"... The protests are largely a diversion aimed at shifting the public's attention to a racialized narrative that obfuscates the widening inequality chasm (created by the Democrats biggest donors, the Giant Corporations and Wall Street) to historic antagonisms that have clearly diminished over time. ..."
"... The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will not" be covered over the course of the campaign. And– since race is an issue on which they feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives as ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought– the Dems are using their media clout to make race the main topic of debate. In short, the Democrats have settled on a strategy for quashing the emerging populist revolt that swept Trump into the White House in 2016 and derailed Hillary's ambitious grab for presidential power. ..."
"... Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made any attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into the Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the country, shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian nightmare. ..."
How do the Democrats benefit from the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests?
While the protests are being used to paint Trump as a race-bating white supremacist, that is
not their primary objective. The main goal is to suppress and demonize Trump's political base
which is comprised of mainly white working class people who have been adversely impacted by the
Democrats disastrous free trade and immigration policies. These are the people– liberal
and conservative– who voted for Trump in 2016 after abandoning all hope that the
Democrats would amend their platform and throw a lifeline to workers who are now struggling to
make ends meet in America's de-industrialized heartland.
The protests are largely a diversion aimed at shifting the public's attention to a
racialized narrative that obfuscates the widening inequality chasm (created by the Democrats
biggest donors, the Giant Corporations and Wall Street) to historic antagonisms that have
clearly diminished over time. (Racism ain't what it used to be.)
The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will not"
be covered over the course of the campaign. And– since race is an issue on which they
feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives as
ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought– the Dems are using their media clout to
make race the main topic of debate. In short, the Democrats have settled on a strategy for
quashing the emerging populist revolt that swept Trump into the White House in 2016 and
derailed Hillary's ambitious grab for presidential power.
The plan, however, does have its shortcomings, for example, Democrats have offered nearly
blanket support for protests that have inflicted massive damage on cities and towns across the
country. In the eyes of many Americans, the Dems support looks like a tacit endorsement of the
arson, looting and violence that has taken place under the banner of "racial justice". The Dems
have not seriously addressed this matter, choosing instead to let the media minimize the issue
by simply scrubbing the destruction from their coverage. This "sweep it under the rug" strategy
appears to be working as the majority of people surveyed believe that the protests were "mostly
peaceful", which is a term that's designed to downplay the effects of the most ferocious
rioting since the 1970s.
Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made any
attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into the
Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross
imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies
including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down
economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as
they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the country,
shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian nightmare.
They are also the policies that have given rise to, what the pundits call, "right wing
populism" which refers to the growing number of marginalized working people who despise
Washington and career politicians, feel anxious about falling wages and dramatic demographic
changes, and resent the prevailing liberal culture that scorns their religion and patriotism.
This is Trump's mainly-white base, the working people the Democrats threw under the bus 30
years ago and now want to annihilate completely by deepening political polarization, fueling
social unrest, pitting one group against another, and viciously vilifying them in the media as
ignorant racists whose traditions, culture, customs and even history must be obliterated to
make room for the new diversity world order. Trump touched on this theme in a speech he
delivered in Tulsa. He said:
"Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes,
erase our values and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of
our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of violent crime in our
cities."
Author Charles Burris expanded on this topic in an article
at Lew Rockwell titled America's Monumental Existential Problem:
"The wave of statue-toppling spreading across the Western world from the United States is
not an aesthetic act, but a political one, the disfigured monuments in bronze and stone
standing for the repudiation of an entire civilization. No longer limiting their rage to
slave-owners, American mobs are pulling down and disfiguring statues of abolitionists,
writers and saints in an act of revolt against the country's European founding, now
re-imagined as the nation's original sin, a moral and symbolic shift with which we Europeans
will soon be forced to reckon."
The statue-toppling epidemic is vastly more disturbing that the the looting or arson, mainly
because it reveals a ideological intensity aimed at symbols of state power. By tearing down the
images of the men who created or contributed to our collective history, the vandals are
challenging the legitimacy of the nation itself as well as its founding "enlightenment"
principles. This is the nihilism of extremists whose only objective is destruction. It suggests
that the Democrats might have aspirations that far exceed a mere presidential victory. Perhaps
the protests and riots will be used to justify more sweeping changes, a major reset during
which traditional laws and rules are indefinitely suspended until the crisis passes and order
can be restored. Is that at all conceivable or should we dismiss these extraordinary events as
merely young people "letting off a little steam"?
Here's how General Michael Flynn summed up what's going on on in a recent article:
"There is now a small group of passionate people working hard to destroy our American way
of life. Treason and treachery are rampant and our rule of law and those law enforcement
professionals are under the gun more than at any time in our nation's history I believe the
attacks being presented to us today are part of a well-orchestrated and well-funded effort
that uses racism as its sword to aggravate our battlefield dispositions. This weapon is used
to leverage and legitimize violence and crime, not to seek or serve the truth .The dark
forces' weapons formed against us serve one purpose: to promote radical social change through
power and control."
I agree. The toppling of statues, the rioting, the looting, the arson and, yes, the
relentless attacks on Trump from the day he took office, to Russiagate, to the impeachment, to
the insane claims about Russian "bounties", to the manipulation of science and data to trigger
a planned demolition of the US economy hastening a vast restructuring to the labor force and
the imposition of authoritarian rule; all of these are all cut from the same fabric, a tapestry
of lies and deception concocted by the DNC, the Intel agencies, the elite media, and their
behind-the-scenes paymasters. Now they have released their corporate-funded militia on the
country to wreak havoc and spread terror among the population. Meanwhile, the New York Times
and others continue to generate claims they know to be false in order to confuse the public
even while the people are still shaking off months of disorienting quarantine and feelings of
trepidation brought on by 3 weeks of nonstop social unrest and fractious racial conflict.
Bottom line: Neither the Democrats nor their allies at the Intel agencies and media have ever
accepted the "peaceful transition of power". They reject the 2016 election results, they reject
Donald Trump as the duly elected president of the United States, and they reject the
representative American system of government "by the people."
So let's get down to the nitty-gritty: Which political party is pursuing a radical-activist
strategy that has set our cities ablaze and reduced Capitol Hill to a sprawling warzone? Which
party pursued a 3 year-long investigation that was aimed at removing the president using a
dossier that they knew was false (Opposition research), claiming emails were hacked from DNC
computers when the cyber-security company that did the investigation said there was no proof of
"exfiltration"? (In other words, there was no hack and the Dems knew it since 2017) Which party
allied itself with senior-level officials at the FBI, CIA, NSA and elite media and worked
together collaboratively to discredit, surveil, infiltrate, entrap and demonize the
administration in order to torpedo Trumps "America First" political agenda, and remove him from
office?
Which party?
No one disputes the Democrats right to challenge, criticize or vigorously oppose a bill or
policy promoted by the president. What we take issue with is the devious and (possibly) illegal
way the Democrats have joined powerful elements in the Intelligence Community and the major
media to conduct a ruthless "dirty tricks" campaign that involved spying on members of the
administration in order to establish the basis for impeachment proceedings. This is not the
behavior of a respected political organization but the illicit conduct of a fifth column acting
on behalf of a foreign (or corporate?) enemy. It's worth noting that an insurrection against
the nation's lawful authority is sedition, a felony that is punishable by imprisonment or
death. Perhaps, the junta leaders should consider the possible consequences of their actions
before they make their next move.
What we need to know is whether the Democrat party operates independent of the Intel
agencies with which it cooperated during its campaign against Trump? We're hopeful that the
Durham investigation will shed more light on this matter. Our fear is that what we're seeing is
an emerging Axis–the CIA, the DNC, and the elite media– all using their respective
powers to terminate the Constitutional Republic and establish permanent, authoritarian
one-party rule. As far-fetched as it might sound, the country appears to be slipping inexorably
towards tyranny.
"... Furthermore, it is pretty obvious to the Russians that while Crimea and MH17 were the pretexts for western sanctions against Russia, they were not the real cause. The real cause of the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot be conquered, subdued, subverted or destroyed. They've been at it for close to 1,000 years and they still are at it. In fact, each time they fail to crush Russia, their russophobia increases to even higher levels (phobia both in the sense of "fear" and in the sense of "hatred"). ..."
"... I would argue that since at least Russia and the AngloZionist Empire have been at war since at least 2013, when Russia foiled the US plan to attack Syria under the pretext that it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians (in reality, a textbook case of a false flag organized by the Brits), This means that Russia and the Empire have been at [Cold] war since at least 2013, for no less than seven years (something which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to ignore). ..."
"... True, at least until now, this was has been 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic, but this is a real existential war of survival for both sides: only one side will walk away from this struggle. The other one will simply disappear (not as a nation or a people, but as a polity; a regime). The Kremlin fully understood that and it embarked on a huge reform and modernization of the Russian armed forces in three distinct ways: ..."
"... While some US politicians understood what was going on (I think of Ron Paul, see here ), most did not. They were so brainwashed by the US propaganda that they were sure that no matter what, "USA! USA! USA!". Alas for them, the reality was quite different. ..."
Truth be told, most Russian politicians (with the notable exception of the official Kremlin
court jester, Zhirinovskii) and analysts never saw Trump as a potential ally or friend. The
Kremlin was especially cautious, which leads me to believe that the Russian intelligence
analysts did a very good job evaluating Trump's psyche and they quickly figured out that he was
no better than any other US politician.
Right now, I know of no Russian analyst who would predict that relations between the US and
Russia will improve in the foreseeable future. If anything, most are clearly saying that "guys,
we better get used to this" (accusations, sanctions, accusations, sanctions, etc. etc.
etc.).
Furthermore, it is pretty obvious to the Russians that while Crimea and MH17 were the
pretexts for western sanctions against Russia, they were not the real cause. The real cause of
the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot be conquered, subdued,
subverted or destroyed. They've been at it for close to 1,000 years and they still are at it.
In fact, each time they fail to crush Russia, their russophobia increases to even higher levels
(phobia both in the sense of "fear" and in the sense of "hatred").
Simply put -- there is nothing which Russia can expect from the upcoming election. Nothing
at all. Still, that does not mean that things are not better than 4 or 8 years ago. Let's look
at what changed.
I would argue that since at least Russia and the AngloZionist Empire have been at war
since at least 2013, when Russia foiled the US plan to attack Syria under the pretext that it
was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians (in
reality, a textbook case of a false flag organized by the Brits), This means that Russia and
the Empire have been at [Cold] war since at least 2013, for no less than seven years (something
which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to ignore).
True, at least until now, this was has been 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5%
kinetic, but this is a real existential war of survival for both sides: only one side will walk
away from this struggle. The other one will simply disappear (not as a nation or a people, but
as a polity; a regime). The Kremlin fully understood that and it embarked on a huge reform and
modernization of the Russian armed forces in three distinct ways:
A "general" reform of
the Russian armed forces which had to be modernized by about 80%. This part of the reform is
now practically complete. A specific reform to prepare the western and southern military
districts for a major conventional war against the united West (as always in Russian history)
which would involve the First Guards Tank Army and the Russian Airborne Forces. The development
of bleeding-edge weapons systems with no equivalent in the West and which cannot be countered
or defeated; these weapons have had an especially dramatic impact upon First Strike Stability
and upon naval operations.
While some US politicians understood what was going on (I think of Ron Paul, see
here ), most did
not. They were so brainwashed by the US propaganda that they were sure that no matter what,
"USA! USA! USA!". Alas for them, the reality was quite different.
Russian officials, by the way,
have confirmed that Russia was preparing for war . Heck, the reforms were so profound
and far reaching, that it would have been impossible for the Russians to hide what they were
doing (see here for details; also
please see Andrei Martyanov's excellent primer on the new Russian Navy here ).
While no country is ever truly prepared for war, I would argue that by 2020 the Russians had
reached their goals and that now Russia is fully prepared to handle any conflict the West might
throw at her, ranging from a small border incident somewhere in Central Asia to a full-scaled
war against the US/NATO in Europe .
Folks in the West are now slowly waking up to this new reality (I mentioned some of that
here
), but it is too late. In purely military terms, Russia has now created such a qualitative gap
with the West that the still existing quantitative gap is not sufficient to guarantee a US/NATO
victory. Now some western politicians are starting to seriously freak out (see this lady ,
for example), but most Europeans are coming to terms with two truly horrible
realities:
Russia is much stronger than Europe and, even much worse, Russia will never
attack first (which is a major cause of frustration for western russophobes)
As for the obvious solution to this problem, having friendly relations with Russia is simply
unthinkable for those who made their entire careers peddling the Soviet (and now Russian)
threat to the world.
But Russia is changing, albeit maybe too slowly (at least for my taste). As I mentioned last
week, a number of Polish, Ukrainian and Baltic politicians have declared that the Zapad2020
military maneuvers which are supposed to take place in southern Russia and the Caucasus could
be used to prepare an attack on the West (see here
for a rather typical example of this nonsense). In the past, the Kremlin would only have made a
public statement ridiculing this nonsense, but this time around Putin did something different.
Right after he saw the reaction of these politicians, Putin ordered a major and UNSCHEDULED
military readiness exercise which involved no less than 150,000 troops, 400 aircraft
& 100 ships ! The message here was clear:
Yes, we are much more powerful than
you are and No, we are not apologizing for our strength anymore
And, just to make sure that the message is clear, the Russians also tested the readiness of
the Russian Airborne Forces units near the city of Riazan, see for yourself:
This response is, I think, the correct one. Frankly, nobody in the West is listening to what
the Kremlin has to say, so what is the point of making more statements which in the future will
be ignored equally as they have been in the past.
If anything, the slow realization that Russia is more powerful than NATO would be most
helpful in gently prodding EU politicians to change their tune and return back to reality.
Check out this recent video of Sarah Wagenknecht, a leading politician of the German Left and
see for yourself:
https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7uu5fk
The example of Sahra Wagenknecht is interesting, because she is from Germany, one of the
countries of northern Europe; traditionally, northern European powers have been much more
anti-Russian than southern Europeans, so it is encouraging to see that the anti-Putin and
anti-Russia hysteria is not always being endorsed by everybody.
But if things are very slowly getting better in the EU, in the bad old US of A things are
only getting worse. Even the Republicans are now fully on board the Russia-hating float (right
behind a "gay pride" one I suppose) and they are now contributing their own insanity to the
cause, as this article entitled "
Congressional Republicans: Russia should be designated state sponsor of terror " shows
(designating Russia as a terrorist state is an old idea of the Dems, by the way).
Russian options for the Fall
In truth, Russia does not have any particularly good options towards the US. Both parties
are now fully united in their rabid hatred of Russia (and China too, of course). Furthermore,
while there are many well-funded and virulently anti-Russian organizations in the US (Neo-cons,
Papists, Poles, Masons, Ukrainians, Balts, Ashkenazi Jews, etc.), Russian organizations in the
US like this one , have
very little influence or even relevance.
Banderites marching in the US
However, as the chaos continues to worsen inside the US and as US politicians continue to
alienate pretty much the entire planet, Russia does have a perfect opportunity to weaken the US
grip on Europe. The beauty in the current dynamic is that Russia does not have to do anything
at all (nevermind anything covert or illegal) to help the anti-EU and anti-US forces in Europe:
All she needs to do is to continuously hammer in the following simple message: "the US is
sinking -- do you really want to go down with it?".
There are many opportunities to deliver that message. The current US/Polish efforts to
prevent the EU from enjoying cheap Russian gas might well be the best example of what we could
call "European suicide politics", but there are many, many more.
