are being flogged off to anyone with a fat wedge in their kick.
Aotearoa isn't much better the 'new' government which was elected primarily because the
citizens were appalled to discover that for about the first time in 150 years, compatriots -
compatriots with jobs in 'the gig economy' were homeless in huge numbers, has just announced
that the previous government's housing policy was a total mess, and that fixing the problem
will be difficult -really Jacinda we never woulda guessed, I guess what yer really trying to
say is nothing is gonna change.
The englanders are in even worse trouble with their brexit mess, the political elite is
choosing to ignore a recent Northern Ireland poll which revealed that most people in the
north would rather hook up with Ireland than stay with an non EU UK, so the pols there are
arguing over semantics about the difference between "regulatory alignment" and "regulatory
equivalence" as it applies to Ulster while the pound is sinking so fast it is about to
establish equivalence with the euro by xmas.
No one is paying attention to what is really happening as in between giving us the lowdown on
which 2nd rate mummer was rude to a 3rd rate thespian and advertorials about the best
chronometer (who even wears a watch in 2017?) for that man in your life, the media simply
doesn't have the time much less the will to tell the citizens how quickly their lives are
about to go down the gurgler.
The only salient issue is - will the shit hit the fan before the laws are in place to
silence, lock up and butcher dissenters, or will there be a brief period where we hit the
barricades and have a moment of glory before humanity gets to enjoy serfdom Mk2?
b, have you really taken a look at federal government spending? What is the ratio of spending
by the German government between social programs and discretionary spending for defense,
agriculture subsidies, infrastructure, etc?
The majority of federal government spending is non-discretionary social entitlement
spending with the biggest being health care spending. Just Medicare & Medicaid is a third
of all federal government spending. Then you have to add health care spending for federal
government employees and members of Congress, Tricare and VA. With health care costs growing
at 9% each and every year as it has for the past 30 years, medical related expenditures as a
share of total federal government spending will continue to rise.
Deficits will continue to grow as these entitlement programs grow automatically as
eligibility grows. Even if all defense expenditures were zeroed out, the federal government
would still run a deficit.
You are already seeing the consequences of artificially low short term rates. Negative
yielding sovereign European debt - meaning you pay to lend to some European governments.
European junk bonds with 10 year duration yielding less than 10 yr US Treasury bond. Loss
making, junk rated European companies raising even more intermediate term debt at 0.001%.
Corporations borrowing to buy back stock. The Swiss National Bank creating money out of thin
air and owning $85 billion of US equity in major US companies like Apple & Google. The
Bank of Japan owning a third of all Japanese government bonds outstanding and the Top 10
holder of the companies in the Nikkei 100 index. Financial speculation off the charts across
the globe.
People don't understand what money is our how it is and can be created. They imagine it is
like gold and limited in supply so that government can spend only from a finite supply which
they must obtain by taxes or loans that require interest to be paid. This fable is about as true as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Money has no value but as an instrument of exchange. It can be created by government to
pay for benefit of a nation. Instead we allow private bankers to create money via loans (no
printing press needed its just a line item on a spread sheet on their computers which shows
up in the borrowers account) The privately owned central bank system limits or increases the
supply by various means in a cyclical manner which leads to boom and bust cycles in the
economy. The rich get richer after each bust cycle since they have cash to acquire assets
available at depressed prices
As for the debt owed by the US the privately owned Fed will ensure the government can
borrow whatever is needed for interest payments since they can create an infinite supply of
money by acquiring junk and calling them assets. Out pal OPEC (Saudis) keeps Petro dollar
(USD ) in demand and exchange rates are set within agreed upon limits by the worlds central
banks under the BIS, with input from various shadowy groups like Bilderbergers, trilaterals
and CFR. And if all else fails, an attack on the USD will result in the military option being
used
To remain in power corrupt governments rely on a citizen base that is uneducated or
misinformed, busy surviving to pay taxes and daily expenses, is dependent on government and
in debt and is well entertained. They must also be divided by religion, race, social, gender,
age and party (secular religion) and given a common external enemy to fear.
The system is working to perfection. Neoliberal economics is the icing on the cake and is
the gift that keeps on giving to the chosen ones.
Check out the pdf on money creation by the Bank of England
There's no reason why with the current state of technology so much money is needed to
campaign for office. Almost as if the MSM is conditioning us to believe it necessary. There's no reason some one can't run a campaign using social media, YouTube and video
conferencing instead of advertising (on same MSM) travelling long distances to campaign
rallies and broadcast advertising. Microdonations and volunteering assistance can take care
of the rest. If there is a will, there's a way to run an outsider as a candidate. The recent death of
Anderson reminded me of his difficulties running, but he ran at a time when none of these
technologies existed.
I think people are just too lazy to make the effort. Most elections people are just too
lazy to even vote.
While I agree that money can just be created there is a limit to that particularly when
low constraints on consumable supplies run parallel to established shortfalls on finite goods
such as houses, land, food etc. Inflation runs rampant and we weak humans distract ourselves
with cheap baubles instead of creating useful shit and putting a roof over the heads of our
children - "waddaya want for xmas kid, a freehold shithole or a new VR headset?" "I'll take
the vive Dad".
Churning out extra dosh works when it is part of a larger plan to increase productivity by
encouraging people outta pointless 'shit industry' service jobs into either outright
production like manufacturing or primary industry, or infrastructure investment like
railways, roads, bridges & renewable energy projects. Just pumping fresh new bills into
health n education will be great for those who work in these sectors, but is unlikely to
create much flow on to the rest of the population.
"... 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. ..."
"... 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...
And I feel like the Democrats get so distracted. They have been talking about sexual
harassment and stuff instead of the TAX BILL. It is so damn easy to get them to take their
eyes off the ball! and get played again and again. . . and TRAGIC given the consequences . .
.
It's the perfect "distraction". Allows them to engage in virtue-signaling and "fighting
for average Americans". It's all phony, they always "lose" in the end getting exactly what
they wanted in the first place, while not actually having to cast a vote for it.
It's all related, less safety net and more inequality means more desperation to take a
job, *ANY* job, means more women putting up with sexual harassment (and workplace bullying
and horrible and illegal workplace conditions etc.) as the price of a paycheck.
Horrible Toomey's re-election was a parallel to the Clinton/Trump fiasco. The Democrats
put up a corporate shill, Katie McGinty that no-one trusted.
"Former lobbyist Katie McGinty has spent three decades in politics getting rich off the
companies she regulated and subsidized. Now this master of the revolving-door wants
Pennsylvania voters to give her another perch in government: U.S. Senator." Washington
Examiner.
She was a Clintonite through and through, that everyone, much like $Hillary, could see
through.
To paraphrase the Beatles, you say you want a revolution but you don't really mean it. You
want more of the same because it makes you feel good to keep voting for your Senator or your
Congressman. The others are corrupt and evil, but your guys are good. If only the others were
like your guys. News flash: they are all your guys.
America is doomed. And so much the better. Despite all America has done for the world, it
has also been a brutal despot. America created consumerism, super-sizing and the Kardashians.
These are all unforgivable sins. America is probably the most persistently violent country in
the world both domestically and internationally. No other country has invaded or occupied so
much of the world, unless you count the known world in which case Macedonia wins.
This tax plan is what Americans want because they are pretty ignorant and stupid. They are
incapable of understanding basic math so they can't work out the details. They believe that
any tax cut is inherently good and all government is bad so that is also all that matters.
They honestly think they or their kids will one day be rich so they don't want to hurt rich
people. They also believe that millionaires got their money honestly and through hard work
because that is what they learned from their parents.
Just send a blank check to Goldman Sachs. Keep a bit to buy a gun which you can use to
either shoot up a McDonalds or blow your own brains out.
And some people still ask me why I left and don't want to come back. LOL
Macedonia of today is not the same are that conquered the world. They stole the name from
Greeks.
That being said, the US is ripe for a change. Every policy the current rulers enact seems
to make things better. However, I suspect a revolution would kill majority of the population
since it would disrupt the all important supply chains, so it does not seem viable.
However, a military takeover could be viable. If they are willing to wipe out the most
predatory portions of the ruling class, they could fix the healthcare system, install a
high-employment policy and take out the banks and even the military contractors. Which could
make them very popular.
Yeah, right. Have you seen our generals? They're just more of the same leeches we
have everywhere else in the 0.01%. Have you seen any of the other military dictatorships
around the world, like actually existing ones? They're all brilliantly corrupt and total
failures when it comes to running any sort of economy. Not to mention the total loss of civil
rights. Americans have this idiotic love of their military thanks to decades of effective
propaganda and think the rule of pampered generals would somehow be better than the right to
vote. Bleh.
This is a military dictatorship. The fourth and sixth amendments have been de facto
repealed. Trump cared about one thing and one thing only, namely to repeal the estate tax. He
is the ultimate con man and this was his biggest con. It is truly amazing how he accomplished
this. He has saved his family a billion $$$. He will now turn over governing to the generals
and Goldman Sachs. He may even retire. Truly amazing. One has to admire the sheer perversity
of it all. When will the American electorate get tired of being conned? The fact is they have
nothing but admiration for Trump. We live in a criminal culture, winner take all. America
loves its winners.
There is an old 2003 David Brooks column in which he mentions that
"The Democrats couldn't even persuade people to oppose the repeal of the estate tax, which
is explicitly for the mega-upper class. Al Gore, who ran a populist campaign, couldn't even
win the votes of white males who didn't go to college, whose incomes have stagnated over the
past decades and who were the explicit targets of his campaign. Why don't more Americans want
to distribute more wealth down to people like themselves?"
Then Brooks goes on to explain
"The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey
that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans
say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right
away you have 39 percent of Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that
favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a direct shot at them."
The Republicans have conditioned people to believe government services (except for
defense/military) are run poorly and need to be "run like a business" for a profit.
The problem is that not all government services CAN be profitable (homeless care, mental
health care for the poor, EPA enforcement, OSHA enforcement). And when attempts are made to
privatize some government operations such as incarceration, the result is that the private
company tries to maximize profits by pushing for laws to incarcerate ever more people.
The history of the USA as viewed by outsiders, maybe 50 years hence, will be that of a
resource consuming nation that spent a vast fortune on military hardware and military
adventures when it had little to fear due to geography, a nation that touted an independent
press that was anything but, a nation that created a large media/entertainment industry which
helped to keep citizens in line, a nation that fostered an overly large (by 2 or 3 times per
Paul Whooley) parasitical financial industry that did not perform its prime capital
allocation task competently as it veered from bubble to bubble and a nation that managed to
spend great sums on medical care without covering all citizens.
But the USA does have a lot of guns and a lot of frustrated people.
Maybe Kevlar vests will be the fashion of the future?
The provision to do away with the estate tax, if not immediately, in the current versions
(House and Senate) is great news for the 1%, and bad for the rest of us.
And if more people are not against that (thanks for quoting the NYTImes article), it's the
failure of the rest of the media for not focusing more on it, but wasting time and energy on
fashion, sports, entertainment, etc.
he provision to do away with the estate tax . . . is great news for the 1%
I think it's even a little more extreme than that. The data is a few years old, but it is
only the top 0.6% who are affected by estate taxes in the United States. See the data at
these web sites:
The military adventures were largely in support of what Smedley Butler so accurately
called the Great "Racket" of Monroe Doctrine colonialism and rapacious extractive
"capitalism" aka "looting."
It took longer and costed the rich a bit more to buy up all the bits of government, but
the way they've done will likely be more compendious and lasting. Barring some "intervening
event(s)".
While Republicans show their true colors, im out there seeing a resurgence of civil
society. And im starting to reach Hard core Tea Party types. Jobs, Manufacturing, Actual
Policy.
Renegade ( ex-? ) Republican David Stockman NAILS IT TO THE WALL:
To be sure, some element of political calculus always lies behind legislation. For instance, the Dems didn't pass the Wagner
Act in 1935, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the Affordable Care Act of 2010 as exercises in pure civic virtue -- these measures
targeted huge constituencies with tens of millions of votes at stake.
Still, threadbare theories and untoward effects are just that; they can't be redeemed by the risible claim that this legislative
Rube Goldberg contraption being jammed through sight unseen ( in ACA redux fashion ) is for the benefit of the rank
and file Republican voters, and most especially not for the dispossessed independents and Dems of Flyover America who voted
for Trump out of protest against the failing status quo.
To the contrary. The GOP tax bill is of the lobbies, by the PACs and for the money. Period.
There is no higher purpose or even nugget of conservative economic principle to it. The battle cry of "pro-growth tax cuts"
is just a warmed over 35-year-old mantra from the Reagan era that does not remotely reflect the actual content of the bill
or disguise what it really is: namely, a cowardly infliction of more than $2 trillion of debt on future American taxpayers
in order to fund tax relief today for the GOP's K Street and Wall Street paymasters.
On a net basis, in fact, fully 97% of the $1.412 trillion revenue loss in the Senate Committee bill over the next decade
is attributable to the $1.369 trillion cost of cutting the corporate rate from 35% to 20% (and repeal of the related AMT).