Truth be told, neither the US nor the EU are a top priority for Russia, at least not in
economic terms. The moral credibility of the West in general can certainly be described as dead
and long gone. As for the West military might, it is only a concern to the degree that western
politicians might be tempted to believe their own propaganda about their military forces being
the best in the history of the galaxy. This is why Russia regularly engages in large surprise
exercises: to prove to the West that the Russian military is fully ready for anything the West
might try. As for the constant move of more and more US/NATO forces closer to the borders of
Russia, they are offensive in political terms, but in military terms, getting closer to Russia
only means that Russia will have more options to destroy you. "Forward deployment" is really a
thing of the past, at least against Russia.
With time, however, and as the US federal center loses even more of its control of the
country, the Kremlin might be well-advised to try to open some venues for "popular diplomacy",
especially with less hostile US states. The weakening of the Executive Branch has already
resulted in US governors playing an increasingly important international role and while this is
not, strictly speaking, legal (only the federal government has the right to engage in foreign
policy), the fact is that this has been going on for years already. Another possible partner
inside the US for Russian firms would be US corporations (especially now that they are hurting
badly). Finally, I think that the Kremlin ought to try to open channels of communication with
the various small political forces in the US which are clearly not buying into the official
propaganda: libertarians, (true) liberals and progressives, paleo-conservatives.
What we are witnessing before our eyes is the collapse of the US federal center. This is a
dangerous and highly unstable moment in our history. But from this crisis opportunities will
arise. The best thing Russia can do now is to simply remain very careful and vigilant and wait
for new forces to appear on the US political scene.
I really agree with you that the “blame Russia” and “blame China”
thing has gotten out of hand in US politics. Whether it will turn into a shooting war seems
doubtful to me, as the government is still full of people who are looking out for their own
interests and know that a full-sized war with Russia, China, Iran or whoever will not advance
their interests.
But who would have guessed, a few years ago, that “Russian asset” would become
the all-purpose insult for Democrats to use, not just against Republicans, but against other
Democrats?
With Republicans I think that “blame China” is stronger. China makes a good
scapegoat for the economic situation in the United States. But convincing the working class
that China is the source of their problems (and that Mr. MAGA is going to solve those
problems by standing up to China) requires ignorance of the crucial facts about the trade
relationship between those two countries.
Namely, that the trade deficit exists only because the Federal Reserve chooses to
create huge amounts of new dollars each year for export to other countries, and it’s
only possible for US exports to fall behind imports so badly (and thus put so many American
laborers out of work) because the Fed is making up the difference by exporting dollars.
Granted, it isn’t a policy that the US can change without harming the interests of its
own upper classes; at the same time, it isn’t a policy that China could force on the US
without the people in charge of the United States wanting it.
This is a topic I’ve dealt with a few times on my own blog.
"... Greenwald went on, after that, to discuss other key appointees by Nancy Pelosi who are almost as important as Adam Smith is, in shaping the Government's military budget. They're all corrupt. ..."
"... Numerous polls (for examples, this and this ) show that American voters, except for the minority of them that are Republican, want "bipartisan" government; but the reality in America is that this country actually already does have that: the U.S. Government is actually bipartisanly corrupt, and bipartisan evil. In fact, it's almost unanimous, it is so bipartisan, in reality. ..."
"... That's the way America's Government actually functions, especially in the congressional votes that the 'news'-media don't publicize. However, since it lies so much, and its media (controlled also by its billionaires) do likewise, and since they cover-up instead of expose the deepest rot, the public don't even know this. They don't know the reality. They don't know how corrupt and evil their Government actually is. They just vote and pay taxes. That's the extent to which they actually 'participate' in 'their' Government. They tragically don't know the reality. It's hidden from them. It is censored-out, by the editors, producers, and other management, of the billionaires' 'news'-media. These are the truths that can't pass through those executives' filters. These are the truths that get filtered-out, instead of reported. No democracy can function this way -- and, of course, none does. ..."
"... The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society , and we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings . ..."
"... But we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding it's fear of influence, on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections , on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not headlined. It's dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War in short with a wartime discipline, no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. ..."
The great investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald gave an hour-long lecture on how
America's billionaires control the U.S. Government, and here is an edited summary of its
opening twenty minutes, with key quotations and assertions from its opening -- and then its
broader context will be discussed briefly:
2:45 : There is "this huge cleavage between how members of Congress present themselves,
their imagery and rhetoric and branding, what they present to the voters, on the one hand, and
the reality of what they do in the bowels of Congress and the underbelly of Congressional
proceedings, on the other. Most of the constituents back in their home districts have no idea
what it is that the people they've voted for have been doing, and this gap between belief and
reality is enormous."
Four crucial military-budget amendments were debated in the House just now, as follows:
to block Trump from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
to block Trump from withdrawing 10,000 troops from Germany
to limit U.S. assistance to the Sauds' bombing of Yemen
to require Trump to explain why he wants to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear
Forces Treaty
On all four issues, the pro-imperialist position prevailed in nearly unanimous votes -
overwhelming in both Parties. Dick Cheney's daughter, Republican Liz Cheney, dominated the
debates, though the House of Representatives is now led by Democrats, not Republicans.
Greenwald (citing other investigators) documents that the U.S. news-media are in the
business of deceiving the voters to believe that there are fundamental differences between the
Parties. "The extent to which they clash is wildly exaggerated" by the press (in order to pump
up the percentages of Americans who vote, so as to maintain, both domestically and
internationally, the lie that America is a democracy -- actually represents the interests of
the voters).
16:00 : The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee -- which writes the nearly $750B
annual Pentagon budget -- is the veteran (23 years) House Democrat Adam Smith of Boeing's
Washington State.
"The majority of his district are people of color." He's "clearly a pro-war hawk" a
consistent neoconservative, voted to invade Iraq and all the rest.
"This is whom Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats have chosen to head the House Armed
Services Committee -- someone with this record."
He is "the single most influential member of Congress when it comes to shaping military
spending."
He was primaried by a progressive Democrat, and the "defense industry opened up their
coffers" and enabled Adam Smith to defeat the challenger.
That's the opening.
Greenwald went on, after that, to discuss other key appointees by Nancy Pelosi who are
almost as important as Adam Smith is, in shaping the Government's military budget. They're all
corrupt. And then he went, at further length, to describe the methods of deceiving the voters,
such as how these very same Democrats who are actually agents of the billionaires who own the
'defense' contractors and the 'news' media etc., campaign for Democrats' votes by emphasizing
how evil the Republican Party is on the issues that Democratic Party voters care far more about
than they do about America's destructions of Iraq and Syria and Libya and Honduras and Ukraine,
and imposing crushing economic blockades (sanctions) against the residents in Iran, Venezuela
and many other lands. Democratic Party voters care lots about the injustices and the sufferings
of American Blacks and other minorities, and of poor American women, etc., but are satisfied to
vote for Senators and Representatives who actually represent 'defense' contractors and other
profoundly corrupt corporations, instead of represent their own voters. This is how the most
corrupt people in politics become re-elected, time and again -- by deceived voters. And -- as
those nearly unanimous committee votes display -- almost every member of the U.S. Congress is
profoundly corrupt.
Furthermore: Adam Smith's opponent in the 2018 Democratic Party primary was Sarah Smith (no
relation) and she tried to argue against Adam Smith's neoconservative voting-record, but
the press-coverage she received in her congressional district ignored that, in order to
keep those voters in the dark about the key reality. Whereas Sarah Smith received some coverage
from Greenwald and other reporters at The Intercept who mentioned that "Sarah Smith
mounted her challenge largely in opposition to what she cast as his hawkish foreign policy
approach," and that she "routinely brought up his hawkish foreign policy views and campaign
donations from defense contractors as central issues in the campaign," only very few of the
voters in that district followed such national news-media, far less knew that Adam Smith was in
the pocket of 'defense' billionaires. And, so, the Pentagon's big weapons-making firms defeated
a progressive who would, if elected, have helped to re-orient federal spending away from
selling bombs to be used by the Sauds to destroy Yemen, and instead toward providing better
education and employment-prospects to Black, brown and other people, and to the poor, and
everybody, in that congressional district, and all others. Moreover, since Adam Smith had a
fairly good voting-record on the types of issues that Blacks and other minorities consider more
important and more relevant than such things as his having voted for Bush to invade Iraq, Sarah
Smith really had no other practical option than to criticize him regarding his hawkish
voting-record, which that district's voters barely even cared about. The billionaires actually
had Sarah Smith trapped (just like, on a national level, they had Bernie Sanders trapped).
Of course, Greenwald's audience is clearly Democratic Party voters, in order to inform them
of how deceitful their Party is. However, the Republican Party operates in exactly the same
way, though using different deceptions, because Republican Party voters have very different
priorities than Democratic Party voters do, and so they ignore other types of deceptions and
atrocities.
Numerous polls (for examples,
this and
this ) show that American voters, except for the minority of them that are Republican, want
"bipartisan" government; but the reality in America is that this country actually already does
have that: the U.S. Government is actually bipartisanly corrupt, and bipartisan evil. In
fact, it's almost unanimous, it is so bipartisan, in reality.
That's the way America's
Government actually functions, especially in the congressional votes that the 'news'-media
don't publicize. However, since it lies so much, and its media (controlled also by its
billionaires) do likewise, and since they cover-up instead of expose the deepest rot, the
public don't even know this. They don't know the reality. They don't know how corrupt and evil
their Government actually is. They just vote and pay taxes. That's the extent to which they
actually 'participate' in 'their' Government. They tragically don't know the reality. It's
hidden from them. It is censored-out, by the editors, producers, and other management, of the
billionaires' 'news'-media. These are the truths that can't pass through those executives'
filters. These are the truths that get filtered-out, instead of reported. No democracy can
function this way -- and, of course, none does.
Patmos , 8 hours ago
Eisenhower originally called it the Military Industrial Congressional Complex.
Was probably still when Congress maybe had a few slivers of integrity though.
As McCain's wife said, they all knew about Epstein.
Alice-the-dog , 2 hours ago
And now we suffer the Medical Industrial Complex on top of it.
Question_Mark , 1 hour ago
Klaus Schwab, UN/World Economic Forum - power plant "cyberattack" (advance video to 6:42
to skip intro):
please watch video at least from minute 6:42 at least for a few minutes to get context,
consider its contents, and comment:
Vot3 for trump but don't waste too much energy on the elections. All Trump can do is buy
us time.
Their plan has been in the works for over a century.
1) financial collapse with central banking.
2) social collapse with cultural marxism
3) government collapse with corrupt pedophile politicians.
EndOfDayExit , 7 hours ago
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
Humans are just not wired for eternal vigilance. Sheeple want to graze and don't want to
think.
JGResearch , 8 hours ago
Money is just the tool, it goes much deeper:
The Truth, when you finally chase it down, is almost always far
worse than your darkest visions and fears.'
– Hunter S. Thompson, Kingdom of Fear
'The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are
not behind the scenes' *
- Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
This information helps understand the shift to the bias we are witnessing at The PBS
Newshour and the MSM. PBS has always taken their marching orders from the Council on Foreign
Relations.
Judy Woodruff, and Jim
Lehrer (journalist, former anchor for PBS ) is a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations. John McCain (United States Republican Senator
from Arizona , 2008
Republican Party nominee for the Presidency), William F. Buckley, Jr
(commentator, publisher, founder of the National Review ), Jeffery E Epstein
(financier)
The Council on Foreign Relations has historical control both the Democratic establishment
and the Republican establishment until President Trump came along.
Until then they did not care who won the presidency because they control both parties at
the top.
FYI: Hardly one person in 1000 ever heard of the Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR ).
Until Trump both Republicans and Democrats control by the Eastern Establishment.There
operational front was the Council on Foreign Relations. Historically they did not care who
one the election since they controlled both parties from the top.
The CFR has only 3000 members yet they control over three-quarters of the nation's wealth.
The CFR runs the State Department and the CIA. The CFR has placed 100 CFR members in every
Presidential Administration and cabinet since Woodrow Wilson. They work together to misinform
the President to act in the best interest of the CFR not the best interest of the American
People.
At least five Presidents (Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton) have been members
of the CFR. The CFR has packed every Supreme court with CFR insiders.
Three CFR members (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sandra Day O'Connor) sit on
the supreme court. The CFR's British Counterpart is the Royal Institute of International
Affairs. The members of these groups profit by creating tension and hate. Their targets
include British and American citizens.
The CFR/RIIA method of operation is simple -- they control public opinion. They keep the
identity of their group secret. They learn the likes and dislikes of influential people. They
surround and manipulate them into acting in the best interest of the CFR/RIIA.
KuriousKat , 8 hours ago
there are 550 of them in the US..just boggles the mind they have us at each others throat
instead of theirs.
jmNZ , 3 hours ago
This is why America's only hope is to vote for Ron Paul.
x_Maurizio , 2 hours ago
Let me understand how a system, which is already proven being disfunctional, should
suddenly produce a positive result. That's craziness: to repeate the same action, with the
conviction it will give a different result.
If you would say: "The only hope is NOT TO TAKE PART TO THE FARCE" (so not to vote) I'd
understand.
But vot for that, instead of this.... what didn't you understand?
Voice-of-Reason , 6 hours ago
The very fact that we have billionaires who amass so much wealth that they can own our
Republic is the problem.
Eastern Whale , 8 hours ago
all the names mentioned in this article is rotten to the core
MartinG , 5 hours ago
Tell me again how democracy is the greatest form of government. What other profession lets
clueless idiots decide who runs the business.
Xena fobe , 4 hours ago
It isn't the fault of democracy. It's more the fault of voters.
quikwit , 3 hours ago
I'd pick the "clueless idiots" over an iron-fisted evil genius every time.
_triplesix_ , 8 hours ago
Am I the only one who noticed that Eric Zuesse capitalized the word "black" every time he
used it?
F**k you, Eric, you Marxist trash.
BTCtroll , 7 hours ago
Confirmed. Blacks are apparently a proper noun despite being referred to as simply a
color. In reality, no one cares. Ask anyone, they don't care expert black lies matter.
freedommusic , 4 hours ago
The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society , and we are as a people,
inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret
proceedings .
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be
seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official
censorship and concealment.
Our way of life is under attack.
But we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding it's fear of influence, on infiltration instead of
invasion, on subversion instead of elections , on intimidation instead of free choice, on
guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast
human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine
that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political
operations. It's preparations are concealed, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not
headlined. It's dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned. No
rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War in short with a wartime
discipline, no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
...I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country
to re-examine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the
present danger, and to heed the duty of self restraint, which that danger imposes upon us
all.
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second
obligation and obligation which I share, and that is our obligation to inform and alert the
American people, to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need and
understand them as well, the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program, and the
choices that we face.
I am not asking your newspapers to support an administration, but I am asking your help
in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, for I have complete
confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens, whenever they are fully
informed.
... that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment. The only business in
America specifically protected by the constitution, not primarily to amuse and entertain,
not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply give the public what it
wants, but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to
indicate our crises, and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger,
public opinion.
Trump DID commit obstruction of justice... he refused to force HIS Dept of Justice to indict Hillary, Comey, Brennan and Clapper
for their obvious major felonies.
I put these comments on the open thread about the same time b started this one
https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1289724554982629377
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil to
US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Trump a few months back "We've kept the oil". Well, he hasn't had a problem hanging onto
it and getting an American company involved.
The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria signed a deal to market oil
to US-based Delta Crescent Energy LLC "with the knowledge and encouragement of the White
House."
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 2 2020 14:35 utc | 2
Very likely the Kurds were under pressure from Trump, and the act wasn't voluntary. It's
not even the Kurds' oil to sign a deal on (except one well). We'll see whether the
operation actually succeeds. At the moment, everybody is waiting to see whether Trump is
re-elected in November. Signing a piece of paper now is of no significance.