All the rest of the massive bill is just a monumental zero-sum pot stirring operation.
Stockman, who knows federal budgeting better than most of us know the contents of our own homes, goes on to shred the tax bill
item by item, leaving a smoking, scorched-earth moonscape in his deadly rhetorical wake. And he's not done yet.
But Lordy, how he scourges the last hurrah of the know-nothing R party, just before it gets pounded senseless at the polls
next year. Bubble III is the last hope of the retrograde Republican Congressional rabble. But it's a 50/50 proposition at best
that our beloved bubble lasts through next November. :-(
thanks Jim, yes, this looks like it will knock the legs out of the "main st" economy, but over at versailles on the potomac
they'll be listening to/playing the fiddle and watching the country burn while guzzling 300 dollar scotch and and admiring their
campfire.
Right next to "Versailles on the Potomac" is the site of the former Bonus Army camp, Anacostia Flats. The burning of the Bonus
Army camp at Anacostia Flats could be seen, as a red glow, from the White House. Historians charitable to Herbert Hoover suggest
that Gen. Douglass MacArthur 'conned' Hoover into letting the Army 'disperse' the Bonus Army. The resulting spectacle can be said
to be one of the prime reasons why the American public rejected Hoover when he ran for re-election against Franklin Roosevelt.
I don't know if Hoover played the fiddle, but MacArthur was known to be able to play politicians like one.
The lesson here, if there is one, is that the present occupant of the White House had better be very circumspect about taking
advice from Generals.
"anacostia flats" bonus army raided by Wall Street General MacArthur which is reason in previous iteration of Wall Street power
grab by "American Liberty League", ("The Plot To Seize the White House"-Jules Archer) Marine General Smedley Butler felt forced
play whistle-blower, providing FDR leverage he needed to prosecute banksters.
Big River Bandido December 2, 2017 at 3:26 pm
The gist of the commenter's statement was true - Democrats are totally complicit in the end result of Republican economic and
foreign policy. Until now, Republicans could only deliver on their promises when Democrats helped them out. The Democrats' enabling
strategy eventually alienated their own core supporters. With this tax cut, the Republicans have shown, for the first time, the
ability to enact and sign their own legislation.
The Democrats basically accommodated the Republicans long enough to ensure their own irrelevance. They will not rise again
until their "mixed stances" and those who encourage them are purged.
"... By riding hatred of President Trump and spurring on the Russia-gate hysteria, Democrats hope to win in 2018 without a serious examination of why they lost support of key working- and middle-class voting blocs, says Andrew Spannaus. ..."
By riding hatred of President Trump and spurring on the Russia-gate hysteria, Democrats
hope to win in 2018 without a serious examination of why they lost support of key working- and
middle-class voting blocs, says Andrew Spannaus.
Victories in state-level elections in New Jersey and Virginia on Nov. 7 have buoyed
Democratic hopes for an anti-Trump wave among the population that will lead to a big victory in
next year's mid-term elections, and permanently damage President Trump heading towards 2020.
Yet there is significant risk in hoping that anti-Trump sentiment will be enough for the
Democrats to return to power.
The danger is that the considerable differences between the centrist faction, which for the
most part controls the party structure, and the progressive wing of the party, will be swept
under the rug in the name of unity, perpetuating the substantive problems that have alienated
important sections of the population from the party.
The power of opposition to Trump has been on display from the very beginning: It was more
than a bit ironic to see feminist protestors – properly exercising their right to protest
against a President who has made many derogatory comments towards women – hold up signs
defending the CIA during the Women's March on Inauguration Day Yes, in their zeal to oppose
Trump, both the center and the far left have been willing to embrace the battle led by a
limited but powerful grouping in the intelligence community to stop the President from his
stated intention of improving relations with Vladimir Putin's Russia.
This has become such a cause célèbre that people who would normally
look suspiciously at the motives of the CIA or other similar agencies seem unable to recognize
that the basic "crime" Trump is accused of is favoring diplomacy with a country most of the
institutions consider an enemy. With the media's help, it has apparently been decided that this
President does not have the right to influence policy, if the majority of the establishment
disagrees with his positions.
The major issue in the Democratic Party is obviously the economy. Sen. Bernie Sanders,
officially an Independent from Vermont, won 43 percent of the vote in the 2016 Democratic
primaries because he pushed a "populist," anti-system message that was heavily critical of
globalization, Wall Street and trade deals that have weakened the American middle class.
By riding hatred of President Trump and spurring on the Russia-gate hysteria, Democrats
hope to win in 2018 without a serious examination of why they lost support of key working- and
middle-class voting blocs, says Andrew Spannaus.
Victories in state-level elections in New Jersey and Virginia on Nov. 7 have buoyed
Democratic hopes for an anti-Trump wave among the population that will lead to a big victory in
next year's mid-term elections, and permanently damage President Trump heading towards 2020.
Yet there is significant risk in hoping that anti-Trump sentiment will be enough for the
Democrats to return to power.
The danger is that the considerable differences between the centrist faction, which for the
most part controls the party structure, and the progressive wing of the party, will be swept
under the rug in the name of unity, perpetuating the substantive problems that have alienated
important sections of the population from the party.
The power of opposition to Trump has been on display from the very beginning: It was more
than a bit ironic to see feminist protestors – properly exercising their right to protest
against a President who has made many derogatory comments towards women – hold up signs
defending the CIA during the Women's March on Inauguration Day Yes, in their zeal to oppose
Trump, both the center and the far left have been willing to embrace the battle led by a
limited but powerful grouping in the intelligence community to stop the President from his
stated intention of improving relations with Vladimir Putin's Russia.
This has become such a cause célèbre that people who would normally
look suspiciously at the motives of the CIA or other similar agencies seem unable to recognize
that the basic "crime" Trump is accused of is favoring diplomacy with a country most of the
institutions consider an enemy. With the media's help, it has apparently been decided that this
President does not have the right to influence policy, if the majority of the establishment
disagrees with his positions.
The major issue in the Democratic Party is obviously the economy. Sen. Bernie Sanders,
officially an Independent from Vermont, won 43 percent of the vote in the 2016 Democratic
primaries because he pushed a "populist," anti-system message that was heavily critical of
globalization, Wall Street and trade deals that have weakened the American middle class.
"... 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.
"... 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
[email protected] - 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 .
The question arise: "Was hacking DNC another CIA false flag operation with the specific goal
to poison US-Russian relations and using Hillary Clinton as a patsy?"
According fo church committee report: "Approximately 50 of the [Agency] assets are individual
American journalists or employees of U.S. media organizations. Of these, fewer than half are
"accredited" by U.S. media organizations ... The remaining individuals are non-accredited
freelance contributors and media representatives abroad ... More than a dozen United States news
organizations and commercial publishing houses formerly provided cover for CIA agents abroad. A
few of these organizations were unaware that they provided this cover.
[7] "
"Journalist Carl
Bernstein , writing in an October 1977 article in the magazine Rolling Stone , claims that the Church
Committee report "covered up" CIA relations with news media, and names a number of journalists
whom he says worked with the CIA [10] Like the Church
Committee report, however, Bernstein does not refer to any Operation Mockingbird."
Notable quotes:
"... "Russian meddling" became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA's broader information operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against "Russian aggression" and to reign in Trump's plans to normalize relations with Moscow. ..."
"... Clinton became the "fall guy" in a darker, deep-state propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. ..."
"... 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 ..."
"... The article proves that the nation's premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a discredited "raw intelligence" report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned as a part of a smear campaign -- to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert the democratic process. ..."
"... The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it politically impossible to maintain the relationship. ..."
"... The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump's efforts at détente. ..."
"... Steele's July report helped to prop up the threadbare "hacking" storyline that was further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by CrowdStrike, "a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian." ..."
"... Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information (Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information can be trusted. But that's just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played by the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that's where we see signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale. ..."
"... Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele's, former British diplomat Sir Andrew Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain. ..."
"... This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in the sketchy "Trump dossier". Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but there's significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true. ..."
"... On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan and his "hand-picked" intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was used as the foundation for the ICA. ..."
"... It's clear that Brennan had no "information or intelligence" that would lead a reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump's entourage was colluding with Russian officials or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using the CIA's intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what is? ..."
"... It all started with Brennan, he's the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil, Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull Brennan's chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in America. ..."
"... So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary's Campaign, the roots of Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent state. ..."
For nearly a year, Hillary Clinton failed to admit that her campaign and the
Democratic National Committee had provided funding for the notorious dossier that alleged Trump
colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. Then, two weeks ago, the Washington
Post published a blockbuster article that proved that Clinton had been misleading the public
about her Campaign's role in producing the report.
Following the article's publication, Clinton went into hiding for more than a week
during which time she huddled with her political advisors to settle on a strategy for dealing
with the crisis.
"Russian meddling" became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA's broader information
operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against "Russian aggression" and to
reign in Trump's plans to normalize relations with Moscow.
The fact that the CIA had essentially extracted a credible narrative from sections of the
notorious dossier, left Hillary with no other option except to play-along even after the votes
had been counted. As a result, Clinton became the "fall guy" in a darker, deep-state
propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. Here's a little
background from Joe Lauria's "must read" article "The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate":
" 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 .
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." (Consortium News)
So, were "the Steele memos the primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against
Trump"? This is the pivotal question that still remains largely unanswered. As Lauria notes,
the FBI did in fact use the "salacious and unverified" dossier to obtain at least one FISA
warrant. This is from The Hill:
"The FBI used the dossier alleging Russian ties to President Trump's campaign associates
to help convince a judge to grant a warrant to secretly monitor former campaign aide Carter
Page, CNN reports.
FBI Director James Comey has cited the dossier in some of his briefings with lawmakers in
recent weeks as one of the information sources used by his bureau to bolster its probe, U.S.
officials briefed on the investigation told CNN." ("FBI used Trump dossier to help get warrant
to monitor ex-aide: report", The Hill)
The article proves that the nation's premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a
discredited "raw intelligence" report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned
as a part of a smear campaign -- to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could
easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert
the democratic process.
The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but
abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it
politically impossible to maintain the relationship. This is from a February article in
the Washington Post:
"The former British spy who authored a controversial dossier on behalf of Donald Trump's
political opponents alleging ties between Trump and Russia reached an agreement with the FBI
a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work, according to
several people familiar with the arrangement. The agreement to compensate former MI6 agent
Christopher Steele came as U.S. intelligence agencies reached a consensus that the Russians
had interfered in the presidential election by orchestrating hacks of Democratic Party email
accounts ..
Ultimately, the FBI did not pay Steele. Communications between the bureau and the former spy
were interrupted as Steele's now-famous dossier became the subject of news stories,
congressional inquiries and presidential denials, according to the people familiar with the
arrangement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to
discuss the matter." ("FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored controversial
Trump dossier", Washington Post)
The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and
unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not
to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking
claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump's efforts at
détente.
It's also worth noting , that Steele's earliest report implausibly alleges that the "Russian
authorities had been cultivating and supporting US presidential candidate Trump for at least 5
years." (No one had any idea that Trump would run for president 5 years ago.) The report also
details perverted sexual acts involving Trump and urinating prostitutes in a hotel in Moscow.
(All fake, of course) The point we are trying to make, is that Steele's first report focused on
corruption, perversion and blackmail, whereas, his second installment completely changed
direction to cyber-espionage operations on foreign targets.
Why?
It was because, on July 22, 2016, just days before the Democratic National Convention,
WikiLeaks published 20,000 emails hacked from DNC computers revealing the corrupt
inner-workings of the Democratic establishment. In response, Steele decided to craft a story
that would support the Dems plan to blame the Russians for the moral cesspit they-alone had
created. In other words, his report was a way of "passing the buck".
Steele's July report helped to prop up the threadbare "hacking" storyline that was
further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by
CrowdStrike, "a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian."
The hacking theme was also aided by the deluge of unsourced, evidence-lite articles cropping
up in the media, like this gem in the Washington Post:
"Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National
Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded
to the breach.
The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read
all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations.
The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted
by Russian spies " ("Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on
Trump", Washington Post)
What's remarkable about the above excerpt is that it follows the same basic approach to
propaganda as nearly all the other pieces on the topic. Unlike the lead-up to the Iraq War,
where journalists at the New York Times made every effort to create a believable storyline that
included references to aluminum tubes, Niger uranium, mobile weapons labs, etc. The media no
longer tries to support their narrative with evidence or eyewitnesses. The major media now
simply tells people what they want them to think and leave it at that. Even so, it doesn't
require much critical thinking to see the holes in the Russia hacking story. One merely needs
to suspend judgment long enough to see that main claims all emerge from (Democratic) sources
who have every reason to mislead the public. Here's an excerpt from Joe Lauria's article that
sums it up perfectly:
"The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled in the 2016
election 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 .
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." ("The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate", Consortium News)
Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information
(Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their
intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the
obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information
can be trusted. But that's just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played
by the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that's where we see
signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale.