"... Does the mass media think they can “hide the ball” while Seattle turns into a war zone? Seriously–in the Internet age? They _can’t_ be that stupid, can they? ..."
Does the mass media think they can “hide the ball” while Seattle turns
into a war zone? Seriously–in the Internet age? They _can’t_ be that
stupid, can they?
(When I put on the tin foil hat it whispers to me “they know, they are lying on
purpose, they want Trump re-elected to improve their ratings, and they want to anger voters
by lying about Seattle”. Then I take off the tin foil hat and I say
“Na–they really are that stupid.”)
WASHINGTON -- It was one of the few issues on which President Barack Obama and Vice
President Joseph R. Biden Jr. disagreed -- how far to go in limiting the influence of lobbyists
in government.
The vice president privately complained that his boss's effort to slam shut the revolving
door between K Street and the administration would deprive it of experienced talent, and he
bristled when Mr. Obama's aides tried to block him from hiring a well-connected Washington
operator who had lobbied for pharmaceutical and insurance companies, credit agencies and
others.
Eight years later, that same confidant, Steve Ricchetti, is helping to run Mr. Biden's
presidential campaign. Also involved to varying degrees are other advisers, operatives,
fund-raisers and allies with deep connections to Washington's lucrative lobbying,
communications and strategic consulting industry.
That puts Mr. Biden at odds with powerful elements of his party's liberal base.
Increasingly, they are expressing concern that the military contractors, Wall Street banks and
other major corporations that paid members of Mr. Biden's inner circle while they were out of
government could hold disproportionate power in a Biden administration.
Politically, it could limit Mr. Biden's ability to cast himself as the antidote to the
anything-goes access
peddling that has proliferated in President Trump's
administration . Under Mr. Trump, lobbyists and campaign donors have not only enjoyed
access to
the highest levels of the administration , but have been tapped to lead cabinet departments
and have exerted remarkable influence over policies of intense interest to their former
employers.
"It's worrisome, broadly speaking, that a Biden administration could end up abiding by the
unfortunate bipartisan norms of putting people in posts where they oversee industries or
employers they just left," said David Segal, co-founder of the liberal group Demand
Progress.
His organization was among those that sent a
letter to the Biden and Trump campaigns this week asking them not to appoint anyone to
senior administration positions overseeing interests they served in the private sector. The
letter called out Mr. Trump's administration for taking that dynamic "to new extremes," but Mr.
Segal added that Mr. Biden's orbit includes "some folks with troubling track records."
Mr. Biden has pledged to, if elected, " expand on and codify " the Obama administration
lobbying executive order -- the same policy he had privately complained about. That plan
barred lobbyists from going to work for agencies they had tried to influence within the
previous two years, and barred departing officials from
lobbying until the end of the administration.
With scrutiny intensifying, some Biden allies are now distancing themselves from their
corporate work to better position themselves for official roles with the campaign, transition
team or in a potential Biden administration.
Andrew Bates, a spokesman for Mr. Biden's campaign, said the former vice president's ethics
proposal would be "the most ambitious" of "any administration in American history."
Mr. Bates said Mr. Biden was "deeply proud" of the ethics policies enacted in the Obama
administration, and of his work in the Senate before that "to curtail the influence of
lobbyists, money and special interests in government."
But after eight years as vice president and decades in the Senate, Mr. Biden maintains
extensive ties to Washington's permanent political class of policy and political experts who
move between government and private sector positions.
Mr. Ricchetti spent years as a registered lobbyist, and through a company called
Ricchetti Consulting Group is being paid by both the Biden campaign and
AT&T, his only corporate client over the last nine years. Anita Dunn, Mr. Biden's chief
campaign strategist, was also still doing work for AT&T last month.
As of Saturday Ms. Dunn is taking "an official leave" from her firm, which had been paid
millions in recent years to help an airline advocacy group, while also providing communications
advice to an
Israeli spyware firm and the fugitive Nissan
executive Carlos Ghosn , for whom the firm
had been registered to lobby . It ended all those client relationships in the past
year.
A leading candidate to become defense secretary,
Michèle A. Flournoy , started a firm whose website lists work for financial services, technology and
pharmaceutical companies. The former C.I.A. and Obama national security official
Avril Haines , who consulted for the data-mining company Palantir, on Saturday resigned
from Ms. Flournoy's firm to begin work on Mr. Biden's transition team.
None of these advisers are registered as lobbyists, reflecting a trend in which major
corporate and foreign players hire former officials as consultants, or as legal counsel,
allowing them to use their connections and expertise, while avoiding the notoriety and
disclosure requirements that come with formal lobbying. This phenomenon was exacerbated by Mr.
Obama's lobbying policy.
Mr. Biden's more liberal challengers for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senators
Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, both campaigned against K
Street, in part, to differentiate themselves from the candidate they now support.
Ms. Warren proposed
a plan that would expand the definition of lobbying to include consultants and lawyers who try
to influence government, while barring corporate lobbyists from joining the government for six
years. Supporters of Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren are
pushing Mr. Biden's team to go further than he has on those issues.
Mr. Ricchetti -- a self-effacing fixer likely to occupy a top position if Mr. Biden is
elected -- personifies the prevalence of influence industry veterans in Mr. Biden's orbit that
concerns progressives.
He rose to prominence as a liaison to the Senate under President Bill Clinton. He left the
White House in 1995 and opened a lobbying shop where he specialized in health care, with a
goal, a person close to him said, of getting back into government once he had set up his family
financially.
He was recruited to return to the White House in 1998 by the then-White House chief of
staff, John D. Podesta. Mr. Ricchetti sold his firm to Mr. Podesta's brother Tony,
until recently one of the town's best-known lobbyists.
In 2001, after Mr. Clinton left office, Mr. Ricchetti opened a new boutique lobbying firm,
Ricchetti Inc.
Within two years, he had compiled a client list that included General Motors, Experian, the
American Hospital Association, AT&T, Eli Lilly, Nextel, Novartis, Pfizer and Fannie Mae,
the quasi-governmental mortgage lender whose late entry into the subprime housing market
exacerbated the 2008 financial crisis.
When Mr. Ricchetti backed Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, aides to her rival
for the Democratic nomination, Mr. Obama, seized on Mr. Ricchetti's $120,000-a-year contract
with General Motors. The Obama campaign connected his work to an $8 million earmark Mrs.
Clinton secured for the company's New York operations as a senator, a claim Mr. Ricchetti has
denied.
But Mr. Ricchetti, whose discursive and regular-guy style mirrors Mr. Biden's, was viewed
with skepticism in the Obama White House even after he had satisfied the two-year lobbying
cooling-off period required by Mr. Obama's policy. When Mr. Biden settled on Mr. Ricchetti to
help run his office in late 2011, the White House aides Jim Messina and David Plouffe flatly
rejected the idea, according to people close to the situation.
A short, intense scrap ensued, ending only when Mr. Obama gave into Mr. Biden's argument
that he had the "right" to pick his own top deputy, several former aides recalled.
Mr. Ricchetti was hired and by late 2013 was officially appointed Mr. Biden's chief of
staff. Over the next few years, he essentially took control of Mr. Biden's post-presidential
life, setting up a network of nonprofits and academic institutions that would serve as a base
of operations, negotiating the former vice president's lucrative book deal, and, most
important, helping to set up the initial structure of the 2020 campaign, according to aides and
Biden associates.
While the campaign's internal policy allows consultants like Mr. Ricchetti to continue
receiving outside income from approved sources like his consulting arrangement with AT&T,
some of Mr. Biden's top advisers have begun leaving the influence industry to join the
campaign, and possibly a future administration.
Jake Sullivan, who has been helping to develop the Biden campaign's policy positions and
moderating virtual fund-raising
events , resigned this year from a part-time job at the
consulting firm Macro Advisory Partners . At the firm, he had negotiated with labor leaders
on behalf of the ride-hailing company Uber to try to exempt its drivers from being classified
as full-time employees in California.
On Saturday, Antony J. Blinken, a deputy secretary of state in the Obama administration who
is running Mr. Biden's foreign policy operation, joined the campaign full time and took an
unpaid leave of absence from his role as a managing partner in WestExec Advisors, a firm he
co-founded with Ms. Flournoy.
Aaron Keyak, who was named
director of Jewish engagement for Mr. Biden's campaign last month, took a leave from his
public affairs firm, Bluelight Strategies.
Early in the Trump administration, the firm had been paid $10,000-a-month for Mr. Keyak's
help waging a public affairs campaign against the Gulf state of Qatar by Elliott Broidy, a
Republican donor who owns a defense consulting firm. Federal investigators have since looked
into whether that campaign
violated foreign lobbying laws , but Mr. Keyak has not been interviewed by prosecutors, the
Biden campaign said.
Some Democrats argue a Biden administration would be wise not to wall itself off from people
with both government and private sector experience.
"We can't all go to think tanks, or into academia, and you wouldn't want to fill the
government entirely with people who came from ivory tower institutions that are detached from
the mechanics of Washington," said James P. Rubin, who had served as a foreign policy adviser
to Mr. Biden in the Senate and then moved to the State Department in the 1990s before becoming
a registered lobbyist.
In an effort to ease potential hurdles to joining a Biden administration, Mr. Rubin in
recent weeks terminated his lobbying
registrations for a range of clients.
Mr. Rubin argued that Mr. Biden's decades of experience in government meant aides would be
less able to shape his worldview, but he nonetheless contrasted the years of public policy
experience inside and outside government of many Biden advisers to the relatively less
experienced set of advisers around Mr. Trump.
"I'd like to think that now we have to acknowledge that having expertise is good," he
said.
"... The U.S. has spent a century or more trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences. ..."
"... The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal, nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. ..."
"... To the point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so? ..."
"... Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business. ..."
"... Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers, including former Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin, Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world. ..."
"... Under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the ' Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to have played a role in the murder of Che Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered. ..."
"... To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,' adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind. ..."
"... Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War. ..."
"... the U.S. had indicated its intention to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be taken in good faith. ..."
"... Following the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them. In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former Baltic states were brought under NATO's control . ..."
"... The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC) in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here . The economic and military annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2 . The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis on its payroll in 1948. ..."
"... That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges ..."
"... Its near instantaneous adoption by bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?' ..."
"... Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this move. ..."
The political success of Russiagate lies in the vanishing of American history in favor of a
façade of liberal virtue. Posed as a response to the election of Donald Trump, a
straight line can be drawn from efforts to undermine the decommissioning of the American war
economy in 1946 to the CIA's alliance with Ukrainian fascists in 2014. In 1945 the NSC
(National Security Council) issued a series of directives that gave logic and direction to the
CIA's actions during the Cold War. That these persist despite the 'fall of communism' suggests
that it was always just a placeholder in the pursuit of other objectives.
The first Cold War was an imperial business enterprise to keep the Generals, bureaucrats,
and war materiel suppliers in power and their bank accounts flush after WWII. Likewise, the
American side of the nuclear arms race left former
Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA to put their paranoid fantasies forward as
assessments of Russian military capabilities. Why, of all people, would former Nazi officers be
put in charge military intelligence if accurate assessments were the goal? The Nazis hated the
Soviets more than the Americans did.
The ideological binaries of Russiagate -- for or against Donald Trump, for or against
neoliberal, petrostate Russia, define the boundaries of acceptable discourse to the benefit of
deeply nefarious interests. The U.S. has spent a century or more
trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR
in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to
loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed
NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a
negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a
reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences.
The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria
Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal,
nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have
used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists
subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. Furthermore, Steinem's
aggressive ignorance of the actual history of the CIA illustrates the liberal propensity to
conflate bourgeois dress and attitude with an imagined
gentility . To the
point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not
employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so?
On the American left, Russiagate is treated as a case of bad reporting, of official outlets
for government propaganda serially reporting facts and events that were subsequently disproved.
However, some fair portion of the American bourgeois, the PMC that acts in supporting roles for
capital, believes every word of it. Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American
fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time
that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the
Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly
fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business.
Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers,
including former
Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human
beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin,
Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the
Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's
overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear
weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated
into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world.
By the time that (Senator) John F. Kennedy claimed a U.S. 'missile gap' with the Soviets in
1958, the CIA was providing estimates of Soviet ICBMs (Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles),
that were
wildly inflated -- most likely provided to it by the Gehlen Organization. Once satellite
and U2 reconnaissance estimates became available, the CIA lowered its own to 120 Soviet ICBMs
when the actual number
was four . On the one hand, the Soviets really did have a nuclear weapons program. On the
other, it was a tiny fraction of what was being claimed. Bad reporting, unerringly on the side
of larger military budgets, appears to be the constant.
Under the
Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially
disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the '
Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to
labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in
political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to
have played a role in the murder of Che
Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi
concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered.
The historical sequence in the U.S. was WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, to an economy that
was heavily dependent on war production. The threatened decommissioning of the war economy in
1946 was first met with an
honest assessment of Soviet intentions -- the Soviets were moving infrastructure back into
Soviet territory as quickly as was practicable, then to the military budget-friendly claim that
they were putting resources in place to invade Europe. The result of the shift was that the
American Generals kept their power and the war industry kept producing materiel and weapons. By
1948 these weapons had come to include atomic bombs.
To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward
the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly
traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and
are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,'
adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear
arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons
non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind.
What ties the Gehlen Organization to CIA estimates of Soviet nuclear weapons from 1948
– 1958 is 1) the Gehlen Organization was central to the CIA's intelligence operations
vis-à-vis the Soviets, 2) the CIA had limited alternatives to gather information on the
Soviets outside of the Gehlen Organization and 3) the senior leadership of the U.S. military
had
long demonstrated that it approved of exaggerating foreign threats when doing so enhanced
their power and added to their budgets. Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former
Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive
Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War.
Where this gets interesting is that American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg was working for the Rand
Corporation in the late 1950s and early 1960s when estimates of Soviet ICBMs were being put
forward. JFK had run (in 1960) on a platform that included closing the Soviet – U.S. '
missile
gap .' The USAF (U.S. Air Force), charged with delivering nuclear missiles to their
targets, was estimating that the Soviets had 1,000 ICBMs. Mr. Ellsberg, who had limited
security clearance through his employment at Rand, was leaked the known number of Soviet ICBMs.
The Air Force was saying 1,000 Soviet ICBMs when the number confirmed by reconnaissance
satellites was four.
By 1962, the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the CIA had shifted nominal control of the
Gehlen Organization to the BND, for whom Gehlen continued to work. Based on ongoing satellite
reconnaissance data, the CIA was busy lowering its estimates of Soviet nuclear capabilities.
Benjamin Schwarz, writing
for The Atlantic in 2013, provided an account, apparently informed by the CIA's lowered
estimates, where he placed the whole of the Soviet nuclear weapons program (in 1962) at roughly
one-ninth the size of the U.S. effort. However, given Ellsberg's known count of four Soviet
ICBMs at the time of the missile crisis, even Schwarz's ratio of 1:9 seems to overstate Soviet
capabilities.
Further per Schwarz's reporting, the Jupiter nuclear missiles that the U.S. had placed in
Italy prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis only made sense as first-strike weapons. This
interpretation is corroborated by Daniel Ellsberg , who argues
that the American plan was always to initiate the use of nuclear weapons (first strike). This
made JFK's posture of equally matched contestants in a geopolitical game of nuclear chicken
utterly unhinged. Should this be less than clear, because the U.S. had indicated its intention
to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing
Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be
taken in good faith.
The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 was met with a promised reduction in U.S. military
spending and an end to the Cold War, neither of which ultimately materialized. Following the
election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was
repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them.
In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging
the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then
unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former
Baltic
states were brought under NATO's control .
The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of
fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically
elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing
the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC)
in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here .
The economic and military
annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2
. The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan
to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace
the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated
former Nazis on its payroll in 1948.