As we noted earlier, the Clinton smear campaign would probably have ended after the votes
were counted had not the intel agencies, particularly the CIA, decided the hacking story could
be used to inflict more damage on Russia. It wasn't Clinton's decision to gather more
information for the dossier, but others whose motives have remained largely concealed. Who are
they?
According to a timeline in the Daily Caller:
November: The contract between the Democrats, Fusion and Steele ends along with the
presidential campaign.
Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about
the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele's, former British diplomat Sir Andrew
Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the
dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain.
Dec. 9: McCain provides a copy of the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey during a
meeting at the latter's office.
Dec. 13: Steele writes the final memo of the dossier. It alleges that a Russian tech
executive used his companies to hack into the DNC's email systems. The executive, Aleksej
Gubarev, denied the allegations after the dossier was published by BuzzFeed on Jan. 10, 2017.
He is suing both BuzzFeed and Steele.
Jan. 6: Comey and other intelligence community officials brief then-President-elect Trump on
some of the allegations made in the dossier.
Jan. 10: CNN reports that the briefing of Trump took place four days earlier. Citing that
reporting as justification, BuzzFeed publishes the dossier. (The Daily Mail)
John McCain? Is that who we're talking about? Was it McCain who paid former M16 agent
Christopher Steele to add another report to the dossier? Why?
Is it that hard to imagine that a Russophobic foreign policy wonk like McCain -- who has
expressed his vehement hatred for Vladimir Putin on the floor of the senate -- would hire a
mud-slinging free agent like Steele to craft a story that would further demonize Russia,
discourage Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, and reinforce the theory that the
Kremlin meddled in the 2016 elections?
Does that mean that McCain may have told Steele (or his intermediaries) precisely what he
wanted the final draft to say? It certainly seems probable. And here's something else to mull
over. This is from the Business Insider:
Steele gave the dossier to Republican Sen. John McCain. McCain then gave it to the FBI
director at the time, James Comey. Comey, along with the former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, briefed both President Barack
Obama and then-President elect Trump on the dossier's allegations in January.
Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence report
they released in January about Russia's election interference because they didn't want to
reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN." ("Mueller reportedly interviewed
the author of the Trump-Russia dossier -- here's what it alleges, and how it aligned with
reality", Business Insider)
This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was
released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and
collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in
the sketchy "Trump dossier". Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but
there's significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true.
On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian
hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This
same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan
and his "hand-picked" intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier
cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence
Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was
used as the foundation for the ICA.
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?
Not likely. It's more probable that Brennan was merely able to convince them that the
powerful foreign policy establishment required their cooperation on an issue that would have
grave impact on Washington's imperial plan for Syria, Ukraine, Central Asia and beyond?
Some readers might remember when Brennan testified before Congress way-back on May 23 and
boldly stated:
BRENNAN: "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed
contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump
campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals and it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able
to gain the cooperation of those individuals."
It's clear that Brennan had no "information or intelligence" that would lead a
reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump's entourage was colluding with Russian officials
or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that
Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using
the CIA's intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a
presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what
is? Here's a clip from the Washington Times:
"It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided
the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence
investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that
the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with
Russians
But he said he believed the contacts were numerous enough to alert the FBI, which began its
probe into Trump associates that same July, according to previous congressional testimony from
then-FBI director James B. Comey." (The Washington Times)
It all started with Brennan, he's the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was
not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm
facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil,
Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull
Brennan's chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in
America.
So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary's Campaign, the roots of
Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent
state.
"... This is why the denial is happening. This is why the Russia hysteria is continuing. By using wedge politics and fear to separate the cultists from other perspectives, using approval and belonging to keep them addicted, shaming tactics to keep them from straying, and controlling the discourse on their end of the political spectrum, Democrats have created America's largest cult. ..."
"... That was a very interesting article and on the mark. But, Pence will be a good placeholder and keep the population largely complacent, But in 2020, the democratic cult MUST WIN. If the Republicans are smart, they will lay low and concede the Presidency by fielding the most ridiculous candidate possible (hard to imagine who that could be after Trump). ..."
What interests me is who the Democrats have in mind as a replacement if they manage to bring
down Trump. He still has quite a few supporters – amazing, I know – who would be
borderline homicidal toward anyone the Democrats wanted to shove into the ring, and it
absolutely could not be Hillary.
f Trump dies, resigns or is removed from office in the next four years, Vice President
Mike Pence would replace him in the White House.
I doubt Sanders would be chosen in 2020 – too many reminders of DNC corruption that
denied him the nomination. It will probably be someone new and likely a woman.
Yes, but the Democrats' efforts to bring down the government are surely not directed at
replacing Trump with Pence. Obviously, they want a Republican presidency to be replaced with
a Democratic one, or they would not be playing the victim so zealously. And Sanders is a
milksop who plumped for party unity even after learning how soundly he had been rogered by
Hillary and her coterie. There is not an American politician alive today who embodies the
American values idealists like to believe prevail in America. Not one.
This is why the denial is happening. This is why the Russia hysteria is continuing. By
using wedge politics and fear to separate the cultists from other perspectives, using
approval and belonging to keep them addicted, shaming tactics to keep them from straying, and
controlling the discourse on their end of the political spectrum, Democrats have created
America's largest cult.
That was a very interesting article and on the mark. But, Pence will be a good
placeholder and keep the population largely complacent, But in 2020, the democratic cult MUST
WIN. If the Republicans are smart, they will lay low and concede the Presidency by fielding
the most ridiculous candidate possible (hard to imagine who that could be after Trump).
I was thinking that a black woman candidate would be essentially doubling down after the
Clinton debacle. My bet, if I were a betting man, would be her or someone like her as the VP
pick with a simulacrum of Joe Biden or Al Gore as the presidential nominee. The Republicans
would run a weenie like Paul "Ly'ng Ryan" Ryan to get the lose over with as little pain as
possible.
FYI, the Ly'ng Ryan" nickname apparently originated from his claims of being a sub-3 hour
marathon runner. Marathon runners took strong exception at his casual and completely
unsubstantiated claims about impressive marathon times thus his name among the runner
community.
There was a post a while back indicating that anyone who believed Hillary Clinton had serious
health problems during her Presidential run was a dupe and fool of the non-MSM media
(apparently referring to yours truly among others). Well, lookie here:
An excerpt from WaPo details how horrified Donna Brazile and others in the DNC were
about Hillary's non-stop coughing fits and ill health. In fact, Hillary was so sick that
Brazile and others discussed replacing her with Biden as the Dem nominee after she
fainted.
Hillary's camp is furious with Brazile and lashed out at her over the grim picture she
painted of Hillary's health and campaign.
The Clinton Cult has apparently concluded that Brazile was controlled by the Kremlin per
this open letter signed by 100 of Cintons senior aides:
"We were shocked to learn the news that Donna Brazile actively considered overturning
the will of the Democratic voters by attempting to replace Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine as
the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees. "It is particularly troubling and
puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both
the Russians and our opponent, about our candidate's health."
"... Their argument, if you can call it that, rests on the claim that a document which unquestionably shows inappropriate bias and collusion does not show inappropriate bias and collusion because it contains a paragraph which says the document should not be construed as containing inappropriate bias and collusion. This is really boring and stupid, but since the Clinton cult is circulating this nonsense all over social media I figure I should probably write something for people to refute it with. ..."
Dem Pundits Spent Yesterday Lying About DNC Primary Rigging Document
The establishment liberal spin machine has been working overtime the last 24 hours to make
it seem as though former acting DNC chair Donna Brazile had not admitted what she'd admitted in
an excerpt from her book published by Politico on Thursday.
Their argument, if you can call it that, rests on the claim that a document which unquestionably
shows inappropriate bias and collusion does not show inappropriate bias and collusion because
it contains a paragraph which says the document should not be construed as containing inappropriate
bias and collusion. This is really boring and stupid, but since the Clinton cult is circulating
this nonsense all over social media I figure I should probably write something for people to refute
it with.
"... The agreement -- signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to [DNC lawyer] Marc Elias -- specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. ..."
"... A second difference in substance: Let's remember that for Clinton, the JFA enabled her campaign to circumvent contribution limits for large donors (Brazile: "Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400"). The Sanders campaign , by contrast, had no issue with maxed out donors: "During fall '15, 99.8% of Bernie donors could give again" (because it's awful hard to max out $27 at a time). ..."
"... That's pretty amazing, isn't it? Personnel is policy, as they say, and the Clinton campaign has made sure that the DNC's Communications Director and new hires in the senior staff in the communications, technology, and research departments will be acceptable to it. The Clinton campaign will also review all mass email and communcations (which explains why Brazile, as interim DNC chair, couldn't send out a press release without checking with Brooklyn. Since the notorious debate schedule was already controlled by Wasserman Schultz, there was no point messing about with it, I assume.) There is one place in this passage where the general election is mentioned, so let's look at it: ..."
"... Second, the DNC itself does not ..."
"... But I'd like to know how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was achieved. ..."
"... It has been a while since I handled a criminal defense case, but I am not sure that the agreement is not in fact, criminal. When the Sanders for President campaign signed an agreement and paid money in consideration of getting access to the voter file and when the state parties agreed to merge their fundraising efforts with the DNC and HFA, the commercial fraud laws applied to that relationship. Since the fundraising was done using interstate phone calls, letters, and emails and the voter file access was provided by electronic transmissions from servers in DC to end users in Burlington, Vermont that includes 18 USC 1341, 1343 and 1346 (mail, wire and honest services fraud). These laws do not just ban outright lying, but also the concealment of material facts that one has a duty to disclose. ..."
"... The DNC got into the position of selling themselves to the Clintons as they were $20 million in debt, right? I have read that the major reason for these debts was that the DNC had not shrunk itself since the last campaign and was paying out a ton of money for consultants doing Christ knows what. In fact, Obama also used the DNC to support a stack of his consultants as well as grifters gotta grift, right? ..."
"... My question is whether this was a deliberate ploy on Obama and the Clinton factions to put the DNC into such a vulnerable position before 2016 came along that when the time came, they had to take up an offer that they could not refuse. I have not heard if Obama has made any comments on this fiasco that took place on his watch and it seems nobody wants to call him out on it. In the Brazile case, it is not a matter of following the money but following the lack of money. ..."
"... "Both sides in the Democratic Party's current faction fight, as I see it, are in denial about the true nature and scope of the problem "Both responses are essentially utopian: They rest on the premise that the Democratic Party is still a functioning political organization and that the United States is still a functioning democracy." ..."
Long-time Democratic[1] operative Donna Brazile, interim chair of the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) after Debbie Wasserman Schultz was defenestrated[2], has, like two otherparticipants in
the 2016 Presidential election and at least one set of
observers , written a book, Hacked , and published a long excerpt from it four
days ago, in Politico
. Here is the key passage, in which Brazile paraphrases and quotes a conversation with Gary
Gensler, former of Goldman Sachs and the CFTC, and then the chief financial officer of the
Clinton campaign:
[Gensler] described the party as fully under the control of Hillary's campaign
, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life
support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using
the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a
maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for
contributions to state parties and a party's national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write
an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund -- that figure
represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states' parties who were part of the Victory Fund
agreement -- $320,000 -- and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states
first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states
usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the
DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
Yes, you read that right. Although the Hillary Victory Fund was billed as aiding the states,
in fact the states were simply pass-throughs, and the money went to the Clinton campaign. (This
is not news;
Politico covered the Victory Fun in 2016 : "The Democratic front-runner says she's raising
big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60
million raised.")
"Wait," I said. "That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the
state party races. You're telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she
got the nomination?"
Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
"That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie," he explained, referring to campaign
manager Robby Mook. "It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from
September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election."
After some research, Brazile finds a document ("the agreement") that spells out what "fully
under the control of Hillary's campaign" meant operationally:
The agreement -- signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a
copy to [DNC lawyer] Marc Elias -- specified that in exchange for raising money and investing
in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised.
Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and
it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult
with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
I had been wondering why it was that I couldn't write a press release without passing it
by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.
(Importantly, Gensler has not disputed this account, of which, assuming he's not vacationing
Antarctica, he must have been aware of, given the media uproar. We can therefore assume its
accurate). Note two aspects of this passage, which I'm quoting at such length to ensure we know
what Brazile actually charged. I've helpfully underlined them: (1) Brazile leads with the
money; that is, the Clinton Victory Fund, and (2) Brazile describes the DNC as "fully under the
control" of the Clinton campaign.
Predictably, an enormous controversy erupted, much of it over the weekend just passed, but
I'm not going to do a blow-by-blow of the talking points. (Glenn Greenwald provides an
excellent media critique in
"Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That Are False
"; all four have to do with this controversy[3].) I think the following three quotes are key,
the first two being oft-repeated talking points by Clinton loyalists:
"The joint fundraising agreements were the same for each campaign except for
the treasurer, and our understanding was that the DNC offered all of the presidential
campaigns the opportunity to set up a JFA and work with the DNC to coordinate on how those
funds were used to best prepare for the general election."
Question: Were the agreements "the same" for each campaign? (Perez focuses only on the JFA,
but that omits a separate Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the DNC and the Clinton
campaign, as we shall see below.)
Second, from 2005-9 DNC chair Howard Dean:
Question: Did the agreement apply only to the general election, and not the primary? (Dean
says "this memo," but he also omits the distinction between the MOU and the JFA.)
"We learned today from the former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile
that the Clinton campaign, in her view, did rig the presidential nominating process by
entering into an agreement to control day-to-day operations at the DNC," Tapper said,
continuing on to describe specific arms of the DNC the Clinton camp had a say over, including
strategy and staffing, noting that the agreement was "entered into in August of 2015," months
before Clinton won the nomination .
Tapper then asked, "Do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?" And
Warren responded simply: "Yes."
Question: Can we say that the 2016 Democratic primary was rigged? (Tapper uses the word
"rigged," and Warren adopts it, but a careful reading of Brazile's article shows that although
she uses the word, she does not actually make the claim.[4])
In this post, I'm going to answer each of these three questions by looking at the documents,
plural, in question (Spoiler: My answers are "No," "No," and "Yes," respectively.) Here is a
timeline of the documents:
8/27/2015 (
reported ): The Clinton-DNC Joint Fundraising Agreement (JFA).
Available for download at
WikiLeaks, hilariously enough.
8/26/2015 (signed): The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, or "memo").
Available for
download at MSNBC. The MOU
characterized by NBC as a "side deal," specifies how the JFA is to be implemented. Hence,
"the agreement" comprises both documents; the JFA cannot be understood without the MOU, and
vice versa.
11/5/2105 (
reported
): The Sanders-DNC Joint Fundraising Agreement. I can't find a copy online, but it's
described by ABC here . If there is an MOU that accompanies the Sanders JFA, it has not
come to light, and presumably, by this point, it would have.
In summary, the Clinton JFA set up the Hillary Victory Fund scam , the MOU gave
Clinton control of (much of) the DNC apparatus, and (
according to Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver ) the Sanders JFA bought their campaign
access to the DNC voter list, and was never used for fundraising because the DNC never asked
the campaign to do any. So to answer the our first question, we'll look at the JFA. To answer
the second, we'll look at the MOU. And to answer the third, we'll see how all the evidence
balances out.
Were the Agreements "the Same" for Each Campaign?
Perez is wrong. The agreements were not at all the same, either formally or
substantively.
Formally, the agreements were not the same because the Clinton JFA had an MOU (the "side
deal") and the Sanders JFA did not.
ABC :
[T]he Clinton campaign Friday afternoon confirmed the existence of a memo between the DNC
and their campaign, which specifically outlines an expanded scope and interpretation of their
funding agreement . [R]epresentatives from Sanders' former campaign say they only signed a
basic, formulaic fundraising agreement that did not include any additional language about
joint messaging or staffing decision-making [as does the MOU].
Substantively, the agreements weren't the same either. The substance of the JFA was a scheme
enable the Hillary Victory Fund to collect "big checks" (as Politico puts it), supposedly
behalf of the state parties, but in reality treating them as conduits to the coffers of the
Clinton campaign. Page 3:
From time to time and in compliance with FECA, after expenses have been deducted from the
gross proceeds, the Victory Fund will transfer the net proceeds to the Committees according
to the Allocation Formula, as modified by any reallocation required.
"[T]he Committees" being the state party political committees, into whose accounts the
contributions were deposited, only to be immediately removed and transferred to the Clinton
campaign (at least for the states that signed entered into the agreement; a few did not).
However, the Sanders campaign wasn't in the business of collecting "big checks," being
small-donor driven. Hence the substance of the agreement could not have been the same.
ABC once more :
Former Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told ABC News Friday night that the campaign
entered the agreement with the party in November 2015 to facilitate the campaign's access to
the party's voter rolls. Weaver claims the DNC offered to credit any fundraising the senator
did for the party against the costs of access to the party's data costs, priced at $250,000.
But, Weaver continued, the party did not follow up about fundraising appearances for the
independent senator.
Instead, the Sanders campaign raised the $250,000 from small donors.
WaPo :
Weaver said the Sanders campaign decided early on to ignore the joint fundraising program
and raise small dollars on its own to pay for access to the voter file. "Who are the wealthy
people Bernie was going to bring to a fundraiser?" Weaver asked. "We had to buy the voter
file right before the primaries."
A second difference in substance: Let's remember that for Clinton, the JFA enabled her
campaign to circumvent contribution limits for large donors (Brazile: "Individuals who had
maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for
$353,400"). The Sanders campaign , by
contrast, had no issue with maxed out donors: "During fall '15, 99.8% of Bernie donors could
give again" (because it's awful hard to max out $27 at a time).
Suppose you were comparing two mortgages on different houses: One mortgage has a side deal
attached, the other does not. One is for a lavish facility and demands a complex financing
arrangement involving a third party. The other is for a fixer-upper and a lump sum is paid in
cash. Would you say those two mortgages are "the same," or not? Even if they both had the word
"Mortage" at the top of page one?
Did the Agreement Apply Only to the General Election, and not the Primary?
We now turn our attention to the MOU. Howard Dean,
sadly , is wrong. The MOU contains two key passages; the first describes the relationship
between Hillary for America (HFA; the Clinton campaign) and the DNC (Brazile: "fully under the
control of Hillary's campaign"), and the second is language on the general election. Let's take
each in turn. On control, pages 1 and 2:
With respect to the hiring of a DNC Communications Director , the DNC agrees
that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously
identified as acceptable to HFA.
2. With respect to the hiring of future DNC senior staff in the communications,
technology, and research departments , in the case of vacancy, the DNC will maintain
the authority to make the final decision as between candidates acceptable to HFA. 3.
Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over
strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election
related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide HFA
advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a
particular Democratic primary candidate . This does not include any communications
related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC
will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a
particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature .
That's pretty amazing, isn't it? Personnel is policy, as they say, and the Clinton campaign
has made sure that the DNC's Communications Director and new hires in the senior staff in the
communications, technology, and research departments will be acceptable to it. The Clinton
campaign will also review all mass email and communcations (which explains why Brazile, as
interim DNC chair, couldn't send out a press release without checking with Brooklyn. Since the
notorious debate schedule was already controlled by Wasserman Schultz, there was no point
messing about with it, I assume.) There is one place in this passage where the general election
is mentioned, so let's look at it:
Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over
strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general
election[-]related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research.
At the most generous reading, the Clinton campaign has "joint authority" with the DNC over
"strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures." At the narrowest reading, given
that the "general-election[-]related qualifier applies only to "communications," the joint
authority applies to "strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and data,
technology, analytics, and research." And given that the Clinton campaign is writing the checks
that keep the DNC afloat, who do you think will have the whip hand in that "joint authority"
relationship?
Now to the clause that supposedly says the agreement (JFA + MOU) applies only to the general
election. Here it is, from page 3:
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of
impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed
under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and
not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with
other candidates
(Pause for hollow laughter, given Wasserman Schultz's defenestration, Brazile passing debate
questions to the Clinton campaign, etc.). First, even though Hoho seems to think it's
exculpatory, the clause is an obvious fig leaf.
Glenn Greenwald explains :
DNC and Clinton allies pointed to the fact that the agreement contained self-justifying
lawyer language claiming that it is "focused exclusively on preparations for the General,"
but
as Fischer noted that passage "is contradicted by the rest of the agreement." This would
be like creating a contract to explicitly bribe an elected official ("A will pay Politician B
to vote YES on Bill X"), then adding a throwaway paragraph with a legalistic disclaimer that
"nothing in this agreement is intended to constitute a bribe," and then have journalists cite
that paragraph to proclaim that no bribe happened even though the agreement on its face
explicitly says the opposite.
Second, the DNC itself does not believe that it has any "obligation of impartiality
and neutrality" whatever. From Wilding et al. v. DNC Services Corporation, D/B/A Democratic
National Committee and Deborah "Debbie" Wasserman Schultz (as cited
in Naked Capitalism here ), the DNC's lawyer, Mr. Spiva:
MR. SPIVA: [W}here you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our
standard bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are
voluntarily deciding, we could have -- and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look,
we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that
way . That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also
been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party
politics to answer those questions.
Third, look at the institutional realities from point one on control. The Clinton campaign
had control over the Communications Director slot and major strategic decisions from
the moment the agreement was signed. Are we really to believe that they were behaving as
neutral parties? (One obvious way to have shown that would have been to release the MOU either
when it was signed.)
Can We Say that the 2016 Democratic Primary Was Rigged?
I found no evidence, none whatsoever. 'The only thing I found, which I said, I've found
the cancer but I'm not killing the patient,' was this memorandum that prevented the DNC from
running its own operation," Brazile added
I think Brazile is either overly charitable, or overly legalistic (perhaps confusing
"rigged" with "fixed," where only in the latter case is the outcome absolutely determined). I
also think she's wrong. The
dictionary definition of rigged is:
to manipulate fraudulently
There's ample evidence of rigging in both the JFA and the MOU. The JFA enabled the Hillary
Victory Fund, which was a fraudulent scheme to allow big donors to contribute to the Clinton
campaign by using the states as passthroughs. And the MOU enabled to Clinton campaign to
fraudulently manipulate the public and the press into the belief that the DNC was an
independent entity, when in fact it was a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the Clinton
campaign.
Conclusion
I know
we're not supposed to "relitigate" the 2016 campaign ; we're supposed to look forward and
not back. However, the demand not to "relitigate" assumes that the case is closed; as Brazile
shows, we're hardly through with the depositions, let alone prepared to render judgment. So,
when you hear "relitigate," think "silencing tactic," and ask yourself who and what silence
serves. And perhaps this post will provide a basis for further discussion. 119
comments
Likewise, confirms my decision to wash my hands of the party. If, by some miracle, a
candidate acceptable to my priorities is nominated, I will still vote for him/her, but the
party isn't getting any default support or any $.
People need to stop conflating the DNC with the Democratic Party. I realized I was doing
so and stopped.
The DNC is an organization for raising money to support Democratic Party candidates for US
President; its subsidiaries are, of course, the DCCC and the DSCC. The only reason they have
power to dictate to the actual party is because they hold the purse strings. That
Bernie and others have run successful campaigns, to one degree or another, without their
"help" is one of the reasons they're fighting so hard to maintain the status quo. If they're
shown to be redundant, the power of those who currently run it evaporates.
Saying "I'll never vote Democrat again" is, as my sainted mother used to say, cutting off
your nose to spite your face. Right now, if we're going to at least slow down the rocketing
juggernaut that is GOP/plutocratic ownership of our governments, we need to elect progressive
candidates. There's no time to create a third party that can compete, so we need to vote for
the candidates who are advancing a non-neoliberal/neocon agenda whatever party they run
under. It's mostly Democrats, at the moment, but a social media acquaintance spoke of a
clearly progressive candidate running for a local office as a Republican because that's how
she's registered.
One of the ways the GOP was so successful in conning the working people and small business
owners and others into buying their hogwash was by demonizing "the Democrats." Now, their
message that "Democrats" are nothing but crazy-headed hippies who want to take their money
and give it to other people is so deeply ingrained it's a hard row to how convincing them
just how big a lie it is. Indeed, I suspect I shocked a raging right-winger the other day
when I told him we agreed about Obama and Clinton, because his Fox-muddled mind firmly
believes a Democrat thinks Obama rules the heavens.
If we don't "vote Democrat" in the upcoming primaries, then the establishment local and
state parties are going to throw more New Democrats against the GOP and lose. That can't
happen.
Yes, thank you! People need to vote for the progressive candidates in the Democratic
primaries. If they don't, then the establishment candidates will easily win, and the national
government will continue to be dominated by both Republican and Democratic lap dogs of the
billionaires. And if there are a few progressive Republicans out there, sure, vote for them,
too.
I often wonder whether some of the people who admonish us to stop voting for Democrats are
really employed by one of the many Koch brothers organizations. Not all of them, of course,
and I'm not making an accusation against anyone who is commenting here. But if people don't
vote for progressive Democrats, the billionaires and the corporate advocates of
financialization will win.
Of course, appearances can be deceptive: Obama ran as a progressive candidate .
As a quick ready-reckoner -- the more a candidate bloviates on Identity issues, the less
likely they are (should they be elected) to be "progressive" on issues of substance: the
economy, tax, war/imperialism
Right! Where are these progressive democrats? I would love to support one other than
Bernie Sanders (yes I know he is not perfect and he is too old). But they don't seem to exist
at the national level. There seem to be mayoral and other municipal candidates on the right
track – just have no idea how to move those ideas onto the state or national level.
Maybe I am just cranky and pessimistic right now.
TYT did several interviews of "Justice Democrats", newbies running on a progressive
platform. Some of the interviews you could see Cenk Uynger almost cringing, and the usually
voluble Jimmy Dore very quiet as the candidates lacked public speaking skills, and
demonstrating a probable lack of political smarts necessary to maneuver any bureaucracy.