That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security
Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks
volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges.
Its near instantaneous adoption by
bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That
liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by
unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of
historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers
employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?'
The Nazi War
Crimes Disclosure Act came about in part because Nazi hunters kept coming across Nazi war
criminals living in the U.S. who told them they had been brought here and given employment by
the CIA, CIC, or some other division of the Federal government. If the people in these agencies
thought that doing so was justified, why the secrecy? And if it wasn't justified, why was it
done? Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical
ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the
upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this
move.Cue the Sex
Pistols .
Democrat politicians will keep their knee on the throat of small businesses for as long as
they possibly can for the sole purpose of crippling the economy to defeat Trump in November.
They don't care about the damage this causes. Keeping schools closed in the fall will result
in single parents staying home from work to care for their kids. At very least it stifles the
economy.
Send kids back to school, the majority wants this.
Vote in person November 3rd, make your vote count.
kaiserhoffredux , 3 hours ago
Exactly. There is no logic, reason, or precedent for quarantining healthy people.
To stop a virus, of all things? Ridiculous.
Ignatius , 2 hours ago
They've perverted the language as regards "cases."
A person could test positive and it might well be the most healthy situation: his body
encountered the virus, fought it off, and now though asymptomatic, retains antibodies from a
successful body response. The irony is that what I've described is the very response the vaxx
pushers expect from their vaccines.
Shameless political posturing.
coletrickle45 , 2 hours ago
So if you have 99 - 99.8% chance of surviving this faux virus
But a 100% chance of destroying lives through poverty, bankruptcy, small business
collapse, job losses, domestic abuse, depression, anxiety, fear.
What would you choose? Cost benefit analysis seems pretty obvious.
Gold Banit , 2 hours ago
Most people just regurgitate things they hear, they have lost the ability of creative and
free thought.They have been deliberately dumbed down. The entire system has created a mutant
society which is easy to control and manipulate.
"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent
guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of
the masses." ― Malcolm X ay_arrow
sensibility , 2 hours ago
The COVID-19 Hoax has "Nothing" to do with "Real" Science, It's 100% about "Political"
Science.
Therefore, No Matter What, Politicians will Bend and Manipulate this for "Political"
Gain.
Who Stirred and Exposed the Swamp?
The Swamp Inhabitants Desperately Want & Intend to do Whatever it Takes to Return to
the Old Pre Trump Days of Operating Above the Law Without Exposure and Impunity.
Consequently, Those who Support the COVID-19 Hoax are Swamp Members & Supporters.
Know your Adversary!
monty42 , 2 hours ago
Trump didn't drain, stir, or expose the swamp, sorry that dog don't hunt. He has appointed
recycled establishment swamp creatures his entire term. He appointed Fauci to the Covidian
Taskforce. He says wearing masks is patriotic.
The promises he made his followers did not manifest. Another 4 years after being lied to
is just the same old routine, nothing new.
Until you people are honest about the reality of the situation, you'll never stop the
cycle of D/R destruction.
For months the US has been in a full court diplomatic press on fellow UN Security Council
members in an attempt to ensure that a UN arms embargo against Iran does not expire.
The embargo on selling conventional weapons to Iran is set to end October 18, and is
ironically enough part of the 2015 nuclear deal brokered under Obama, which the Trump
administration in May 2018 pulled out of.
But now Pompeo vows
the US will "take necessary action" -- no doubt meaning more sanctions at the very least,
and likely military action at worst. He told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week
that "in the near future... we hope will be met with approval from other members of the
P5."
"In the event it's not, we're going to take the action necessary to ensure that this arms
embargo does not expire," he said.
"We have the capacity to execute snapback and we're going to use it in a way that protects
and defends America," Pompeo told the committee further.
Speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continued
to call on the world to accept extending the UN arms embargo against Iran. The embargo is
scheduled to expire on October 18.
But it's clear at this point that the UN is not intent on extending the embargo . Russia for
one has promised as much. Both Russia and China also have recent weapons deals in the works
with the Islamic Republic.
LibertarianMenace , 55 minutes ago
"protects and defends America"
Nothing is farther from the truth, fat man. We know (((who))) it is we're
"protecting".
bumboo , 37 minutes ago
Is this fat guy being blackmailed to saying stupid things all the time
monty42 , 35 minutes ago
He works for the Council on Foreign Relations who have been bankrupting the States with
perpetual war since they fomented WW2.
LibertarianMenace , 30 minutes ago
Yes, him and the rest of the USG. When you can assassinate a U.S. President in broad
daylight and get away with it, you can get away with more extravagant illusions, like 09/11,
or if people are finally catching on, throw in just a smidgen of reality like CV-19. Sky is
the limit.
This is Trump's redeeming value: he's showing all, including the densest among us
(((who))) it is that runs the country. Whether he does it intentionally or not, as in
kowtowing to (((them))), is ultimately irrelevant. (((They))) have to be a bit uncomfortable
from the unaccustomed exposure. The censoring just proves it.
Tag 'em And Bag 'em , 36 minutes ago
This pneumatic bull frog is a deep state sock puppet with a Zionist hand way up his
***.
When his lips move, Satanyahoo's voice comes out
This has zero to do with the interests of real Americans.
**building 7 didn't kill itself**
Tag 'em And Bag 'em , 23 minutes ago
TRUMP: "Larry Silverstein is a great guy, he's a good guy, he's a friend of mine."
The reason that the US government are trying to get Iran is because Epstein/Mossad has
blackmailed them all into doing their bidding.
Why don't you cover that in the news, huh?
El Chapo Read , 31 minutes ago
"Necessary Action" = Call Israel and ask what they want him to do.
jaser , 43 minutes ago
Protect America? Protect corrupt Netanyahu more like it. Your nation is about to implode
and you just cut off the $600 welfare payment to your citizens hey but let's ban TikTok and
protect America from Iran.
malMono , 39 minutes ago
This why Biden might win...idiots like pompeo are a turnoff.
Grouchy-Bear , 34 minutes ago
Sometimes it looks like Pompeo is actually in charge. Okay, most of the time he is in
charge. Why go through the election process at all? Pompeo is running the country and was
never elected...
malMono , 39 minutes ago
This why Biden might win...idiots like pompeo are a turnoff.
Grouchy-Bear , 34 minutes ago
Sometimes it looks like Pompeo is actually in charge. Okay, most of the time he is in
charge. Why go through the election process at all? Pompeo is running the country and was
never elected...
rwe2late , 43 minutes ago
Embargo Iran to make them as desperate as possible.
Then accuse them of being "aggressive" while one attacks and bombs Iran's near neighbors
(Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen).
Sounds like a plan of aggressive war if done by any but an "exceptional" nation.
If Russia and China want to trade with Iran, how in the world is it the US Government's
right to tell them not to? If we want to put sanctions on Iran, go for it. But at this point,
the dollar is collapsing as world reserve currency. Iran should well be able to buy anything
they need, from China/Russia and the rest of the world which doesn't respect US sanctions, or
so I would think.
My point - there's really getting nothing that the US even can do about Iran. So
maybe...we should just stop and give it a rest.
Einstein101 , 13 minutes ago
Iran should well be able to buy anything they need, from China/Russia
Fact is Russia and China sell almost nothing to Iran, fearing US sanctions.
Cassandra.Hermes , 2 minutes ago
Don't forget Turkey, Azerbaijan and Europe! Turkish stream is not only bypassing Ukrain
but it is connected to Azeri pipeline that is 10km from Iranians border.
monty42 , 15 minutes ago
"Obviously the Iranian army has a bunch of non thinkers..."
Hypocrisy much? The US regime employs paid mercenaries who swore to uphold and defend the
Constitution, yet lie and unthinkingly "just follow orders" and believe that absolves them of
their oathbreaking and actions.
"Dude, I am FREE. I have firearms that are deadly." Heh, only a very limited arsenal
permitted by the Central Committee in D.C., to maintain firepower supremacy in the empire's
favor. Your firearms may be deadly, but the empire mercenary can take you out without you
ever seeing their face.
Clearly having firearms and ammo alone do not prevent tyranny, the States under the D.C.
regime prove that.
vipervenom , 17 minutes ago
pompass the fat boy coward sending our troops to die while he hides behind his own extra
large rear end.
The examples and incidents illustrating Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's
failing faculties can no longer be ignored and it's inhumane for him to be allowed to campaign
to be leader of the United States.
Mercy is rarely granted to high-profile politicians. They're either lauded or pilloried,
there's no in-between – it comes with the territory. But someone has to make an exception
for Joe Biden.
The Democratic nominee has served his country, whether you agree with his values and
opinions or not, proudly and with distinction. He entered the Senate in 1973 to represent
Delaware and went on to become vice president during Barack Obama's reign.
But this is a man who, at 78 years old in November, is close to the end of his road; he's
not one who should be preparing for four or even eight years at the White House.
The reason why is quite simple: he is cognitively not there any longer.
This is no laughing matter, or a political point, or a vehicle to mock him with: mental
decline is a sad, tortuous process to watch, particularly in someone of his standing.
Earlier this week, Biden staggered on stage in his home state saying: " Good Afternoon
everyone. Welcome to Kingswood Community Center ." The event was at William 'Hicks'
Anderson Community Center.
After losing his focus for a few seconds and genuinely looking lost, he uttered: " I
didn't know where we were. "
For someone on the move a lot, it can be easy to get places mixed up – rock stars are
regularly caught shouting out a city, totally different to the one they are actually playing.
This wasn't that, Biden didn't have a clue where he was.
The heartbreaking element is that you can see he senses it, he realizes himself. That he's
aware of these episodes must be terrifying for the poor man.
It is far from an isolated incident.
Speaking not so long ago, Biden said
during an event : " He's saying that it was President (pause) my boss. " He knew he
had worked for President Obama, but just couldn't recall his name.
Then during a TV interview, when asked about Covid-19, he stated: " We have to take care
of the cure, that will make the problem worse no matter what ."
At a presidential rally in South Carolina, he announced: " Where I come from, you don't
get far unless you ask – my name is Joe Biden. I'm a Democratic candidate for the United
States Senate. Look me over, if you like what you see, help out. If not, vote for the other
Biden ."
There's one particularly chilling theme that will chime with anyone who's seen elderly
relatives suffer mental decline. Biden loses his train of thought regularly, it's the most
obvious indicator – you're talking away and they end up silently staring into space.
It happened to Biden during one session on TV and after a bit of mumbling, he had to say the
only words he could: " I don't know. "
The only thing saving him from complete humiliation time after time are the printed notes,
auto-cues and his off-camera staff. When he freezes, he loses his gaze and then eventually
clicks back into gear thanks to these props.
Another crutch is that he often holds a pen or even a small notebook – which can
figuratively convey the sense of being in control.
Some may label all this as hypercritical or even blatant scaremongering, but it's eerily
similar to a harrowing speech delivered by Soviet ruler Leonid Brezhnev in the last months of
his reign.
His New Year address in 1979 would make even his biggest enemy sympathetic. His speech is
slurred, his staff talk to him like a child, he even changes glasses as he can't see –
it's incredulous that at the time, he was the leader of a superpower.
It's reckoned at the time he was addicted to alcohol and sleeping pills, and suffering from
the aftereffects of minor strokes.This all leads to problems with general cognitive behaviour,
and within a short time other people were running things for him, before he died in office in
1982.
President Ronald Regan was another world leader whose age caught up with him. He died of
Alzheimer's fifteen years after leaving the White House in 1989, but one of his sons is sure
that he felt the onset of the disease began when he was still in office.
In his book about his father, Ron Reagan wrote
: " My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes,
uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered ."
Britain's wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill is another whose deficiencies were
concealed.
It was only after his death that it became common knowledge that he had suffered a stroke
during his second stint at premier in the early 1950s. Some feel Churchill had a neurological
disease related to Alzheimers but that is refuted by the International Churchill Society, who
say it was progressive
dementia .
These three juggernauts prove that 77-year old Biden is only succumbing to what so many
others have. The thing is, they were all from another era when prestige and power were held as
the be-all and end-all.
The man's dignity and health has to come first. He clearly needs care, and shame on the
charlatans sending him on this presidential campaign.
That's his campaign staff and party members who are out banging the drum for him. They may
feel the end justifies the means to rid the American people of the deeply divisive Donald
Trump, but it doesn't.
Aside from politics, Biden is a husband, father and grandfather. Let him live out the rest
of his days with dignity, as a proud man, not as a laughing stock. The mainstream media, a lot
of whom are liberals with a Democratic leaning, also need to assume culpability too.
Why aren't they discussing this openly and sensibly, pleading for some humanity to be shown?
Instead, the left-leaning Democrat-supporting media simply ignore it, while those on the right
snigger away insidiously on podcasts or review shows.
They should be taking a stand and letting the whole Democratic machine know that this isn't
humane. Instead the left-leaning media act not just as cheerleaders for him, but have basically
become part of his campaign team, covering up the reality.
They're out there, pushing his campaign and ignoring his slip-ups and the reality of his
mental health, and putting a frail old man in harm. Just because they hope to claim part of the
applause for booting Trump out of the White House. It's cruel.
Fox News' Chris Wallace tried to get a one-to-one interview with Biden and would no doubt
have grilled him hard. It would have probably shattered Biden's bid and let everyone see how
badly he is struggling mentally. But what happened?
Wallace revealed: " In our interview last week with President Trump, he questioned
whether his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, could handle a similar encounter. This week, we
asked the Biden campaign for an interview and they said the former vice president was not
available ."
Joe Biden is a political puppet. An unwell one. The puppet masters need to stop and let the
gentleman enjoy his golden years with grace and dignity.
apothqowejh 6 hours ago "Terrifying for the poor man?" But he's not a poor man. He's a very
rich man, and sovis everyone else in his immediate family. They got rich through his corruption
and influence peddling. He was a criminal unqualified for high office long before he ever
started declining. Let's don't forget just who this rich man is, or how he got there.
Tucker Carlson described former President Obama as "one of the sleaziest and most dishonest
figures in the history of American politics" after his eulogy at the funeral of civil rights
icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) on Thursday.
Carlson, who also described the former president as "a greasy politician" for calling on
Congress to pass a new Voting Rights Act and to eliminate the filibuster, which Obama described
as a relic of the Jim Crow era that disenfranchised Black Americans, in order to do so.
"Barack Obama, one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures in the history of American
politics, used George Floyd's death at a funeral to attack the police," Carlson said before
showing a segment of Obama's remarks.
he non-profit that sent the Democratic Party haywire during the Iowa Caucus earlier this
year has a new strategy: creating partisan news outlets in key states across the country ahead
of the 2020 election. With the financial backing of Hollywood, hedge fund managers, and Silicon
Valley, Acronym's Courier Newsroom may just change local journalism and politics forever.
Courier Newsroom , created by the
dark-money (not required to disclose donors) progressive non-profit Acronym, states that they
were created to restore trust in journalism by helping to rebuild local media across the
country. The opposite of this is true. Their true goal? Winning elections in key states.
Acronym CEO Tara McGowan, in a leaked memo obtained
by Vice, has stated that the goal of establishing Courier Newsroom is to defeat Republicans on
the new frontier of Internet political advertising. McGowan attributes Trump's 2016 success to
the campaign's ability to "shape and drive mainstream media coverage" through an influx of
internet spending. Courier seeks to counter this by challenging Trump on social media. By
definition, Courier serves as a political advertising operation for the Democratic Party rather
than a legitimate media source.
Calling for a new approach to political advertising, McGowan lambasted Hillary Clinton's
failed media strategy for its over-reliance on spending on traditional media, "In 2016, the
Hillary Clinton for President campaign raised an estimated $800 million online -- and spent a
large majority of it on television and radio advertisements." The 2016 election has proven to
be the reason for the creation of Courier Newsroom.
McGowan explicitly states that the papers are being used to boost political results, "
The Dogwood will not only function to support the flipping of both State House and
State Senate chambers in Virginia this November, but will serve as a vehicle to test, learn
from and scale best practices to new sites as we grow." The Dogwood , as of the time
of the writing of the leaked memo, was intended to be the prototype for future courier new
sites.
Courier has established news sites across key 2020 states including: Copper Courier
(Arizona), The Dogwood (Virginia), Up North News (Wisconsin), The
Gander (Michigan), Cardinal & Pine (North Carolina), The Keystone
(Pennsylvania), and The Americano (nationwide, intended for Latino audiences). Courier
extensively utilizes social media to promote stories made by the publications, generating
clicks in order to shape public voter opinion.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.400.1_en.html#goog_884035211 Ad ends in 15s
Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family
Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
Courier stories are written with the intent of mobilizing women and young people. McGowan
writes that Courier does this by "framing issues from health care to economic security in a way
that provides these voters with more personal and local relevance than they are often targeted
through traditional political ads." While these are real stories, they are packaged with the
intent on provoking a positive reaction from certain demographics of the population, in order
to spur them to vote for the Democratic Party this November. Courier itself has conceded that
they exist solely to challenge Republicans on social media.
Courier Newsroom Editor-in-Chief Lindsay Schrupp disagreed with the concerns regarding
journalistic integrity of its writers and service. Schrupp told The American
Conservative the following,
Courier Newsroom and its affiliated sites are independent from ACRONYM. We maintain an
editorial firewall, just like any other media company, and the managing editor of each site,
in addition to me as editor in chief, has ultimate discretion and control over content
published. Painting all partisan-leaning outlets with the same brush is dangerous and too
often creates false equivalency between very different types of newsrooms. All outlets in the
Courier Newsroom network operate with integrity and adhere to traditional journalistic
standards. It's offensive to our journalists -- many of whom have won state, regional and
national awards for their reporting -- to try to make a direct comparison to partisan outlets
on the right that often don't publish bylines, don't hire experienced or even local
reporters, don't comply with basic fact-checking standards, and don't do original reporting
in the regions where they operate. Courier aims to combat the misinformation spread by such
right-wing sites pretending to be "local news" by providing readers with transparently
progressive local reporting.
According to data from Facebook Ad Library, between May 2018 and July 12, 2020 Courier
Newsroom
spent $1,478,784 on Facebook ads on topics that include social issues, elections or
politics. Conservative
alternatives , such as the Daily Wire or Breitbart, have spent considerably less money on
Facebook advertising. Breitbart spent $11,404 since March 2018 and the Daily Wire spent
$418,578 since March 2018 according to Facebook's ad library.
Courier's political agenda is obvious. By looking into their Facebook ad-buys, Courier
Newsroom has spent extensively on vulnerable Democrats who came into office in the 2018
midterms. These pieces, while factual, highlight the accomplishments of narrowly elected
Democrats.
Among those that are frequently featured in mass ad-buys on Facebook are:
"Courier Newsroom's goal is to help elect Democrats. The site doesn't say that, but its
founder, Tara McGowan, has made this clear." Gabby Deutch of Newsguard, a journalism watchdog
focused on identifying fake news, tells The American Conservative. Deutch claims that
Courier is different from other partisan news outlets because their intentions are not clearly
stated. Courier instead argues that they are seeking to fill a void left in local
journalism.
According to The New York
Times in a story published in 2019, 1 in 5 local newspapers have been forced to shut
down forever. Political groups, such as Acronym, are poised to revitalize local journalism with
a new twist -- political advertising. Deutch warned The American Conservative of this
worrying development, "With fewer local newspapers -- a decline that's gotten even worse due to
the financial havoc wreaked by the pandemic -- there's room for political groups to fill the
void, playing off people's trust in local news. So they make a site that looks like local news
but has few (if any) reporters in the state, and then create content to woo voters."
There are examples on the right side of the spectrum too, she points out, including the
conservative Star network (Michigan Star and Tennessee Star are two examples) and AlphaNewsMN,
a conservative Minnesota site. "Readers deserve to know the agenda of the websites where they
get their news."
Browsing North Carolina's Courier news site Cardinal & Pine, one finds it brands itself
as "local news for the NC community." Newsguard' s assessment of Courier, is indeed
true, with the overwhelming majority of stories highlighting the successes of North Carolina
Democrats such as Governor Roy Cooper, attacking Republicans such as vulnerable Senator Thom
Tillis, and promoting Democratic policy positions -- notably as it relates to COVID-19 and BLM
social justice protests. Similarly, Virginia's Courier news site, The Dogwood, did not publish
an article detailing Virginia's biggest scandal of 2019: Governor Northam's controversial
blackface yearbook photo. Nor can one find any reference of Tara Reade, Joe Biden's sexual
assault accuser who entered the public eye earlier this spring.
Even more striking, is that as a 501(c)(4), Acronym is not required to disclose donors.
Acronym in 2018 received $250,000 from New Venture
Fund which is managed by Arabella. Through its dark-money ties,
Arabella has raised $2.4 billion dollars since 2006, making it one of the largest
financiers in American politics. Arabella's influence came into the limelight during the 2018
mid-term elections, in which they raised the
most ever by a left-leaning political non-profit. Courier Newsroom is, in other words, entirely
funded by secret donors that likely have significant ties to the Democratic Party and the Super
PACs bankrolling the 2020 election.
Acronym has invested millions of dollars to establish these papers across the country with
plans to continue their expansion into local media across the country in preparation for the
2020 election and beyond. Acronym has claimed that they are separate from Courier and allow the
creators to produce their own independent ideas, although, tax documents have revealed them to
be full owners
.
"This is all probably legal," says Bradley Smith, former Chairman of the FEC and foremost
scholar on campaign finance. "What surprises me is that more entities–especially on the
conservative side, since the majority of traditional media already lean left–don't do
this. But there are examples on the right–for example, NRA Radio." Donors can be kept
secret, as under Citizen's United , the 'periodicals' of 501(c)(4) groups do not have
to be filed with FECA. (Federal Election Campaign Act) Smith believes organizations such as
Courier will likely be a part of a greater trend in local journalism across the country.
Pacronym, also under the Acronym umbrella, is a Democratic Super-PAC charged with the single
goal of electing Joe Biden. Pacronym ads present similar content to what one would see on a
Courier publication, focusing heavily on the failures of Trump's handling of COVID-19, the
struggling of small-businesses across key-swing states (North Carolina, Arizona, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin), and Joe Biden's proposed response to the virus.
Courier, with the same goal, repurposes ideas by PACs and the Democratic Party by attaching
a 'news' label for legitimacy. "The anti-Trump ads from Courier focus on the same points as
Pacronym and other Democratic political groups, but if they look like news articles, the
audience sees them differently than the same content coming from a politician," According to
Deutch
at Newsguard.
Pacronym donors are publicly disclosed, and may have present a clue into Courier Newsroom's
finances. Some notable
financiers of Pacronym include billionaire hedge fund manager Seth Klarman, Hollywood icon
Steven Spielberg and his wife Kate Kapshaw, a billionaire heiress to the Levi Strauss brand
Mimi Haas, and silicon valley's very own LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman. Pacronym has
targeted a $75 million-dollar digital ad campaign, primarily using Facebook, against
President Trump for the upcoming election.
Acronym is also involved in another scandal, notably the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucus. Shadow
Inc, also operating under Acronym's umbrella, was established with the purpose of digitally
registering and mobilizing voters. Shadow Inc's leadership primarily consisted of 2016
ex-Clinton campaign staff. Shadow Inc received a contract by the Iowa Democratic Party for
$63,183 to develop an application to help count votes in the Iowa Caucus. Shadow Inc's
application, the IowaReporterApp, failed to properly report the caucus, leading to a delayed
result. Campaigns, pundits, and election officials were confused due to the inconsistencies
found in the results.
Candidate Pete Buttigieg claimed victory despite the caucus results not having been properly
released. According to data by the FEC, Pete Buttigieg's campaign paid Shadow Inc. $21,250 for
"software rights and subscriptions" in July 2019. Acronym CEO Tara McGowan's husband, Michael
Halle, was a senior strategist for the Pete Buttigieg campaign. Michael Halle's brother, Ben
Halle, was Pete Buttigieg's Iowa Communications Director. Many have suspected foul play, or at
least incompetence.
Courier Newsroom is distinct from both fake-news and astro-turf operations that came into
the public eye during the 2016 election. Rather than produce fake content with the intent to
mislead, Courier articles are legitimate and are written by real writers. In the leaked Acronym
memo, CEO Tara McGowan claimed that the Democratic Party was losing "the media war."
In 2014 the National Republican Congressional Committee established fake news
websites and paid to boost them on Google. These websites were deceptive with the intent on
defeating the opposing candidate. Although, these websites publicly disclosed that they were
paid for by the committee at the bottom of the article. Courier's funding remains
undisclosed.
PACs, in tandem with a surge in online political advertising, have weaponized newsrooms to
present misleading news for electoral success.
Alberto Bufalino is a student at Wake Forest University in North Carolina and TAC's summer
editorial intern.
I don't know . . . It's bad enough that the republic has to deal with a broad swath of
people getting their news from terrible facebook feeds. It's why America has a president
selling beans and promoting demon sperm doctors, and why it's one of the few countries that
can't keep covid down despite it's resources.
I don't think trying to get the rest of getting our news from people that operate at the
level of Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, and Breitbart is praiseworthy.
You are right in principle.
We have this six hundred pound Citizens United crapping all over the room though.
I too wish that the game was played by different rules. But this is not Switzerland and we
need to win first.
Is it clear though that repealing Citizens United would change this? The Double Plus
Wealthy are already funding the top online websites to the tune of millions of dollars a
year, and the funders of the Federalist are famously anonymous despite the Federalist
basically being an arm of the Republican party/embarrassment to thinking.
I am happy though that the anonymous funders of the Courier are not sponsoring fake news
that makes their readers dumber, unlike *checks the article** the National Republican
Congressional Committee . Yowza.
Repeal of Citizens United would make it possible to regulate who funds whom. It
would not guarantee the outing of arrangements like Courier. Give me a leaked memo any
day.
As Republican leaders find themselves forced to distance themselves from the president
they will also begin discussions about what their party looks like in the post-Trump era.
For starters they may want to dip into a new book by Thomas E. Patterson, a professor at
Harvard University. Titled Is the Republican Party Destroying Itself, the book outlines
five traps the party has found itself in.
Likbez , July 29, 2020 10:38 am
One of the key problem with any poll is conformism of the respondents: answering the
poll in a certain way does not necessary means that the person intends to vote this
way.
He might be simply deceiving the pollster providing the most "politically correct"
opinion. In this sense any poll conducted by an MSM does not worth electrons used to
display its results. Most people are way too smart not to feel what is expected of
them
Add to this the fact that you need to reach people on cell phones. Only a certain
category of people will answer such a call. Limiting yourself to a landline distorts the
sampling in more than one way by definition.
The key question of November elections that will never be asked in polls: Will a
majority of voters side with the protesters? Or they will view them as rioters. In the
latter case this looks like a Nixon elections replay.
Re: "The polls show Donald Trump losing to Joe Biden"
In addition to the biased, mainstream media it appears polls have become the latest
propaganda weapon of the Democrats that are meant to move public opinion, not gauge it. Of
the polls that I have looked at in detail, almost all consistently have more Democrat
participants than Republicans and very few reveal how many people were contacted and refused
to participate. In addition some of these polls use dedicated, volunteer participants that
get a daily/weekly email asking for a response to several issues. So of those polled, it
really comes down to people that don't screen their phone calls or emails and have the
inclination and free time to answer endless questions from strangers about politics. The
Democrat oversampling percentages I have observed are listed below:
ABC News/Washington Post - 2%, 3%, 4%, 6%, 7%, 8%
America Trends Panel - 16%
AP/NORC - 10%
American research Group - 9%
CBS news poll - not revealed
Change Research - 5%
CNBC - not revealed
CNN SSRS Research 7%
Democracy Fund Voter Study Group - not revealed
Democracy Institute 0%
Economist/YouGov - not revealed
Emerson - not revealed
EPIC-MIRA poll 5%
Fox News 0-10% average 6.5%
Gallup 7%
Global Strategy Group 7%
Hart research 6%
Harvard CAPS/Harris - not revealed
Hill/Harris 5%
IBD/TIPP - not revealed
Monmouth 9%, 8%
Morning Consult - 8%
New York Times-Siena College survey 11%
NBC News poll/ Wall Street Journal 12%
NBC News poll/ Survey Monkey - 8%
NPR/Marist 6%
Pew - 16%
Politico/Morning Consult 5%,10%
Public Policy Polling - 10%
Pulse Opinion Research - not revealed
Suffolk University - 5.8%
Quinnipac - 6%, 8%, 10%
Rasmussan - 4% and behind a paywall
Reuters-Ipsos 11%
Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey - behind a paywall
Yahoo News - 8%, 10%
YouGov - 8%, 10%
Zogby - 2%
"... Pompeo is a disgusting man. The US Oligarchic Regime is projecting a lot. It is this Regime that does not recognize any other order than its own, and always puts a messianic spin on its discourse. ..."
"... Mike Pompous can be counted upon to do everything possible to torpedo legitimate US interests below the waterline, and then nuke any survivors. ..."
Mike Pompeo declared the start of a new Cold War with China last week.
...Pompeo's speech was an expression of this unreasonable and unrealistic view, and it is likely to leave most U.S. allies in
East Asia and elsewhere cold. Our allies do not wish for deepening antagonism and strife between the U.S. and China, and if push
comes to shove Washington may find itself without much support in the region. Calling for a "new alliance" to oppose China when Trump
and Pompeo have done such an abysmal job of managing existing alliances in the region just drives home how divorced from reality
the speech was.
... ... ...
The Secretary also relied on a familiar mix of simplistic analysis and threat inflation that he has used so often when talking
about Iran: "It's this ideology, it's this ideology that informs his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism."
Pompeo is falling back on two of the stalest talking points from the Cold War. He interprets the behavior of another state primarily
in terms of its official ideology rather than its concrete interests, and he attributes to them a goal of "global hegemony" that
they are not pursuing to make them seem more dangerous and powerful than they are. China does seek to be the leading state in its
own part of the world, but there is no evidence that they aspire to the global domination that Pompeo claims. A hard-line ideologue
and hegemonist himself, Pompeo wrongly assumes that the things that motivate him must also drive the actions of others.
... ... ...
Most of the people on the receiving end of this "engagement" and "empowerment" will likely resent the condescension and interference
from a foreign government in their country's affairs. Even if we assume that the vast majority of people in China might wish for
a radically different government, they are liable to reject U.S. meddling in what they naturally consider to be their business. But,
of course, Pompeo isn't serious about "empowering" the Chinese people, just as he isn't serious about supporting the people of Iran
or Venezuela or any of the other countries on Washington's list of official foes. We can see from the economic wars that the U.S.
has waged on Iran and Venezuela that the administration is only too happy to impoverish and strangle the people they claim to help.
Hard-liners feign concern for the people that they then set out to harm in order to make their aggressive and destructive policies
look better to a Western audience, but they aren't fooling anyone these days.
Pompeo's bombastic, caustic style and his personal lack of credibility make him an unusually poor messenger, and the Trump administration
is uniquely ill-suited to rally a group of states in common cause. But the main problem with the policy Pompeo promotes is that an
intensifying rivalry with China is not in the American interest. The U.S. has found that it is virtually impossible to change the
behavior of adversaries when that behavior concerns what they believe to be their core security interests. ...