Without trial by fire at lower levels, learning how to run a government and get results,
then there is no way to judge the candidates.
Unless candidates like Roza Calderon a faster learn that is
apparent at this point, they the Justice Democrats can only win when "anyone but him/her"
applies ,
So it was our apathy that did it. It was our moral failure. "Really," says Algernon, in The Importance of Being Earnest, "if the lower orders don't
set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them? They seem, as a class, to have
absolutely no sense of moral responsibility."
There's an important difference between being and voting Democrat. Actually, we already
have a defacto 3rd party, Independents/Unaffiliated, a larger block of voters than either
Republicans or Democrats.
With even greater numbers of Independents/Unaffiliated, we could be a force to be reckoned
with. Actually, we should recognize and own our power right now because we could decimate the
ranks of the Duopoly and make room for an actual third party. We can still vote for Democrats
of course, but they'll realize that they can't continue to take our votes for granted.
There's actually no good reason to remain a registered Democrat. You can still vote for
Democrats as an Independent/Unaffiliated voter. It's only for some presidential primaries and
caucuses that party registration is a limitation. If you live in one of those states, you can
temporarily register as a Democrat to vote, then revert to independent/unaffiliated
afterwards. Other than that, all other elections are open without regard to affiliation.
The Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same bird of prey, and we're the prey
only because we haven't yet learned to fly to escape their talons. If we start owning our
power as free agents/Independent voters, that can change. While deep pocketed donors may have
the power to make the wheels turn for the Duopoly, those wheels can't go anywhere without our
votes. Since we don't have the power of money, we can at least exercise our political power
to stay out of their talons.
Independence is the way to fly. It's not just leverage, it's also the only way to clear
more space and demand for official third parties. Since the Duopoly refuses to change their
ways and repair the rigged system they created to keep only themselves in power, we can and
should abandon them in droves.
In order to vote in the New York State Democrat party primary you must be a registered
Democrat. In NY the primary is where most seats are won and lost. Being registered as a
Democrat is a necessary evil in some cases.
It has never been clear to me why a hostile takeover of the Democrats, followed by a
management purge and seizure of its assets, should be framed as "saving" the Democrat Party.
I think that's what a lot of Sanders people would like to do. It's also not clear to me why
people think the Democrats can simply be by-passed , and don't need to be assaulted,
and if from the inside, all the better.
As readers know, my experience with the Greens was poor (as it has been with others I have
talked to). This is especially sad since the GP in Maine had seemed to be viable. So, my fear
of the Greens is not fear of the un known, but fear of the known ; I worked
at dysfunctional non-profits before, and I don't need to do it again. Others, especially CP
activists, may differ in their experience, but that's mine. (Note that I was reinforced in my
priors by Stein's lawyer adopting the "Russian hacking" meme in Stein's post-election
lawsuits.)
if Bernie's primary campaign and support had been transferred to the Green Party, he
would have been a very serious contender,
I agree. But Sanders couldn't join the Green ticket, because he made a promise to support
the Democratic candidate, and unlike some politicians, he tries to keep his promises. So what did the Greens do? Instead of actively trying to gain the support of Sanders
primary voters, they nominated ideological purist Ajamu Baraka as their Vice Presidential
candidate, and he would not back down from unrealistic insulting criticism of Sanders. In
effect, the Greens chose to fail.
I am not interested in keeping the two party system. Either the country breaks apart, or we will have regional parties that can compete with
the Democrats and the Republicans.
How many clowns can dance on the head of a pin? Debating whether it feels better to have a
donkey or an elephant standing on your neck is a fools errand. Neither the Democrat or
Republican party is democratic or representative of any more than a handful of families from
the Billionaires Club. While they may favor different individuals in the ruling class,
neither faux-party has the slightest interest in the rabble who don't line their pockets and
provide protection against electoral defeat.
Elections are a stage managed charade in our kleptocracy. Expecting them to change
anything that matters, or alter the course of the Warfare State is pure delusion. First we
must have Collapse, then Chaos before we can have Change that we can believe in.
"First we must have Collapse, then Chaos before we can have Change that we can believe
in."
You are right -- although hopefully mere "crisis" will be sufficient for radical change
rather than complete collapse & chaos . Collapse & chaos may void any chance of
organised positive change. Having said that the signs are not good: see https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/06/the-ecosystem-is-breaking-down/
for the less than cheery news on ecosystem breakdown.
Both parties must be revealed unambiguously to the whole public as the completely morally
bankrupt, treasonous & vicious entities that socialists & progressives have known
them to be for decades.
The big problem with the Democrats is that they just kicked all the Progressives out and
actively oppose them. Voting for blue dogs doesn't get us anywhere.
You are correct about Carter. Zbigniew Brzezinski was a creature of the Rockefellers, and
he was Carter's Special Assistant for National Security. Prior to becoming President, Carter
was a member of the Trilateral Commission.
The rigging was obvious from the start. When nearly all the super delegates declared for
Clinton before a single primary was held, I read numerous reports that said the reason was
quid pro quo. The super delegates were to be given campaign money in exchange for their
support. The agreement proves it.
That, and what the DNC did to Bernie supporters during the convention, made me swear I'd
never give them a penny. I have only donated to specific candidates directly. Meanwhile, the
Dem establishment stubbornly remains clueless as to why it cannot regain the House and
Senate.
I have seen portions of the agreement (not sure if JFA or MOU) characterized as a "slush
fund" for consultants. Naturally, of course, but one might also wonder if that slush fund was
used to purchase any superdelegate votes. Pure speculation I didn't have time to run down, so
I left it on the cutting room floor.
G, a lot happened to Sanders supporters at the convention, too much to recap but you can
probably find stories about it. Many walked out but their seats were filled by paid
seat-fillers so the hall didn't look empty, also from what I understand paid seat-fillers
sometimes didn't let them take their seats. Signs were blocked, white noise was used to
muffle boos, etc.
Before the convention, many of the primaries had a lot of funny business (not all, I know
of no problems here in Texas). But California, Arizona, New York, Puerto Rico, Nevada and
others all had SERIOUS problems with things such as efforts to prevent Sanders supporters
from voting, questionable vote counting (such as at Nevada caucuses), efforts to make voting
difficult by having few poll places, etc., etc.
I think there were irregularities in Illinois, too. I recall that 6 counties did not have
enough Democratic ballots, and the Democratic Attorney General, a Clinton supporter, sued to
prevent voters in those counties from voting after election day. In Massachusetts, Bill Clinton illegally electioneered near or in a polling place. But the
authorities let him get away with it.
Great article Lambert. TheGreenwald article was helpful but yours is the icing on the
cake. Hopefully many will read this so that they do not get confused with all of the
Clintonista response to Brazile. Howard Dean must be suffering from early Alzheimer's to
write such a lie. But he has done it before.
It's hard for me to believe anyone can, with a straight face, suggest the 2 agreements are
equal.How can you have more than one agreement giving "the authority to make the final decision
" ??!!
Final means last, no? #corruptlosers
I know we're not supposed to "relitigate" the 2016 campaign; we're supposed to look
forward and not back. However, the demand not to "relitigate" assumes that the case is
closed; as Brazile shows, we're hardly through with the depositions, let alone prepared to
render judgment. So, when you hear "relitigate," think "silencing tactic," and ask yourself
who and what silence serves.
Well said. Regular contact with the centrist MSM recently is like being subjected to
hypnotism routines from 50s movies. "You are thinking forward, forward, forward. When I snap
my fingers you will feel fresh, eager to believe in the promises of the party of Franklin
Roosevelt and Barack Obama."
and yet FDR stood by while his own "Senator Sanders" – Henry Wallace was sidetracked
from his vice-presidency and legacy as FDR's successor (to the chagrin of Eleanor, among
many) by corporate dems James Byrnes, stooge for big oil and U.S. steel, who replaced Wallace
with Truman at 1944 dem convention
However, there certainly is no comparison, as you note, between obama's complete lack of
"transparency, oversight, accountability" regarding bush-cheney war crimes, Wall Street
frauds, destabilization of entire Middle-East, leading to republican trump administration,
and FDR
Most authors-historicans I have encountered believe FDR had no real idea how ill he
was
A while ago, I read a story about the DNC's misuse of unpaid interns. The story itself was
barfy enough, but what really shocked me was an aside asserting that even official elected
DNC members were barred from viewing the DNC's budget. ( http://paydayreport.com/unpaidinternsatdnc/
)
"Surely that can't be true," I said to myself. But it is! I looked up the DNC's charter
and bylaws and the standing budget committee is specifically exempted from article 9 section
12, which says that all official meetings of the DNC and its committees must be open to the
public and cannot involve voting by secret ballot. http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.17.15.pdf
"WTF kind of an organization is this?!" I thought. How on earth is that even legal?
Well, after the Brazile disclosure of the Clinton MOU, I went back to look at the DNC
charter/bylaws. You'll note on the first page the date the current version was
adopted–2 days after the MOU was signed!
Anyone wanna take a bet that the budget committee carveout was one of things that was
changed?
jsba, suggest you use the Wayback machine or another internet archive and look at prior
historical copies of DNC charter/bylaws, to identify the changes. Could be very illuminating
as to (possible) criminal intent?
I was wrong about the budget committee carveout–it's in this version as well (still
completely insane!).
The fact that it was amended 2 days after the MOU is, obviously, still extremely
suspicious. I don't have time to, but the 2009 version would be useful to identify possible
changes.
As much as I'd like to switch parties (hah) so as to add to the greater numbers of fleeing
formerly party faithful, I'm in one of those 'closed primary' states. My vote is already
nearly worthless (though I exercise my right every chance I get); to switch to a third party
would make sure I'm both excluded from the more interesting local party contests AND drowned
out in national contests. Lose/lose. Maybe if something like Maine's (currently under attack)
Ranked Choice Voting existed all over, I'd be less sour about the whole thing.
Yeah, you need people like Lambert willing to do the work. It is exhausting keeping up
with the truths, half truths and lies promulgated in the press and trying to figure out what
is true and what isn't.
I find it interesting that the agreement involved control of the IT/data infrastructure of
the DNC. Doesn't the DNC administer the democratic party registry? And with that observation,
wasn't there a lot of illegal party switching that caused a problem for some Democrats voting
in party restricted primaries that had their registration switched, so that they couldn't
take part in the primaries. Wouldn't it be interesting if the switched parties were on the
DNC record as donating to Bernie's campaign? Fixed, indeed.
Manipulations of the deplorable superdelegate system, with its covert quid pro quo payoffs
after the Clintons take power, was part of a seamless fix. Premature coronation by media and
party wigs after primary victories in red states no Democrat would win in the general
election helped ice it.
Perhaps revelations will turn up on mainstream media, from the Sabbath Gasbags to NPR,
knifing Bernie with Hillary talking points at every opportunity, when he wasn't being
ignored. Thomas Frank wrote persuasively on WaPo's bias in Swat Team in Harper's, and there
have been tidbits on off-record Clinton media cocktail parties and such. But I'd like to know
how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was achieved. Certainly Jeff
Bezos has a Washington wish list. I marveled at how many journalists suddenly sounded like
breathless valley girl propagandists. And still do. What faster way to tank journalism's
credibility than that perception?
I guess that's why after catching headlines more of my reading time shifts to alternative
offerings such as those presented here.
But I'd like to know how far up the editorial totem poles the fix went and how it was
achieved.
I worked as a journalist in America for over a decade. I cannot stress enough how
unnecessary such a literal fix would be. (Though doubtless words were and are exchanged
between concerned parties when needed.)
The hive-mind position of most U.S. journalists -- and especially of editors, who tend to
be the most compliant with the power-structure and often the stupidest people in the room --
was (and is) an automatical default to unquestioning support -- even worship -- of the
Democratic Party, its elite, and Clintonite neoliberalism.
I once wrote a long feature that got a crush-letter from Joe Lieberman's office. The
editors at the magazine in question were ecstatic and printed that letter as its own separate
feature in the next issue. Personally, I thought Leiberman was scum, but kept my qualms to
myself and was glad I used a byline.
It seems to me that the HRC campaign's JFA was expressly designed to -- and succeeded in
its design -- circumvent the statutory $2700 limit on direct campaign contributions. Yet I
have not seen commentary that suggests any laws were violated. What am I missing?
To me, it seemed that the Democratic Party had already decided for clinton before the
primaries, as at my local caucus the party had planted each neighborhood group with a party
faithful, not from the neighborhood, who would argue for clinton and fear monger about Trump.
I know this because I talked to the plant in my group, asked her where she lived, and
discovered it was not in my neighborhood; it was a different town. Others reported the
same.
Also, a Dem party leader came up to me and said "Sanders is not going to be the nominee"
and "When this is over (meaning the primary), then you'll be supporting Hillary, right?" I
told her to never assume anything.
So, thanks to Brazile, no matter her motivation, for providing proof of what we already
knew.
I think you don't see that skill set very much in party leaders because they so rarely
need for the party to win elections. They do need to be able to maintain control
over their parties, so they're great at being cutthroat and cheating. But apart from certain
important individual elections, the success of the party as a whole isn't a big priority for
them. There are spoils to divide either way.
I worked on the Sanders primary campaign in my city. I watched as the state/regional
leadership consistently tanked the gotv and other Sanders ground outreach while a few local
leaders working in smaller areas worked their hearts out on the ground. Surprisingly (or not)
the state/ regional leadership bailed to work on the HRC campaign within hours of closing the
primary office.
I swear, in one of her interviews on the past weekend, Brazile made a quick, underbreath,
reference to 'poor Seth Rich' in recounting the death threats aimed at her. Glad someone has
not forgotten that connection.
It has been a while since I handled a criminal defense case, but I am not sure that the
agreement is not in fact, criminal. When the Sanders for President campaign signed an
agreement and paid money in consideration of getting access to the voter file and when the
state parties agreed to merge their fundraising efforts with the DNC and HFA, the commercial
fraud laws applied to that relationship. Since the fundraising was done using interstate
phone calls, letters, and emails and the voter file access was provided by electronic
transmissions from servers in DC to end users in Burlington, Vermont that includes 18 USC
1341, 1343 and 1346 (mail, wire and honest services fraud). These laws do not just ban
outright lying, but also the concealment of material facts that one has a duty to
disclose.
Considering the importance of voter file access, it is impossible to imagine that your
chief competitor having joint authority over hiring the people who handle all your customer
service and monitor your compliance with voter file contract is not a material fact. If,
under DC contract law or FTC commerical regulations, these kinds of conflicts of interest are
mandatorily disclosable (I do not practice in DC but I doubt DC applies caveat emptor to that
degree), then 18 USC 1343 was broken and Jeff Sessions could indict everyone involved.
It is even worse for the state parties agreement. The DNC arguably has a duty of loyalty
to its state affiliates which makes agreeing to encourage them all to sign up even though it
is concealing its knowledge that the money will be allocated in a way that will be bad for at
least some of them seem utterly inconsistent with the honest services provisions of 1346. All
in all, it is probably a good thing for the DNC that the Sessions aides I went to law school
with paid less attention in criminal law that I did.
It seemed to me that the nondisclosure of material facts and of conflicts of interest
might, arguably, constitute some type of criminal activity and that Donna Brazile's
characterization of the agreement as "not a criminal act" was, perhaps, a bit too facile but
I did not know the specific statutes or claims that might be involved. I really appreciate
your detailed observations here.
"Not a dime's worth of difference."
When it comes to politics, it isn't Russians we need to worry about, it's Americans. That's
where the collusion is – between the parties.
It was the Republicans' turn, period. Jeff Sessions doubtless knows that.
Just want to point out that the state-party=>DNC pass-through is not at all new. Has
been active in some form and proportion in every presidential campaign since 1992 (mainly, or
at least nominally due to changes in FEC regulation), but really ramped up in and after
2008.
Pushback by states has decreased over time, as state party executive directors are now
almost always (even in off-cycle years) routed in from DC, instead of staffing from the local
pool of operatives.
One of the important impacts is on state legislatures. Gutted of necessary funding, and
discouraged (and sometimes contractually inhibited) from soliciting further funds on the
national level, state parties have little left in their coffers to support their legislative
candidates and committees (and forget about the bottom of the ticket).
So this kind of money hoovering is a significant factor in the national net loss of Dem
seats in state houses in non-"battleground" states.
During oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC three years ago, Justice Samuel Alito
dismissed the Campaign Legal Center's
analysis showing how, absent limits on the total amount that donors could give to
multiple political committees, candidates could use joint fundraising schemes to raise
huge, potentially corrupting contributions.
These scenarios, Justice Alito claimed, are "wild hypotheticals that are not obviously
plausible." Hillary Clinton, though, is proving that the Campaign Legal Center was right all
along.
I'm not at all a campaign finance expert. Perhaps readers will weigh in?
Yes, the amounts are new. Just saying this was the direction things were going for a while
already. Good will between DNC and state parties already at a low ebb, DWS a big part of
that.
As we know, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision allows corporations, individuals
and labor unions to make unlimited contributions to independent organizations that use the
money to support or defeat a candidate. Rules prohibit coordination between a candidate committee and an individual or
organization making "independent expenditures."
Clearly this was not the arrangement between the HVF, State Democratic Central Committees
participating in the PAC and the DNC. Hillary was pulling the strings at the DNC. But I'm just now appreciating that the Hillary Victory Fund is not a Super PAC.
Joint fundraising is fundraising conducted jointly by a political committee and one or
more other political committees or unregistered organizations. Joint fundraising rules
apply to:
Party committees;
Party organizations not registered as political committees;
Federal and/or nonfederal candidate committees;
Nonparty, unauthorized political committees (nonconnected PACs); and
Unregistered nonparty organizations. 11 CFR 102.17(a)(1)(i) and (2).
The HVF was the first joint fundraising committee between a presidential candidate and the
Democratic party since the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision McCutcheon v FEC. A horrible
precedent at that!
McCutcheon declared a total limit on how much an individual can give federal candidates
and parties in a two-year cycle unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts opined, "The existing
aggregate limits may in fact encourage the movement of money away from entities subject to
disclosure."
Right!
The HVF demonstrates how rechanneling dark money from super PACs toward candidates and
parties doesn't stop unethical and undemocratic processes.
That the HVF was needed to balance the Obama debt is one thing. That the HVF can pass
through money from State committees to the DNC and then coordinate activities there while
passing off as a joint fundraising committee is another thing.
The rechanneling of hundreds of millions of dollars donated by rich D elites to bypass
individual contribution limits was a brilliant financial engineering feat–one that the
Rs will surely emulate.
Before conducting a joint fundraiser, all participants must enter into a written
agreement that identifies the JFR and states the allocation formula -- the amount or
percentage that the participants agree to use for allocating proceeds and expenses. 11 CFR
102.17(c)(1).
What was the allocation formula of the joint fundraising committee?
As the HVF fairy tale plays out, Clinton is the witch who lures Hansel and Gretel to the
forest with a castle of confections, with the intention to eat them.
Are Democrats capable of outsmarting the witches that want to cannibalize the party?
Thanks Lambert for this. As usual, you have seen around corners and cleared the mud from
the water. Thank God you like crawling through this sh*t, so that I at least don't have
to.
Our local radio host Warren Olney, on KCRW who started his show "To The Point" (which is
syndicated nationally on Public Radio International) during the 2000 Bush v Gore Supreme
Court crowning of Bush fiasco is doing a week long retrospective of the disintegration of
Americans' faith in "our" institutions (ha!) before he goes to a once a week podcast.
I have listened to him for 17 years and I don't know how he could stomach covering U.S.
society, politics, and culture during those years of non-ending sh*t show. He was fair to all
guests including some right wing loonies, but you never got the feeling he was going for
"balance." He always seemed to get the truth. Gonna sorely miss him.
So glad you are still on the case, and loving it. You have my gratitude, and soon, a
contribution.
How much of the $250,000 the Sanders campaign paid for the DNC voter list went to the
Clinton campaign? I am still wondering if this kind of thing has occurred in other elections?
As far as relitigating the primary goes, we should've had that fight back, if not in 2000,
then definitely in 2004. After Team Clinton, people who justified their sellouts and perfidy
with 'we must never have another McGovern or Carter', gave the GOP a gift of a unified
government that should have been the permanent end of their credibility. Because while
McGovern, Carter, and Mondale went down in flames they didn't so thoroughly destroy the
anti-reactionary institutions as badly as the Third Way did.
The endless 2016 primary is our punishment for giving these centrist vipers a second
chance.
I appreciate Lambert going through these documents and laying out the timeline. One of the
things that this read sparked for me was the realization the Joe Biden was elbowed out just
as much as Bernie Sanders. I didn't follow the Biden decision-making process at the time but
checking back on the timeline it seems like Clinton pre-empted any attempt by dear old Joe to
actually decide to run. Correct me if I'm wrong (as I may well be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#2016_presidential_race
It doesn't take much elbowing to oust someone who was polling in single digits in his home
state. I donated to O'Malley's campaign before Bernie got in, and, regrettably, am still on
his mailing list.
The bottom line is that the political system is owned by the ruling oligarchy and that the
Democratic Establishment is in bed with them. If a serious candidate from the left poses a
challenge, they will rig the Primary against that candidate.
The Democratic Establishment is pretty much paid to lose and to make the consultant class
rich. Equally as importantly, they exist to co-opt the left.
Sure there are a few voices talking that make sense like Tulsi Gabbard. They are the
exception to a very corrupt party.
A big part of why the middle class has declined is because of the total betrayal of the
Democratic Party from the ideas behind the New Deal.
The DNC got into the position of selling themselves to the Clintons as they were $20
million in debt, right? I have read that the major reason for these debts was that the DNC
had not shrunk itself since the last campaign and was paying out a ton of money for
consultants doing Christ knows what. In fact, Obama also used the DNC to support a stack of
his consultants as well as grifters gotta grift, right?
My question is whether this was a deliberate ploy on Obama and the Clinton factions to put
the DNC into such a vulnerable position before 2016 came along that when the time came, they
had to take up an offer that they could not refuse. I have not heard if Obama has made any
comments on this fiasco that took place on his watch and it seems nobody wants to call him
out on it. In the Brazile case, it is not a matter of following the money but following the
lack of money.
"Both sides in the Democratic Party's current faction fight, as I see it, are in denial
about the true nature and scope of the problem
"Both responses are essentially utopian: They rest on the premise that the Democratic Party
is still a functioning political organization and that the United States is still a
functioning democracy."
Thanks. This was plain and simple money laundering to get around the Federal Election
Commission rules and regulations. That no one has been brought to justice shows how corrupt
the American political process is. It would great if you could post how you would reform it.
I would start with paper ballots counted in public and halt corporations from buying
elections.
If I understand the law correctly, this really wasn't money laundering, since laundered
money becomes dirty by virtue of its being the result of a crime (like drug dealers
depositing cash at HSBC (IIRC)). Handling money in a complex and obfuscated way is not, in itself, money laundering. I'm
not sure what the word is, though.
Violating campaign laws is a crime. Circumventing can often be shown to be violating. Need
a prosecutor willing to prosecute white collar crime, a rare breed for at least the last
decade.
But trump has been attacked by Clintons, and he has DOJ but nothing is happening.
Some very good points are made here. Carping about the inequities of the Democrat Party
establishment isn't going to change their behaviour. Too much lucre. One needs to change the
people running the party. From the ground up and with concrete regulatory features. Full
stop.
However, one might look to the UK Labour party to see how it reacted when J. Corbyn, a
lifelong member and activist, became leader of the party through grandee miscalculation. The
Thatcherist Blairites went ballastic and basically decided to destroy the party rather than
let a fairly mild democratic socialist offer an alternative to their beloved neoliberal
economic policies. Too much lucre. They almost destroyed Labour in Scotland and were intent
on defenestrating Labour in England, whilst retaining some feeble structure as a mock
substitute, so that the Tories would, in fact, become the one and only alternative.
The forces aligned against the democratic tendencies of ordinary citizens are formidable
and reach into every nook and cranny of our lives. They have the money, technological reach
and hence the power of capital and its persuasive abilities.
i dont think a campaign had owned the dnc like that before. i think it had nothing to do
with hilary being a good team player, and everything to do with money and juicy
consulting/lobbying jobs. and pointing this out is not "sulking". know your enemy, and don't
excuse their crimes and predations by an argument that "that's just the way things are".
I am a Bernie supporter. He was pushed to the side by the Dem's – a party to which I
belonged for forty years – in a total panic when it was shown to the Dem's that Bernie
was able to reach disaffected party members as myself by raising a large amount of money
through individual small donors.
That Bernie accomplished this feat was a huge factor, IMO, in why and how my former party
felt it necessary to malign and derail Bernie and his supporters before, during and after the
Democratic -meh – Nominating Convention.
The Dem's should have just named the Hillary for America Fund the Hillary for Hillary
Fund.
Hillary cares only for and about Hillary. She's the reason Trump is POTUS today.
My family has been Democrat for many generations. Most of my family members have,
unfortunately, BTFD on this one. I used to find them to be reasonable folk. Trump derangement
syndrome has infected them all. This is a common complaint these days.
Forgot to thank Lambert for all of his great care and hard work in putting this together
for us. Thank you, Lambert.
In Brazile's account I do believe I remember reading that my home state, CA, did not sign off
on the agreement with regard to the HFV fund. But I seem to remember that Naked Capitalism,
or perhaps in the commentariat here, did state that the Dem's here in CA were in an uproar
over Hillary Victory Fund taking all of the state party monies. Am I having a flashback or
did I actually remember this wrong? Anyone know?
I thought the most interesting thing about Brazile's comments to date was that Obama left
the DNC indebted and therefore more vulnerable to the highest bidder. Not easy to bail that
out on $27 donations. So typical of these Goldmanite administrations, this use of finance as
a political weapon.