I was reading the words that Nixon wrote about China that Pompeo quoted and it occurred to me that if you took out the word
"China" and replaced it with the "United States" then that statement would be completely accurate in describing how America acts
in the world. In OTW, it's "the Pot calling the Kettle black".
I wouldn't enjoin the American people with our out-of-touch, out-of-control and (In the cases of Hillary, Waters, Biden and
Pelosi..) out of their minds government.
We're so conditioned to global conflicts now, it's merely a matter of the U.S. population learning how to spell the names of
foreign leaders and their capitals marked for "Regime Changes", while crossing our fingers in hopes that our buildings will not
again be subjected to airliner collisions and collapses in the wake of this aggression.
It would behoove Americans to start pulling on the reins of our bellicose administrations to confine their authority and actions
to benefit our citizens.
Your comment that we have coexisted with China for 70 years is not quite accurate. There was this little dust-up called the
Korean Conflict as I recall...
The communist Chinese can control our movie, sports, news and entertainment industries by denying them access to China if they
don't show China in a positive light or if they show China in a negative life...
You define with accuracy the core tenets of Socialists. Once a government expands to the proportions needed to implement that
form of socioeconomic leadership, the character of those leaders becomes tyrannical, while they target segments of their populations
for reeducation or elimination. (Abortions would fit that scenario nicely..) Obama was just such a leader, and had he somehow
been able to ignore term limits, his administration would have resembled those of any Socialist State.
All of the policies you mention above would achieve absolutely nothing while inflaming conflict - thus increasingly the problems
you outline. These hawkish responses prove the point...the issue isn't that there are or aren't issues, but that the US has lost
the ability to have real discussions of these issues with world players and allies.
Much of that is because Trump patently hasn't the temperament, sophistication, or intelligence for discussion and diplomacy
- this was proven again and again in the zero sum ineptitude of his private ventures.
The rot of that malignant ineptitude flows down from the head and into every aspect of government, both domestic and foreign.
Thus we see his response to every domestic crisis is to inflame division. And the same in the foreign theater. He cannot be gotten
rid of soon enough.
I don't believe our government is so foolish as to contemplate a shooting war with the Chinese. They have nuclear warheads.
Their populations are fanatics when it comes to conflicts against them...
Men will not fight another war nor will women leave their jobs when the men return from war as they did with WWII. There will
be no war in Europe simply because Europe (including Russia) is depopulating at such a rapid rate they cant afford a losing more
of their population through conflict. I dont see a shooting war with China either. I think that is the purpose of the tariffs
and detachment of economies. US intelligence says that China does not want war with the US either. I don't think there is any
country that would jump to a pre-emptive nuclear attack in case of a hot war. They dont have the air force superiority or the
Navy or superiority in space yet.
Its not the Chinese way. The Chinese wait until they have superiority then they act otherwise they like to fly below the radar
and get away with as much espionage and intimidation as possible. The opium wars came about because of the Chinese culture of
trade exporting much but importing little thus creating a trade imbalance and indebting their trading partners.
Chinese culture has many forms of achieving superiority without restoring to conflict. The think tanks and experts are predicting
that Xi may be pushed out of power by his competitors in the politburo which could defuse the situation. I don't think it will
change detaching the economies. After COVID, countries are shifting focus from lowest cost possible to lowest cost and lowest
risk possible.
That's why medical instruments, pharmaceuticals, etc are either moving out of China or moving part of their production to the
US or they can win against a declining, an indebted power, an over stretched power, etc. Take a lesson with Russia and the US.
Russia did not confront the US directly. It used proxies elsewhere around the world. Russia did not want a war with NATO or with
the US. That balance kept the peace. If you want peace with China then there is going to have to be some sort of parity or superiority
of China's neighbors via an alliance and/or superiority in trade/technology/economy. If you want war then you pacify and try to
avoid war leaving a strategic space where your competitor thinks they can win. To avoid war, you need parity or superiority.
Pompeo is a disgusting man. The US Oligarchic Regime is projecting a lot. It is this Regime that does not recognize any
other order than its own, and always puts a messianic spin on its discourse.
The US itself is not a democracy, but as B. Franklin put it from the beginning, is a Republic, which from the birth was
design to promote and preserve the haves, the existing Oligarchy. While they looked for a balance of power in order to prevent
the rise of an autocrat (the other bugbear of Oligarchy), the main fear of the framers was democracy and the threat of the mob
voting for re-distribution...
The success of the socialist state of China is an indication of what might have happened if the socialist block in ensemble
wouldn't have suffered the containment enforced by the US. Given the ability to engage in normal economic intercourse with the
world, China developed and lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Vietnam is another example. But look what is happening
with Cuba or North Korea or Venezuela. It is not the socialist system per se, but the blockade of those countries and the crushing
economic war that ruins them.
Fortunately, Russia has learned from the mistakes of the past.
It is good that the cards are on the table to see that US Oligarchy wants to rule everything, because it is a corrupting way
of life and mind. Because of this, the march for more open societies, with more, no less democracy, and people representation
and input is halted.
And of course, in this new Cold War, a lot of civil liberties and freedom of speech will be curtailed. In my neck of the woods
we have already experienced individuals assaulting people of Chinese ethnicity. Way to go America!
Mike Pompous can be counted upon to do everything possible to torpedo legitimate US interests below the waterline, and
then nuke any survivors. He, along with Barr, Graham, and the rest of the Trump circus, are a cautionary tale for what happens
to governments that let ideologues deliberately divorced from reality run a country. They've turned what was once the United States
from a superpower to a failed state in an absurdly short period of time. History will be far less kind to these political Bernie
Madoffs than to the original financial exemplar.
Wars ain't nothing to bandy about among administration subordinates. Pompeo is not supposed to be declaring wars--hot or cold.
Wars cost big money, lives and property. Only the most grave threats against our country should prompt our leaders to even consider
conflicts, much less initiate them. The American people cannot just sit back and absorb such profound adjustments to our national
security posture and defense expenditures being unilaterally decided by Washington. It is also a condition of conflicts that our
civil rights will be under increased constraints. I chuckled a little when China was listed as our 'new' foe. We won't fight the
Chinese because we'll have another Vietnam War on our hands. Our troops aren't used to our enemies fighting back. They've been
deployed into banana wars against poorly trained and ill equipped armies of Middle East camel holes. The U.S. Armed Forces' new
culture, consisting of socially-engineered, politically-corrected soldiers-of-tolerance have yet to confront true fanatics. These
facts were known waaaaay back during our Korean War Adventure.
I've always said that if the Chinese are good at anything, it's making more Chinese.
New Cold War? Bring it on. Competition is good. A strong rival is desired. Instead of a struggle over Ideology, this will be
a Civilizational struggle, Western Civilization VS Central Civilization, liberal democracy VS Confucian/Legalist authoritarianism,
Euro-America VS the Han Chinese. But this time, is America up to the tast?
During the Cold War we were led by 'Greatest Generation' who lived through the Great Depression and fought in World War II,
is today's America of Facebook, Twitter, conspiracy theories, selfies, BLM, safe spaces, Diversity, mass immigration and Woke
political correctness run amok up to the task?
While China is a predator, homogeneous, nationalist, revanchist and bent on returning to the glory it thinks it deserves. All
I can say is, thank god for nuclear weapons and the Chinese Communist Party for keeping a short leash on the patriotic passions
of the Han Chinese.
We had "an alliance of democracies" in the TPP which was developed to counter China. Of course, it handed much of our domestic
sovereignty over to multinational corporations, but that's what you can expect from a corporatist like Obama. Still, might have
been better than this.
I wonder if the Nixon family knew in advance that Pompeo was going to trash Richard Nixon's greatest legacy?
A war between China and the U.S. would not simply be costly for the US - it could end in the destruction of the world as we
know it if it turns nuclear. Trump and Pompeo are sociopathic madman. I would not put it past Trump to use Nukes against China.
He is just that stupid and evil.
President Nixon's détente with China had an important geopolitical consideration, leverage on Russia. "We're using the China
thaw to get the Russians shook", he is quoted to have said. There is much talk among hawks these days of a "new Cold War", with
that the confidence it will end like the first one: victory for the west and no nuclear annihilation. But this is a danger illusion:
today America is in a hegemonic struggle with China for global dominance. It seems neither side can back down. The present crisis
is like the Cold War in one crucial sense – world war must be avoided at all costs. The powers are not heeding the warning of
history.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
Its difficult for me to speak objectively because I haven't read a newspaper in reliably
for about 40 years and even then I got very tired on news reporting always being biased to
the left and sensationalizing the news which was right around the time when real objective
investigatory news ended and commentator based news as well as entertainment news started to
take over.
Biden is the person who supports the return to "classic neoliberalism" and his support is
from groups who are interesting is kicking the can down the road.
Supporting the likely victory of Bidenismo are several groups with seemingly conflicting
interests:
The Congressional Democrats; Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Nadler et al. Like all politicians
their main concern is the acquisition and retention of power. They act en bloc on the
orders of their leaders in whatever might be going on. This was on display yesterday in the
Barr hearing in the House. The Democrat members had been instructed to deny Barr an opportunity
to answer their questions and they did that with a great deal of posturing and faux
pique.
The true leftists; Bernie, Warren, AOC, Wheeler of Portland, the other squaddies, etc. Some
of these are members of Congress but their socialist cause is more important to them than their
political careers. These folks have the Bernie Bro masses at their backs. They have thus far
controlled just about everything in the Biden "program." But, they are not content. Biden does
not yet accept "Medicare for all," (universal single payer, not Medicare at all), and he says
that rioters should be punished. A senior Bernie staffer said yesterday that voting for Biden
is "like eating half a s--t sandwich.
The Marxist revolutionary anarchist groups; BLM and Antifa. These folks are movements rather
than hierarchical countrywide structures. Nevertheless, someone or something is supporting them
with large sums of money to fund transportation, living costs and logistical arrangements for
the purchase and stockpiling of riot supplies. A tent full of these was captured by the Feds
near the Portland court house. These groups do not adhere to either party. They want to destroy
the existing social, governmental, and financial system, but who can doubt that they favor the
Democrats as the "lesser of two weevils?"
The monied leftists in Wall Street and Silicon Valley, they are the financial engine that
drives Biden's dream. They recoil in horror from the idea of Warren and AOC playing a
significant role in a Biden government.
The Biden coven of VP possibilities. The woman chosen is likely to be president after "a
decent interval." And what a group! Demings is a former police chief! Warren - Nah! Kamala
Harris, half Indian, a formerly ferocious prosecutor and judge in California. She and Demings
will go over splendidly with the anarcho-marxist groups of Biden supporters. Susan Rice! A
"Black" person from a Portland, Maine family, descended from a West Indian sailor who came
ashore there several generations back and settled down with a Down East woman. Well, pilgrims,
whomever Joe's minders allow him to have, this person will have interests that compete with
those of all the others, including those of Biden himself.
The core of the backing of both parties are big money interests who use their wealth to gain
massive political influence as big government is what drives market concentration.
Take for example big tech. Their CEOs are testifying to Congress this week. There's no
better examples of market concentration. Yet both parties "leadership" will be working to
insure the tech monopolies are protected. When billions are used to purchase political
influence, the entire system is fully bought and paid for. Between the Obama and Trump
administrations the amount of money conjured up and handed over to the financiers is in the
trillions with a capital T. This is exactly what political influence buys when big money and
big government are locked together in a symbiotic relationship.
The Bernie/AOC wing will make a lot of noise, just like the evangelists did in the GOP. But
in my opinion we should look at the details of the legislation that actually gets enacted not
the rhetoric that is designed to distract. The fact is the working and middle class are sold
increasingly strident rhetoric to divide and distract while they're being looted blind for
generations.
Biden in my opinion is just a front for Obama's third term. Obama's team is running the
Biden campaign. Obama was very friendly to global corporate and Wall St interests. The first
person he hung out with on leaving the White House was Richard Branson.
I was asking myself the same question today when reading a Politico piece on Biden's VP
menu. I think you missed two big names: Rep. Karen Bass and Sen. Tammy Duckworth. I think
Biden's campaign are looking at the VP from the POV of how each candidate could help him in a
specific area. Let me explain my theory:
1. Karen Bass: Congressional Black Caucus head, will deliver both the congress' black votes
and will brigde between Biden's campaign and progressives and has the correct 'optics'. plus
Biden himself admitted that it was Rep. Clyburn who delivered the black votes to him, and I
think for this reason rep. Bass fits well into this situation.
2. Tammy Duckworth: war veteran, Filipino, has the support of both liberal internationalists
and and Never Trumpers. She can deliver F.P. to biden But she has no name recognition compared
to Warren and Kamala. Plus she is not a huge name anyway.
3. Kamala: has the California factor, tough on crime (independents and centrists like her
very much), Indian and Black, name recognition, has that 'presidential vibe' that makes her
naturally in charge much like how Cheney did during Bush 43's tenure. has F.P. similar to
Obama's, but not very specialized there. Maybe somewhere in-between progressive f.p. and
liberal internationalists.
4. The rest is hard to sell to the leftists, espeically to the radicals. Delmingo, Bottoms,
et. al don't strike me as VP quality material and at best are the mini version of Kamala.
5. Susan Rice is the dark horse here and is purely specialized in F.P. and nat sec affairs.
What would Biden gain from Rice, is most likely be undoing what Trump has done since 2016.
Meaning bringing back multilaterlaism, free-trade, R2P, Paris, JCPOA, and others. Although the
congressional republicans will do their best to block these attempts, there are bipartisan
issues that will be addressed like maintaining NATO, keeping troops in the ME, humanitarian
pivot to China and social engineering projects broadly, a.k.a. the continuation of forever
wars. domestically, I don't think Rice has anything to offer to Biden on domestic policy. It is
just not her forte.
...
Which brings us to this question: What is the immediate priority of Biden's campaign if he
is able to pull off the win in November 8th with regards to his pick for the VP? Domestic
concern? if the answer is yes, then it will be Karen Bass, Warren, and Kamala. But if the
priority is foreign policy, then it will be Rice and Duckworth to a lesser degree, but
primarily Rice.
My gut tells me he will pick Kamala next week instead of Susan Rice. She can deliver both,
but rice can only deliver F.P.
Given the possibility of a new (4th or 5th??!) election and the low popularity of Bibi
(21%), his handling of the Covid-19, the growing unrest of the Hasidic Orthdox Jews (his base)
with his restrictive policies, the new rounds of court hearing about his corruption (and his
wife's) and the recent escalations in northern borders it would be hard to see Bibi in office
if Biden becomes president.
I think Democrats are more favorable to the Tel Aviv aspect of Israel if you know what I
mean, than the Jerusalem aspect. Plus, Benny Gantz is already serving both as PM alternate and
war minister, and several key nat sec dems have already voiced their support of him.
I too am interested to see how the Biden admin (if elected) and Israel's relationship will
look like...
What Jack says was true in the pre Trump era. Yes, the Uniparty has been an exercise in
faux rhetorical battles distracting from a single underlying agenda in the past . But
this time it is different. Trump is the last bulwark against the sweeping away of
conservatism as a political force altogether. The ideological battle is real and the stakes
could not be higher.
It matters very much who wins, it could scarcely matter more. If the above described
witches brew of leftists gains power under the Dem standard, the US will be unrecognizable in
short order. Love him or loathe him, Trump is the only barrier to a tsunami of crazy ideas
being unleashed upon us. All in the interest of hastening the Brave New World and saving us
from our simpleminded and outmoded notions; ones like personal & state sovereignty.