"... An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey's statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former Secretary of State of having been 'grossly negligent" in handling classified information, new memos to Congress show. ..."
"... "There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information," reads the statement, one of Comey's earliest drafts. ..."
"... Of course, Comey's final statement, while critical of Hillary's email usage, alleged that no prosecutor would pursue charges against actions which he described only as "extremely careless." ..."
"... Meanwhile, 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. ..."
"... ...that said, we're going to go out on a limb and question whether it just might have had something to do with that infamous meeting between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey's boss, that happened just 6 days before Comey made his statement? ..."
The Hill , early drafts of former FBI Director James Comey's statement on Hillary Clinton's email case accused the former Secretary
of State of "gross negligence" in her handling of classified information as opposed to the "extremely careless" phrase that made
its way into the final statement.
As The Hill further points out, the change in language is 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.
An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey's statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former
Secretary of State of having been 'grossly negligent" in handling classified information, new memos to Congress show.
The tough language was changed to the much softer accusation that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified
information when Comey announced in July 2016 there would be no charges against her.
The draft, written weeks before the announcement of no charges, was described by multiple sources who saw the document both before
and after it was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee this past weekend.
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was
grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information," reads the statement, one of Comey's earliest drafts.
Those sources said the draft statement was subsequently changed in red-line edits to conclude that the handling of 110 emails
containing classified information that were transmitted by Clinton and her aides over her insecure personal email server was "extremely
careless."
Of course, Comey's final statement, while critical of Hillary's email usage, alleged that no prosecutor would pursue charges
against actions which he described only as "extremely careless."
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling
of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified
information."
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those
with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
Meanwhile, 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."
Unfortunately, The Hill's sources couldn't confirm the most important detail behind this bombshell new revelation, namely who
made the call to the change the language...
The sources, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said the memos show
that at least three top FBI officials were involved in helping Comey fashion and edit the statement, including Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe, General Counsel James Baker and Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki.
The documents turned over to Congress do not indicate who recommended the key wording changes, the sources said. The Senate Judiciary
Committee is likely to demand the FBI identify who made the changes and why, the sources said.
...that said, we're going to go out on a limb and question whether it just might have had something to do with that infamous
meeting between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey's boss, that happened just 6 days before Comey made his
statement?
The mere presence of a private server that sent/received classified information is THE EVIDENCE that she intended to mishandle
classified information. Jesus H. Christ on a cracker what are these people smoking? That's like saying that just because you were
drunk and decided to drive that you didn't intend to drive drunk.
" ...early drafts of former FBI Director James Comey's statement on Hillary Clinton's email case accused the former Secretary
of State of "gross negligence" in her handling of classified information as opposed to the "extremely careless" phrase that made
its way into the final statement."
Presstitutes from guardian have no shame. Look, for example, at the following statement "The former
Clinton staffers – among them high-profile figures such as Huma Abedin, Jennifer Palmieri and campaign
manager Robby Mook, the target of stringent criticism from Brazile – wrote: "It is particularly troubling
and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians
and
our opponent , about our candidate's health."
It is widely suspected that Hillary Clinton has second stage
of Parkinson or some other serious neurological diseases?
It is telling that Guardian is afraid to open comments on this article.
Notable quotes:
"... Regarding the primary, in which Sanders – a Vermont independent – mounted a surprisingly strong challenge, Brazile writes in her book that a joint fundraising agreement between Clinton and the DNC "looked unethical" and she felt Clinton had too much influence on the party. ..."
She also said she "got sick and tired of people trying to tell me how to spend money" as DNC chair,
when she "wasn't getting a salary. I was basically volunteering my time".
"I'm not Patsey the slave," Brazile said, referring to a character in the Oscar-winning film 12
Years a Slave.
In her book, Brazile writes that she did not ultimately try to make the change of candidate because:
"I thought of Hillary, and all the women in the country who were so proud of and excited about her.
I could not do this to them."
On ABC, she admitted she had not had the power to make the change but said: "I had to put in on
the the table because I was under tremendous pressure after Secretary Clinton fainted to have a quote-unquote
plan B. I didn't want a plan B. Plan A was great for me. I supported Hillary and I wanted her to
win. But we were under pressure."
Brazile writes that on 12 September 2016, Biden's chief of staff called saying the vice-president
wanted to speak with her. Her thought, she writes, was: "Gee, I wonder what he wanted to talk to
me about?"
On ABC, she said she did not mention the possible switch. "I mean, look, everybody was called
in to see, do you know anything? How is she doing? And of course my job at the time was to reassure
people, not just the vice-president but also reassure the Democratic party, the members of the party,
that Hillary was doing fine and that she would resume her campaign the following week."
It is unclear if Biden was ever willing to step into the race. The former vice-president, who
many believe could a run for the presidency in 2020, made no immediate comment.
Asked if she still thinks a Biden-Booker ticket could have won, Brazile equivocated, saying: "Well,
you know, I had a lot of other combinations. This was something you play out in your mind."
Regarding the primary, in which Sanders – a Vermont independent – mounted a surprisingly strong
challenge, Brazile writes in her book that a joint fundraising agreement between Clinton and the
DNC "looked unethical" and she felt Clinton had too much influence on the party.
"... the DNC agreed to let the Clinton campaign control the party's finances, strategy, donations, and staffing decisions in exchange for the Clinton campaign's financial help. ..."
"... At a time when many people and many voices are calling for unity within the Democratic party, it was really disturbing to see that there was kind of a purge of party officials from both the at large committee, as well as the executive committee within the DNC. That really had one common thread of the people who were booted out of those seats that they had held. Some for decades. The commonality was that these were people who had either supported Bernie Sanders for president or supported Keith Ellison for DNC chair, or both. ..."
"... Getting rid of the non democratic superdelegates who make up one third of all of the votes cast that a nominee needs to secure the nomination, and to secure open or same day registration primaries so that again, open the doors. Let's let everybody in and get involved in the process. ..."
"... In Roger Stone's book, The Making of the President 2016 ..."
"... Every piece of what we've learned so far, unfolding over months, is as bad as or worse than we had thought: The DNC works to engineer a Clinton/Trump match-up, the combination most likely to assure a Democratic loss . It vehemently denies that it is tilted favorably toward Clinton -- which turns out to be true, in a technical sense, because it is controlled by Clinton. ..."
"... Debbie will be the sacrificial lamb. Still waiting for anyone in the mainstream to publish the name "Awan". ..."
"... she's put her money where her mouth is numerous times now, beginning with leaving the DNC in protest over its unethical practices ..."
In
this Real
News Network interview , Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) responds to former interim chair
Donna Brazile's revelation that the Clinton campaign had effective control of the DNC. Gabbard
was a vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee until February 28, 2016, when she
resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Primary.
AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. During the 2016 Democratic
primary, supporters of Bernie Sanders complained that the Democratic National Committee was
plagued by internal corruption, and rigging the nomination for Hillary Clinton. Well today, the
former interim chair of the DNC has come out to say exactly that. Writing for Politico, Donna
Brazile details a scheme wherein the Clinton campaign effectively took over the DNC. Facing a
major funding shortfall, the DNC agreed to let the Clinton campaign control the party's
finances, strategy, donations, and staffing decisions in exchange for the Clinton campaign's
financial help.
But, this did not happen after Clinton became the nominee. In fact, this agreement was made
in August 2015, months before a single primary vote was cast. Among many things, this meant
that the DNC was able to act as a money laundering operation for the Clinton campaign. Tens of
millions of dollars in donations to state democrats across the country ultimately was kicked
back to Clinton headquarters in Brooklyn, well, earlier I spoke to someone who has been a
prominent vocal critic of the DNC process from the start. Congressmember Tulsi Gabbard
represents Hawaii's second congressional district. She was vice chair of the DNC until February
2016 when she resigned to endorse senator Bernie Sanders. I spoke to her about Donna Brazil's
revelations. Congressmember Gabbard, welcome. Your response, what we've heard from Donna
Brazile today.
TULSI GABBARD: I was not surprised to read what she was detailing in what was printed today.
This was something that when I was vice chair of the DNC I didn't have knowledge of the
details, but it was something that some folks were actually talking about and were concerned
about at that time
AARON MATÉ: I want to quote more from Donna Brazile. She writes "If the fight had
been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which
one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the
party's integrity." She's referring especially to this financial arrangement in which the
Clinton camp gives the DNC money but in exchange, the DNC hands over control of basically every
single decision. Your thoughts on that? Were you surprised by her revelation?
TULSI GABBARD: Again, this is not something I wasn't privy to the inner workings of how
these decisions were made, because at that time the decisions were really ultimately coming
from the chair of the DNC. But I had heard some concerns from folks from different state
parties actually. Executive directors and chairs and people who were involved in the grassroots
organizing and trying to again increase involvement in the process. Their concerns around this
joint fundraising agreement that Donna Brazile talked about in her article and her book was
that the funds that were being raised through this agreement were not actually benefiting the
party, but they were kind of being used as a pass through for lack of a better word. Their
concerns again were about getting more support for the work that parties do on the ground and
grassroots organizing. Turning out the vote, going and knocking on doors. Doing all the things
that happened on the ground in states all across the country. Again, this was not something
that I was terribly surprised by in reading that Donna detailed, but it's something that hasn't
been laid out in the way that she has in this way.
AARON MATÉ: Yeah. She provides a figure when it comes to the money element. She says
that of $82 million that was raised in state fundraisers, less than half of 1%, half of 1% got
to go to the state parties, and said the rest went back to Brooklyn for the Clinton campaign.
What kind of difference do you think that made on the election outcome when it comes to
democratic efforts at the state level?
TULSI GABBARD: It's hard to say. I can't exactly quantify that. But I do know that some of
the state party officials who I had spoken to at different times during the campaign had
actually expressed these concerns and decided not to sign onto this joint fundraising agreement
for that specific reason. They saw at that point, look we're not going to be used by anyone's
campaign. If you want to talk about how to help strengthen local parties, let's have that
conversation, but this was clearly not an effort in that direction.
AARON MATÉ: You recently spoke out about some more decisions by the DNC at the
national level, in terms of their staffing of key committees. Can you comment there on what you
were most upset by, and your thoughts on what should be done?
TULSI GABBARD: At a time when many people and many voices are calling for unity within the
Democratic party, it was really disturbing to see that there was kind of a purge of party
officials from both the at large committee, as well as the executive committee within the DNC.
That really had one common thread of the people who were booted out of those seats that they
had held. Some for decades. The commonality was that these were people who had either supported
Bernie Sanders for president or supported Keith Ellison for DNC chair, or both. If the message
is that we're going to get rid of people who may have dissenting opinions, or may be calling
for different kinds of reform or retaliating for positions that they've taken this is not the
direction that the democratic party should be going in. The democratic party should be going in
the direction of openness, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, which is why I've been
calling for two major but very basic kinds of reform. Getting rid of the non democratic superdelegates who make up one third of all of the votes cast that a nominee needs to secure
the nomination, and to secure open or same day registration primaries so that again, open the
doors. Let's let everybody in and get involved in the process.
She says that of $82 million that was raised in state fundraisers, less than half of 1%,
half of 1% got to go to the state parties, and said the rest went back to Brooklyn for the
Clinton campaign.
Great dot-connecting. Incredible irony that HRC's diversion of funds from swing states to
her high-spending campaign was one of the proximate causes of her losing the electoral
college.
Yep. Here in Maine, where the state party was part of the Victory Fund kick-back scheme,
Trump ended up winning one of the state's electoral votes (Maine allows splitting by
congressional district) -- the first time a Republican took a Maine electoral vote since
1988.
The link at the FEC was dated 9/16/15 and shows only 32 states and the Democratic Party of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Open Secrets shows 38 states eventually signed on to the Hillary Victory Fund shows 38
states (Iowa, NJ, Del, KS, NM and SD added), with each participating state a "beneficiary" of
around $3M. Nada to the Democratic Party of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00586537
These $3M expenditures pale to Hillary for America ($120,822,326), DNC Services Corp
($55,639,930), Bully Pulpit Interactive ($40,881,995), and Chapman, Cubine et al
($25,432,057).
Incidentally, I was not able to track these funds at the Oregon Secretary of State with
Orestar, the online tool to search campaign finances. As I looked closely at the filings, it
appears the FEC requires expenditures by (not contributions to) the Democratic Party of
Oregon to federal political committees be recorded. I only see ~$275K contributed back
(aggregated expenditures) to "Democratic Party of Oregon Federal Account" and "Democratic
Party of Oregon Forward Oregon Transfer Down Acct." in the 2015 and 2016 calendar years
(though an additional $123,404.48 has gone to Democratic Party of Oregon Federal Account in
2017).
"Open Secrets shows 38 states eventually signed on to the Hillary Victory Fund shows 38
states (Iowa, NJ, Del, KS, NM and SD added) "
Oh, so that's why the KS Dem party officials claimed they couldn't afford $20k for
a mailer for Thompson in the KS-04 special election race this spring . A race he almost won,
without that help!