Trump himself has displayed some authoritarian tendencies, but his value system does at
least appear to be rooted in humanism. The great irony of the TDS afflicted who rage against
his supposed tyrannical designs, is that very often they display utter contempt for the
millions of regular folk who voted him into power. For me, Trump is the only thing standing
in the way of the tyrannies each of the various leftist crackpot groups would unleash.
The sclerotic Dem old guard, as you say, are just interested in power and of course the
attendant opportunities for personal enrichment. By and large they have zero respect for the
actual people who they nominally serve. They are corrupt, but otherwise not the most
dangerous constituency and may well be swept away by a hard Left takeover.
The Marxists and anarchists, as always, are desperate to force us to be free and bring
about the greatest good for all. So a few (million?) may have to be re-educated or liquidated
in the process. Well that's the price of Progress. No thanks.
The financial engine; the élites of the Silicon Valley and Wall Street, see people
as mere units of account in their schemes; sources of data or sources of debt - to be
exploited by their respective systems. I see them, particularly the Big Tech and global
finance techno-fascists, as the most dangerous. Davos chair Klaus Schwab describes
a coming Fourth Industrial Revolution which will "redefine what it means to be human". What
is it with such people, why can't they just be happy with humans the way we are? All such
talk stems from the most profound of delusions; that Mankind may somehow transcend its flawed
existence thru the use of ever more sophisticated technology. Transhumanism it is called -
literally engineering ourselves into something better. And dare we ask whose definition of
"better" - in whose image are we to be remade - Bill Gates'?
Religion and spiritualism are of course the correct places to seek to be reconciled with
the seeming paradoxes of the human condition. Conservatism comes closest to embracing this
path to true happiness and rejecting the false gospel of technology-induced redemption. All
other roads lead to dystopias of one kind or another and IMO there is a great concentration
of such roads leading away from a Dem win in November.
I can't even imagine a Biden Presidency. Actually, I really can't imagine it because his
presidency will be really that of the people who are able to pull more of his puppet
strings.
If we're talking Republican women as VP picks, I find it strange that they all somehow
disreagarded Tulsi Gabbard. She's the only one who actually seemed human to me and not a
wind-up blathering doll spewing tape-recorded messages.
Such women are relentlessly hostile about male courtesies like holding a door or a chair.
I worked in parallel with a woman NIO who told me that it was unfair for me to mention my
experience of war in congressional testimony. The intent was clearly to intimidate.
I suspect, that if Biden should get elected he will only be a mouthpiece for various
puppet-masters. And when it comes to FP, lurking just off-stage, will be the Chief
puppet-master, the Hildebeast!
Before looking into Russian options in relation to the US, we need to take a quick look at
how Russia has been faring this year. The short of it would be: not too well. The Russian
economy has shrunk by about 10% and the small businesses have been devastated by the combined
effects of 1) the economic policies of the Russian government and Central Bank, and 2) the
devastating economic impact of the COVID19 pandemic, and 3) the full-spectrum efforts of the
West, mostly by the Anglosphere, to strangle Russia economically. Politically, the "Putin
regime" is still popular, but there is a sense that it is getting stale and that most Russians
would prefer to see more dynamic and proactive policies aimed, not only to help the Russian
mega-corporations, but also to help the regular people. Many Russians definitely have a sense
that the "little guy" is being completely ignored by fat cats in power and this resentment will
probably grow until and unless Putin decides to finally get rid of all the Atlantic
Integrationists aka the "Washington consensus" types which are still well represented in the
Russian ruling circles, including the government. So far, Putin has remained faithful to his
policy of compromises and small steps, but this might change in the future as the level of
frustration in the general population is likely to only grow with time.
That is not to say that the Kremlin is not trying. Several of the recent constitutional
amendments adopted in a national vote had a strongly expressed "social" and "patriotic"
character and they absolutely horrified the "liberal" 5th columnists who tried their best two
1) call for a boycott, and 2) denounce thousands of (almost entirely) imaginary violations of
the proper voting procedures, and to 3) de-legitimize the outcome by declaring the election a
"fraud". None of that worked: the participation was high, very few actual violations were
established (and those that were, had no impact on the outcome anyway) and most Russians
accepted that this outcome was the result of the will of the people. Furthermore, Putin has
made public the Russian strategic goals for 2030
,which are heavily focused on improving the living and life conditions of average Russians (for
details, see here ). It is impossible to predict
what will happen next, but the most likely scenario is that Russia has several, shall we say,
"bumpy" years ahead, both on the domestic and on the international front.
I would add that Russia should also start opening channels of communication with various
organizations in Canada, especially those in the far north. While Canada is small
politically, it is vastly bigger than the U.S. in natural resources, very strategically
located and right next door to Russia.
I really agree with you that the "blame Russia" and "blame China" thing has gotten out of
hand in US politics. Whether it will turn into a shooting war seems doubtful to me, as the
government is still full of people who are looking out for their own interests and know that
a full-sized war with Russia, China, Iran or whoever will not advance their interests.
But who would have guessed, a few years ago, that "Russian asset" would become the
all-purpose insult for Democrats to use, not just against Republicans, but against other
Democrats?
I think Trump can win, though, if he successfully hangs the escalating Antifa/BLM mayhem
around the Democrat's necks. Normal, salt-of-the-earth-type Americans won't vote for the
party of Maoist mayhem. I just hope their numbers are still sufficient. So, really, the
mayhem needs to worsen and get ultra-bad, and Trump needs to carefully respond with just
enough law enforcement to bait the Democrats into defending the insurrectionists and their
tactics and loudly condemning Trump's "fascist" response. Normal people will see the true
story and in the privacy of the voting booth, not vote Democrat. And if you think the other
side lost their minds after the 2016 election .
Thanks Saker – I would have loved it, had Alaska been able to hang on to the 90s
relationship with Russia. It was a perfect match, except that Russian economy { as we were
told} was just tanking, and they had no money to throw into the tourist trade. Not that us
Alaskans, expected much more than what our bush villages had to offer. lol But , I'm afraid
this will never happen again, with the Zio freaks in charge of the US. I recall when I was
flying and living in McGrath in the 90s, that a womens Russian helicopter team dropped down
to refuel and I was workin on my cessna about 50 yrds away. I saw about 6+ really good
looking Russian chicks come out of those choppers, and us guys were floored ! We started to
communicate with them, they told us that they were re -tracing the WW II lend lease route and
were headed to the lower 48. Just about the time we started getting close tho, an old Lady
colonel jumped out and put the girls in place – lol . I also remember the Magadan
hockey team came over to play against our University teams Anchorage and Fairbanks. My
neighbor here in Kryme, was on that Russian team – small world. Ya, Russia and Alaska
would be a great match today – just gotta get rid of Washington. Thanks for the
memories.
" until and unless Putin decides to finally get rid of all the Atlantic Integrationists
aka the "Washington consensus" types which are still well represented in the Russian ruling
circles, including the government."
Putin's regime is merely a less unbearable version of the Yeltsin regime, with open loot
by oligarchs replaced by less overt loot by smaller scale actors. Putin is exactly as
beholden to the neoliberal capitalist system as Yeltsin. To expect Putin to change sides as
this point is ludicrous.
" Russia and the Empire have been at war since at least 2013, for no less than seven
years (something which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to
ignore)."
I have no idea what a "neo" Marxist is (apart from a blatant made up term to taint us by
association with the neo-Nazis), but as a Marxist, which the Saker obviously is not, it's
obvious to me that the Imperialist States of America has been at war with Russia since the
Yeltsinite attack on the Moscow parliament in 1993, and probably from the failed patriotic
coup of 1991. If we ignore the Saker's idea of a war since 2013 it's only because we know
it's twenty years out of date.
Things will never improve between Amerikastan and Russia and don't need to. Amerikastan is
sinking and will sink; Putin will, if he continues on the neoliberal capitalist track, sink
Russia as well in the end.
The video link to Sahra Wagenknecht's report was the best part of this article although
the article itself was spot on if one has any respect for reality.
I keep waiting for Germany to tell NATO and the US to get the hell out, but their
political establishment is just as corrupt as the US's.
The amount of money the US Fed Gov steals from the population in taxes and regulation or
causes loss of purchasing power by increasing debt could be much better put to use than
shoveling it into the military to murder people around the globe. The entire Fed Gov will, I
hope, disappear like fart gas as a result of the economic collapse in the making.
@Emily at was just a brutal form of monopoly capitalism that is the essence of the
Zionist syndicate we all are up against. Today piratized not privatized Russia is suffering a
less severe form but it is estimated that half Jew Putin and his oligarch cronies control ap.
30% of the Russian economy. all of this insider theft was "codified and Legalized" by Larry
Summers and the Harvard Jews. Same thing is happening in Jewmerica and moving lots faster now
with the theft under cover of the fake virus. Don't forget in 08-09 the bailout for
billionaires cost the regular economy trillions then too. No problem, the Jews at Black Rock
picked up some great bargains as they will this time.
The real cause of the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot
be conquered, subdued, subverted or destroyed.
I would add that Putin (a masterful statesman) tamed Russia's oligarchs. The greatest fear
of America's oligarchs might well be a similar taming by a masterful American statesman.
Hence the refusal to allow anyone other than corrupted mediocrities anywhere near nominal
power in the US. And hence the entirely genuine hatred for Putin. He embodies their worst
nightmare.
"Russia will never attack first (which is a major cause of frustration for western
russophobes)"
Now that team orange clown (with the full support of congress) has done away with the
doctrine of mutually assured destruction, apparently replacing it with the concept of a
"winnable" nuclear war (impliedly by way of a devastating first strike), the time may come
when Russia may have to either strike first or be struck first.
Also, what about the case where the empire is finally successful in starting a war against
Iran, for example, and the war goes badly for the empire (i.e. Iran is inflicting some
serious damage), whereupon the empire resorts to nukes. Would Russia just sit back and watch,
or would Russia then realize that the monster has to be put down?
"The real cause of the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot
be conquered, subdued, subverted or destroyed."
In a sense that's true as far as it goes, but it really doesn't explain very much. Lots of
countries are unable to subdue, subvert or conquer other countries but that in itself doesn't
generally lead to "hatred." The simpler and more profound explanation is that the empire does
what it does because it's evil. And the evil empire is analogous to an aggressive cancer:
either the cancer wins and the patient dies, or the cancer is completely eradicated and the
patient survives. There is no peaceful coexistence with the evil empire just like there is no
peaceful coexistence with glioblastoma. You cannot negotiate with it to find some kind of a
reasonable compromise.
The US government and FRS seem to be hell-bent on destroying the value of the US $: when
someone issues debt obligations (treasuries) and then buys them himself because there are no
other takers, you cannot help smelling a rat.
The crash of the $ will hurt everyone, but some will recover faster than others. Euro and
yen would be buried with the US $, but assets in less US-dependent countries that have real
economies producing things other than hot air will likely fare better. Which leaves Russia,
big China, South Korea, and some SE Asia countries.
the US was at about the same level in 2013: "The top 10% of families held 76% of the
wealth in 2013, while the bottom 50% of families held 1%. Inequality worsened from 1989 to
2013"
Indications are that the worsening has only continued since then, and with all the money
being poured into the stock market by the Fed this year, 2020 is on track to be exceptionally
iniquitously inequitable.
Trump 're-election' is certain. All roads are paved toward it. In fact and so far Trump is
the best Neocon/Deep State's man they found. Stop pretending Saker!
The US is under rule by decree, not by rule of law. Looking at the original list of
grievances the Colonists had against King George, it looks like most of them are met –
and then some – by our current system of government. Can we regain our
independence?
said:
"A Trump re-election will virtually guarantee civil war, but that is still a better option
than a Biden hot war against Russia. Either way though, the country is totally fucked."
– We already have a civil war.
– Either way there will be no "hot war against Russia". That's just silly.
– And there is no "Biden" there.
– The US is much, much better off with Trump, it's not even close. Especially if you
value free speech, fighting violence, and at least some semblance of a market economy devoid
of the 'Green New Deal' scam.
after Vietnam war, Vietnam, ally of China , keep their regime in their own
hand.
The ally of North Vietnam was Russia.
China blocked the transit of Russian weapons to North Vietnam. After North Vietnam
defeated the Americans, with Russian help, China invaded North Vietnam and was defeated.
For Saker it is always about Russia, Russia, Russia Sure, Russia is a big world power, it
used to be and it is now. It is so mostly because of its military, which draws its strength
and know-how from the USSR (meaning it is not strictly Russian). However, Russia will never
again be a superpower as the USSR had been. It was possible then only because of the
(historically) unparalleled appeal of the communist ideology. Firstly and objectively, Russia
does not have an economy necessary to support such a status. Secondly, Russia has no
sufficient population which, again, is a limiting factor to its economy. Putin probably
realized that although he did not realize that the Putin-inspired immigration from the former
Muslim republic of the USSR will not alleviate the problem. But again, who would even want to
go to today's Russia if not Asiatic muslims. It will slowly but surely make Russia not much
different from the West. Muscovites, just like New Yorkers are already leaving the city,
those who can afford.
And, subjectively, Russia or the Russians don't have the most important ingredient fort the
superpower status – the MENTALITY. The recent (1990-2020) Russian history clearly
displays that. It shows that in order to realize the centuries old dreams of the few (so
called "elites") Russia as a nation and as country had put itself to the downward trajectory:
As an empire it sold Alaska; as a civilization – it destroyed itself by dismantling the
rest of the empire, the USSR. As an ally it abandoned and handed over the most Russophile
german friend and ally E. Honecker and others to the "partners" in the west. And, as an
orthodox and Slavic "brother" it betrayed and abandoned the only people that have always
loved Russia – the Serbs. As an ally it behaved recklessly and treacherously. Russia
will do the same again. So, hate Russia.
Since 2016 I've always believed Trump will be legally elected in 2020 but the DNC/Deep
State will reject the result much more forcefully and violently than they've been doing since
2016. The DNC/Deep State will establish a shadow government minus the shadow. It will not be
Joe Biden leading it but someone much younger, possibly Biden's VP choice – who was
(will be) selected to replace Biden should Biden actually win. Hell, it may even be Hussein
since he's such a treasonous pussy and easy to manipulate. The communists behind the scenes
(aren't they always such cowards) currently coordinating BLM and Antifa riots all over
America will again use rioting but with firearms and bombings. This must be met with a
military response and the violence will be nationwide. At some point either Trump declares
martial law and outright civil war ensues, or a military coup takes over with or without
Trump as a figurehead and they crush the communists and leftists while right wing militias
join in the hunt. The only wild-card is if race driven factionalism within lower ranks cause
wide divisions and some officers break away – then the whole show is over and there
will be no place safe from people with guns and bad intentions. We will be fighting over food
and gasoline. At least, like in China, there will be plenty of dogs to satisfy hunger.
Putin's difficulty is that Russia is really too important for the West to ignore.
Western elites, and not just in the US, but in the EU and the western-hemisphere in
general, are facing a problem: people are beginning to notice that human values are not
universal. This had been one of the main pillars for the existence and credibility of a
technocratic elite, specifically for the people to trust the elites to implement some
unspecified but benevolent neo-enlightenment.
Putin became truly anathema first when he rejected western neoliberal criminality
because
[Hide MORE] it was destroying his country, secondly, when he thwarted amputation
of Crimea by color revolution, and thirdly, when he kept calling out NATO/EU expansionism for
what it was. This made conversion of Russia to the neoliberal finance and 'universal value"
system even less likely than the conversion to Roman Catholicism prophesied at Fatima. Putin
decided that Russia would live by its own values, thank you very much. Russia could
still have been an arms-length ally, but Anglo-Zionist geopolitical extremism forced him to
make cause with a clearly adversarial China, and encouraged him to circumvent the western
currency system as well.