So for Wisconsin at least, it is not true that the state party made anything (even half of
1 percent) from the "joint" fundraising. Clinton took all but $4700 of the proceeds AND took
another $282,000 from the state party.
She says that of $82 million that was raised in state fundraisers, less than half of 1%,
half of 1% got to go to the state parties, and said the rest went back to Brooklyn for the
Clinton campaign.
Just like Charles Koch, she just wanted her fair share; all of it.
Tell me please, how is this different from republican efforts to exterminate Obama Care by
de-funding every bit of its supporting infrastructure?
Whether it was Hilary's intent to exterminate the Democratic party or not, the effect
seems quite similar.
At first, I didn't think that he was anything more than your classic identity politician.
Then I needed constituent service. Matter of fact, I needed it a couple of times. Let me tell
you, his staff aced it. They were that good.
As far as I am concerned, Raul has my vote for as long as he wants to stay in office.
Finally one shoe has dropped. The second one about to drop is that the DNC emails were not
hacked by Russia in any capacity, directly or indirectly by the Kremlin, whatever. They were
most probably leaked. HRC started the Russia hysteria when she called President Trump a
pupped of Putin in one of the debates. This is only one small example of her manipulative
arrogance.
Every piece of what we've learned so far, unfolding over months, is as bad as or
worse than we had thought: The DNC works to engineer a Clinton/Trump match-up, the
combination most likely to assure a Democratic loss . It vehemently denies
that it is tilted favorably toward Clinton -- which turns out to be true, in a technical
sense, because it is controlled by Clinton.
The establishment Democrats accuse
Sanders of not working for down-ballot Democrats while the DNC is siphoning money from the
states to help Clinton's campaign. "Maintaining ties to Wall Street makes economic
sense for Democrats and keeps their coffers full," one "pollster and senior political adviser
to President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000" helpfully assures us two weeks ago in the NYT , except when it
doesn't, such as when Donna Brazile discovers, to her horror, that the party is, fact, broke,
probably due, in no small part, to paying consultants -- like the one writing in the
Times -- whose expertise has led the
decimation of the party. (And, on top of all that, the DNC, professing "unity," purges
long-time members who supported Bernie Sander or Keith Ellison and appoints anti-minimum wage
lobbyist Dan Halpern to the Finance Committee.)
Every part of the story turns out to be a colossal train wreck -- and all this
from establishment/élite types who spent the entire campaign season reminding everyone
else that they knew what was realistic, pragmatic, achievable, so on and so forth.
It's unreal, really.
" but it was something that some folks were actually talking about and were concerned
about at that time"
===================================
Why does this remind me of Harvey Weinstein?
its like deja vu or something
I think we have to go back and find out who 'endorsed' Harvey. How many? And we go back, research and publish the names of those who knew, and yet still endorsed
Hillary.
To be fair to Rep. Gabbard, the excerpt published by Ms. Brazile clearly indicates that
Rep. Wasserman-Shulz (DWS) was not keeping the rest of the DNC leadership fully informed of
relevant business and financial arrangements.
If Brazile's account is accurate, the question arises, why did the DNC board tolerate that
situation for so long, given their legal responsibilities? Given the anomalous behavior by
DWS, you have to wonder how the DNC board could have been comfortable in their roles, and why
action wasn't taken against DWS earlier. That leads one to a suspicion is that there was an
outside force supporting (controlling?) DWS and intimidating the others.
Ah yes, but Brazile's account is a self-serving CYA attempt to get ahead of a story that
was obvious as it was happening to anyone paying attention 18 months ago. Notice no mention
of passing debate questions from CNN to Clinton ahead of time. It undercuts your "bombshell"
if you have to say "it was rigged and I helped"
Debbie will be the sacrificial lamb. Still waiting for anyone in the mainstream to publish
the name "Awan".
Nearly a year after the Nov 2016 general election, this issue is finally beginning to be
elevated. Senator Elizabeth Warren also responded affirmatively to a question about whether
some primary elections were rigged against Sanders on PBS Newshour yesterday evening.
Somewhat related in terms of the scramble to get ahead of the Den estab breakdown: In an interesting coincidence the recent meeting of the AFL-CIO saw labor leaders say it's
time to stop automatically giving Dems support.
"The time has passed when we can passively settle for the lesser of two evils," reads
the main political resolution passed Tuesday by delegates. Lee Saunders, chair of the
AFL-CIO's political committee and president of AFSCME (link is external), and Randi
Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (link is external), introduced
the resolution. They lead the labor federation's two largest unions. Convention managers
yoked the resolution to another measure it also approved discussing a labor party, though not
by name. "
Many AFT members were very unhappy (understatement) when Weingarten announced support for
Hillary without first polling members. AFT lost a lot of members over that. I'm not sure this
isn't a PR scramble by labor leaders to keep their jobs, instead of any real change in
outlook. But it's an interesting data point about the current state-of-play.
AFT member here. I was livid about the sham endorsement "process" that happened; it was
rushed through, months before the first contest, with absolutely no consultation from the
rank and file. Weingarten's infamous text messages about the National Nurses Union basically solidified
for me that she's nothing but pond scum. She's not a teacher, she's an attorney. And clearly,
not a very clever one, at that. I am obligated to be an AFT member, and if I were only to
become a "partial" member I'd still be paying about 88% of the dues anyway. I still support
my AFT local.
The national AFT and its pathetic misleadership can go to hell.
If it's any consolation, your situation appears to be the norm with the long-established
unions. Their clearly-stated bias aside, the World Socialist Web Site covers labor disputes
and has shown over and over that the mainstream unions have sold their rank-and-file out.
Ironically, just this week I read where an activist group has done some major housecleaning
at the Teamsters -- and it only took them 41 years.
During the primary, the outrage among SEIU members when their Fearless Leader not only
announced for HRC but tried to pretend it was "what our people want" by posting to Facebook
photos of a half-dozen blue-shirted members heading out to knock on doors. It didn't go over
well.
Did Senator Warren admit that her refusal to endorse Bernie was bought by the Hillary
Victory Fund? In other words, does this indicate that the great fighter against Wall Street
corruption was bought off by Wall Street?
Was Massachusetts one of the participating states? She wouldn't have made any friends
there exposing the money-laundering, if so. And had Clinton beaten the odds and won, she
would have been toast, especially given she has a huge target on her back painted by the GOP.
The Clintons notoriously hold grudges, and have long memories.
The Margot Kidder piece in Counterpunch linked to in Montanamaven's
comment lists 31 of the 33 participating states. Massachusetts is one of them. (It's not
clear which are the other two states or why they aren't listed.)
I remember reading these things back then, and trying to forward them to HillBots I knew.
Without exception I was poo-poo'ed as a
tinfoil-hat-wearing-conspiracy-theorist-berniebro-whiner-misogynist-right-wing-conspiracy-member.
I'd love to say 'I told you so' to those peeps, but most of them are now fully occupied
looking under their beds for Russkis. :/
Not that I know Joseph Cannon, but check out his Cannonfire site .hysteric hysteria, deny,
RUSSKIS!, Brazile is a liar!!!, deny again, MORE RUUUUSSSKKKIIIIS!!!
to me it seems to be the 'I'm With Her' version of a Trumpsters pizzagate rantings .I
dunno, maybe I am missing something and my brain has already been washed and taken over by
Cyrillic Control Mechanisms
I read about this on Politico yesterday. Donna Brazile? This is the lady who leaked debate
topics to Clinton and was fired from CNN, right? It makes you wonder why she is writing about
this now. Opportunism in order to sell books? Revenge on Clinton? Or does she sense the wind
changing direction in the Democratic party?
Personally I think Donna Brazile, via her story and book, is trying get her version out as
she probably knows the Clinton Mafia will throw her under the bus as this story is finally
getting legs..with or without Donna Brazile's revelations.
As I've noted before her name is Mud with CNN, noone wants her to be a talking head. And
Clinton can no longer shelter her. What does she have left but airing the dirty laundry and
hoping for a payout?
Donna Brazile is wrong that this was not illegal, but only unethical. The Hillary Victory
Fund was set up to evade the campaign financing laws. There is a legal limit on how much an
individual can give to a candidate. Hillary's big donors had reached those limits. She
directed her donors who had exceeded the legal limits on direct contributions to her to give
to the DNC and state parties with the agreement that those entities would funnel the money
back to her.
That would seem to me to be evidence of intent to violate the law.
RICO? Would seem the big donors had to know what they were doing as well. But then I
recall the recent lawsuit where the party claimed it could do anything and the judge
agreed.
There is just no good reason for a party to operate in such a manner. Complete financial
transparency in real time whilst functioning in a democratic process among binding terms with
real membership seems to be the least people should expect.
All of which is why I am a member/participant of no party and find the process
illegitimate across the board. It really does come back to it's not just if you win or lose,
but how it's played.
" If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before
the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act
." -- Donna Brazile
I, too, beg to differ. Naturally a perp doesn't see their own twisted actions as
criminal.
But the basic principle behind campaign finance laws is transparency. Both the D and R
parties receive extensive direct and in-kind government financing, such as the free primary
elections which states run on their behalf. Consequently they are obliged to provide an
accurate accounting of funds received and paid.
Does anyone think Robert "Torquemada" Mueller couldn't indict both Hillary and Donna
Brazile on a whole laundry list of federal offenses, if he were actually looking for gross
electoral wrongdoing?
Re "Naturally a perp doesn't see their own twisted actions as criminal."
Remember Brazile is famous for complaining that people were trying to "criminalize
behavior that is normal", when they complained about the blatant pay-to-play behavior
revealed during the election.
Slightly off topic: The neolib Dem estab has just discovered – much to their
surprise, no doubt – that's it's one thing to run the neoliberal economic playbook on
the deplorables, but quite another thing to run the neoliberal playbook on their own
establishment's finances and organization, each for their own personal benefit.
The judge dismissed the lawsuit because federal court wasn't, in his opinion, the proper
channel for seeking redress, not because he agreed with the DNC's assertion it wasn't
required to abide by its charter.
"But not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNC's charter or heard the statements
they now claim are false before making their donations. And not one of them alleges that they
took action in reliance on the DNC's charter or the statements identified in the First
Amended Complaint (DE 8). Absent such allegations, these Plaintiffs lack standing."
People who knew and did not speak, would they be accessories?
From Wikipedia:
Knowledge of the crime[edit]
To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had
actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there
must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the
criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses
a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory
offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.
I believe you are most correct & thanks for altering the direction of the
comments.
The support for Sanders was a resonate echo of
support many of us felt for President Jimmy Carter.
How far we have traveled is well acknowledged when you see that Sanders lost.
For the purposes of the Naked Capitalism readers, who are studying how real money is
captured & used by the Jet Setter Classes, here we have a Politico so entrenched
her Unit used coercion & tricks to take for themselves all of the main tool, money,
required to make the Democratic Party a real Party.
(I refuse to see Hillary Clinton as the First Woman Nominated for the Presidency, &
consider her & her husband Bill, the Clinton Unit.)
I do chalk it up to the Clinton Unit's long & destructive influence as law makers &
breakers. What the Unit is about is clear when you look at their history in Haiti. We are to
get the leadership & economy same as the Haitians get.
The leak that in many cases there was no sincere link at all between what Clinton Unit II
said, and what she really believed & intended, meant we were to get another cipher.
"Look out kid/They keep it all hid. -Bob Dylan, comes to mind.
After Obama it is clear that the Democratic Party is and will be in the pocket of the
pirate parasites of the US Financial System.
The revolution has to take place below the jet setter classes stranglehold on who writes
the checks for what. (I'd be interested in knowing how much of whose money paid for the
Clinton Unit's Boeing.)
In the end we as a bunch of honest people who like justice in that form it takes in the
day to day demonstration of good ethical moorings, liked how Sanders got the money for his
campaign.
The Clinton Unit by taking money from down ballot candidates crippled the necessary
revolution being attempted by those actually fighting to strengthen the nation.
Is there a large and notable set of organized people who vote, lining up behind Tulsi
Gabbard as the next Great Hope of the Mope (GHOTM)? Able and willing to go to the mat for
her? Trusting that she is not just another screen on which people can project their
images?
Got to have leaders, don't we? Because most of us just go along, go along, go along But
leaders are just other flawed humans, so easy to corrupt and failing that, to remove from the
game board by other means Too bad the Occupy model, whatever that actually was/is, seems not
to work effectively, especially against the organized on the other side of the crowd-control
technologies
I don't think people learned/practiced an occupy model for the most part. Folk were
expected to bite off more than they could chew in due haste. Remember the media immediately
asking what are your demands before people could figure out wtf was going on beyond we are
the 99 percent? Establishing a new practice was of course difficult to do while wondering if
you would be busted for just being there. Like the problems with parties people just keep
rolling with what they know (top-down), hammering their familiar square peg in a round hole
– rather than attempt/establish new process.
We really have no idea what a democratic process looks like.
New
York Times