But peoples within the west were also developing this NGTOW (Nations Going Their Own Way)
attitude. Hungary and Poland were already becoming thorns in the side of the EU over the
"human value" immigration, and the elections of Trump and Brexit were further assertions of
populist preferences. Other politicians like Wagenknecht, LePen and Salvini are nurturing
this movement elsewhere. It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal oligarchy, by dialing
up propaganda and censorship, and by using Orwellian cancel terrorism, can quell this
awakening rebellion.
@Wally licies.
6. Dramatically improve US education, from elementary school up.
7. Reform US healthcare, with a view of making it healthcare, rather than extortion racket it
is today.
There are many other things, but anyone attempting to do even half of those listed would
be promptly JFK'ed by the Deep State. That is why there is no one in the US politics decent
enough to even talk about real problems, not to mention attempting to do what needs to be
done to save the country. Hence, I can name no names.
As things stand, even Trump is better than senile and corrupt Biden. But being better than
that piece of shit is not a big achievement.
China allowed Soviet arms through to North Vietnam and was herself giving weapons to them.
The Soviets didn't trust the Chinese though, so they preferred to transport more advanced
weapons on ships rather than by train through China, to prevent the Chinese from getting a
close look on these.
China attacked Vietnam for invading Cambodia, but this war exposed the weakness of the
Chinese Army. Deng Xiaoping was able to push through military reforms after the debacle.
@Ko e and destabilize western nations. These paid activists, opportunists and useful
idiots could be taken care of by the local law enforcement as the constitution mandates if
allowed to do so. The goal of the Zionist criminals is to create enough chaos and breakdown
that people will demand that the national gov. step in with martial law. This is exactly what
the Zionists want so they can get rid of the locally controlled police and implement a
gestapo of thugs that are accountable only to the elite at the top.
The zionist politicians and their operatives from the mayors to the Governors on up need
to be thrown out of office. That is the first step in restoring the Republic.
@alwayswrite ernative media has excellent analysts) instead of immersing in the stinky
products of presstituting MSM controlled by 6 zio-corporations.
Your hysterics about Russia's alleged attempts at destabilizing the EU are particularly
entertaining. For starter, 1. learn about US bases in Europe and beyond, and 2. read about
the consequences of the wars of aggression (also known as Wars for Israel) in the Middle East
for the EU.
If you are in search of neonazi, turn your attentions to a great project run by ziocons and
neonazi in Ukraine. See Grossman, Kolomojsky, Zelinsky, Nuland-Kagan, Pyatt, Carl Gershman
(NED), and the whole Kagans' clan united with Banderites What can go wrong?
What a terrific video of "peaceful protests" Jordan presented. Yowza. The leftist
gaslighting will continue in spite of it, but would it be fair then to label these "peaceful
protests", these "myths" (according to Chairman Nadler), The Unicorn Riots?
Seriously, is it possible the leftists are pursuing a winning strategy by either
ignoring/denying (at best) all of the violence and destruction or (at worst) by making excuses
for it and condemning those who are trying to maintain order? Will a majority of voters side
with the rioters? I refuse to believe we're that far gone as a country, refuse to believe the
polls that state Biden's in the lead everywhere. Instead, I'm beginning to suspect the polls
are a desperate attempt to make it look like a horserace when it's not.
I may be wrong, REALLY wrong of course - no doubt there are a lot of Trump and Deplorables
haters that would vote for a decomposed corpse rather than the POTUS, but still, these riots
surely aren't helping their cause and that's why they're feigning ignorance. Do they believe
campaigning on good old "Law and Order" is passe now, a no-no because it's unappealing to the
[obviously TERRIBLY unhappy] young anarchists/socialists/communists? Has the mainstream
Democratic Party turned into Vichyites?
...while every country is different, the signposts tend to be the same. It is worth
attending to the characteristics he describes. They should sound familiar:
In a weak state , basic services such as education and health are privatized;
public facilities decline. Infrastructure, including schools and hospitals, shows signs of
neglect, particularly outside of major cities. Journalists and civil society activists are
harassed. Tensions among ethnic, religious, or linguistic groups increase, but widespread
violence does not erupt -- yet.
In a failing state , a single leader gains control of the legislature, law
enforcement, and the judiciary. The leader and his cronies are enriched while ordinary
citizens are left without basic services.
In a failed state , living standards deteriorate rapidly. Citizens feel they
exist only to satisfy the ruler's greed and lust for power. The potential for violence
increases as the state's legitimacy crumbles.
Finally, in a collapsed state , warlords run the country. The market rules to
the exclusion of any other concerns, while the social compact has been completely eroded.
"The Id is unleashed."
...Rotberg points out that widespread violence, one of the key markers of a failed state, is
not in evidence. But as John Comaroff noted, the soft coup of finance can make violence
redundant. Rotberg is one of the more conservative voices on state failure, so I was surprised
when I asked about the consequences of a second Trump term. He simply said: "Move."
... America's polarization is as much psychological as political, Rauch wrote in
National Affairs , echoing John Comaroff's recognition of tribalism as intrinsic to
human society. Rauch calls America's polarization neither "ideological or even rational," but
deep and atavistic, a sign of the human need for group identity in a fragmented world.
"Rebuilding institutions -- and, just as important, noticing and valuing them -- is more
important for containing tribalism than pretty much anything that public policy could do," he
writes. "And two institutions in particular deserve strengthening: the Republican Party and the
Democratic Party."
... With the executive branch cratering and the legislature limping along, citizens seek
recourse from the courts -- a trend Comaroff calls "lawfare" -- or become beggars, relying on
the whims of billionaires. Neither are a substitute for good government. Start with the courts:
since the Reagan years, the pro-business Federalist Society has been stacking the courts, so
increasingly these, too, reflect that new system of finance über alles .
... Surprisingly, few have pointed out the parallels to the United States. In the 1980s,
Ronald Reagan's cowboy anti-communism made institutions the enemy, whether government
bureaucracies or labor unions. Libertarianism here means freedom for corporations and slavery
for everyone else. James Carville's famous dictum on winning elections can be repurposed: it's
corruption, stupid.
If American frontier culture is the disease, it may yet hold the cure. Among the
self-described political realists, conservative Jospeh Postell's remedies sound the most
realistic: grassroots organizing and restoring the power of local government to dispense
largesse. In Texas, Beto O'Rourke has been pouring time and resources into just the kind of
organizing Postell talks about, a test case that should be watched. The next few years will
likely tell us if the old remedies work or if the restoration of America's civil society needs
something that goes beyond electoral politics. The worst-case scenario? Politics as we know it
may be irrelevant.
... "The United States is a state that is a partially owned commodity of the corporate
sector. If that's the definition of a failed state, we are. The state has become analogous to
McDonald's. It's a franchise." And what better leader for a nation reduced to a franchise than
a puffed up, golf-playing billionaire whose wealth comes in large part from licensing his name?
Perhaps, as some scholars are suggesting, the new world order won't be countries at all, but
vast trading cities in a sea of ungoverned spaces.
... In his taxonomy of state failure, Rotberg uses a telling phrase to mark the state's
decline: losing "the mandate of heaven." This expression, once invoked to describe the divine
source of authority for China's rulers, invokes a crisis that is both individual and collective
and more powerful for that dual nature.\
... The failure of a state shakes people to their foundations. Downward mobility has bred a
hopelessness that's sent rates of suicide and alcoholism skyrocketing.
... Even now, America is more like Sierra Leone than we care to admit, disunited and
conflicted, our spirits eaten by cynicism. No longer asking what we can do for our country, the
old martial definition of the state has given way to the description of war-torn Sierra Leone
by London School of Economics professor David Keen: "a war where one avoids battles but picks
on unarmed civilians and perhaps eventually acquires a Mercedes may make more sense . . .
[than] risking death in the name of the nation-state with little or no prospect of significant
financial gain."
Susan Zakin is the editor ofJournal of the Plague Year. She is the
author of several books, including Coyotes and Town Dogs: Earth First! and the Environmental
Movement and Waiting for Charlie. More of her writing can be found atwww.susanzakin.com.
Joe Biden's alternate reality: "I know a fair amount about American foreign policy." Reality
Check from Robert Gates, Obama/Biden's former defense secretary: Biden has "been wrong on
nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."
Go back and watch the sad spectacle for yourself on C-SPAN's website, if you'd like. I
wouldn't recommend it. As a preview of coming attractions, Chairman Nadler -- who recently
dismissed the
serious, documented violence in Portland as
a "myth" -- concluded his harried Q&A with this: "Shame on you, Mr. Barr."
... Like many of his colleagues, Nadler repeatedly interrupted Barr's attempts to even begin
to respond to the accusations being hurled at him, then concluded his scripted performance with
a dramatic "shame on you!" And so it has gone. Alternating parcels of Five Minutes' Hate,
interspersed with Republicans playing defense and scoring their own points. Occasional actual
questions have slipped through the theater, but the overall episode has been largely
useless.
From Berr opning statement:
Ever since I made it clear that I was going to do everything I could to get to the bottom
of the grave abuses involved in the bogus "Russiagate" scandal , many of the Democrats on
this Committee have attempted to discredit me by conjuring up a narrative that I am simply
the President's factotum who disposes of criminal cases according to his instructions.
Judging from the letter inviting me to this hearing, that appears to be your agenda
today.
So let me turn to that first. As I said in my confirmation hearing, the Attorney General
has a unique obligation. He holds in trust the fair and impartial administration of justice.
He must ensure that there is one standard of justice that applies to everyone equally and
that criminal cases are handled even-handedly, based on the law and the facts, and without
regard to political or personal considerations...
Indeed, it is precisely because I feel complete freedom to do what I think is right that
induced me serve once again as Attorney General. As you know, I served as Attorney General
under President George H. W. Bush.
After that, I spent many years in the corporate world. I was almost 70 years old, slipping
happily into retirement as I enjoyed my grandchildren. I had nothing to prove and had no
desire to return to government. I had no prior relationship with President Trump.
Watch the whole thing here , or read the full transcript
here . I'll leave you with this.
"Looking at Biden vs Trump almost makes me long for the days of the 2016 election –
almost. As I have written, Trump is out of his depth dealing with these crises, and the
generals who could have helped him are long gone – and gone on bad terms, at that. Biden
is so visibly senile the only question is whether he drops out as soon as his VP is announced
(who then moves into the lead slot & picks her own VP), or is propped up through the
election like Brezhnev in his final year.
"Trump it seems has boxed himself into a corner. This situation needed decisive, tough
action up front, and that didn't happen. Now we have simmering violence & renewed lockdowns
to keep the pot boiling. We simply may not make it to November without a three (or four?)
– sided civil war – I would hate to make book on it either way, the right spark and
the whole thing blows up. But if we get to the election, what then? If Trump wins, the
DNC-Antifa-BLM "Axis of REAL Evil" which is fueling these crises (aided by the MSM, of course)
will shriek 'foul!' and the cities burn again, at which point old guys like me & my veteran
neighbors & younger versions of us pick up our AR-15s and fight it. If Trump loses, the
same thing happens between November & January. We are, my old friend (well, younger friend
.!) heading between political versions of Scylla & Charybdis with broken rudders. Barring a
miracle (and I hope SO much I am wrong!), this will make the 1861-65 war seem like a walk in
the park."
Heck, everybody knows the plan is to ENDLESSLY profit from woar and to dwindle down the
American forces so they would not be around to defend the homeland. Ponder, how many have
died because of the babylonian war games, ISREAL'S THIRST FOR AMERICAN DEFENSE CONTRACTS, and
the evil, filthy, lying, cursed to go to hell fake stream media mainly responsible for all
those lives lost, and for what? Basically, as it stands now, nothing. Nothing but the
banksters profits, as they giggle at the gullible.
THIS...is moar important below.
ATTENTION: ALL HANDS ABOARD - SHIP WIDE POST FOLLOWS. PASS IT UP TO THE ZING-ZING ON TOP
OF THE LADDER. PRAY, THEY HAVE ENOUGH DINGLE-BERRY SENSE TO PULL A RABBIT OUT OF A
HAT.:(JUSTICE, MR PRESIDENT-THAT IS ALL THE MAJORITY OF YOUR SUPPORTERS WANT)
Open letter to Mr President Trump:
At this point, there is a growing consensus that there is no sense in getting off the
couch to go out and vote for you. This president does not shat and get off the pot! Like, do
yer job and begin by hearing the growing louder and louder voices of an ever growing amount
of real Americans speaking their truth to power. THIS is just one reason, mr president, that
among a few moar, that will result in your downfall. YOU DO NOT HEAR THE VOICES OF THE
MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT YOU!
Prolly one of the biggest issues is that you keep hiring all these CORRUPTED miscreants
around you from the cesspool of dc, and not from the heart of America where there are real
Americans that are NOT AFRAID TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE TO DO SOMETHING worth those over blown
pay checks that are literally wasted on prolly 99% of the useless garbage working in govt
jobs. People want to defund the police? Heck, they need to defund congress, the senate, and
most especially the ABSOLUTELY USELESS doj and that F arkin B unch of I diots! One can only
begin to imagine how much of the American People's Tax Dollars are absolutely totally WASTED
on the entire DO-NOTHING GOVT. Oh, they all know how to act like a bunch of scared little
girls, and ware masks to kow-tow to the chinese model and the horrid vaccine makers. Oui bono
in this scamdemic, huh?
Also, most all of the top military turncoat traitorous idiots have turned communist
sympathizers, and the supposed intelligence agencies/al-CIA-duh long became stooges of
thebankster empire of dust. DEFUND THEM ALL AND THEN...BRING HOME ALL AMERICAN TROOPS
NOW!!!...TO DEFEND AMERICA FROM THE EVER GROWING STRONGER CHINESE AND COMMUNIST ENEMIES
WITHIN AMERICA. THEM ALL AND ALL THEIR ILLEGAL ALIENS AND CRONY POLITICIANS. Start with
soreass and the hitlery cunthag, bush, gates, fouchi, and so on and so on and so on until
they are ALL not investigated, but farkin JAILED! After all that, round up the misguided
collage idiots for detention in those fema re-edumacation camps. Maybe even behead a few with
those cute little guillotines just to let them all know there really is a such thing as, Law
and Order. In the coming War On Evil, there will be great fun in rooting out the little devil
worshipers, and their lucidfarien freak masters in their underground hidey holes. Just wait
until everyone sees what's to hide when they confiscate the vaults of the rottenchilds, and
scuzzofellers.
Someone better sit the president down and make him listen to this faster and faster
growing angry voice of many many many Americans, including this pen. Why bother voting for a
do-nothing anyone if they are not going to stop the corruption and criminality that is aiding
the infiltration and attack from within America? Who supports those who kow-tow to the beast?
Listen to THIS below and pass it around. THIS...is the Voice of America!
The US would seriously have a shot at being the most amazing nation if it could stop its
addiction to mass murder of innocents.
That it insists on waging wars of aggression makes places it among the worst nations -
together with their best friends the Israelis and the UK.
Sure, it's been nice to enjoy our quickly disappearing social freedoms, but as bad as
China and Russia are, they are waging only a tiny percent of the world's wars of
aggression.
uhland62 , 14 hours ago
There is no point in voting when the outcome is guaranteed to be the same - wars, loss of
blood and treasure.
There may well be a point in NOT voting: When a significant percentage of voters don't go,
then the winner will win through a minority, meaning a majority % is not in accord with the
person holding the top job. Instead of not going, one can also vote invalid so the other side
cannot insert votes for the non-voter.
Change will be gradual. America's favourite lapdog Australia is now firmly primed to be in
the anti-China camp.
As the contracts for our exports expire and need renewal, the Chinese will avoid us and
buy elsewhere. This will lead to poverty in Australia and then less willingness to always
choose the American camp, from championing causes to fighting America's battles.
How long? About 5 years. We will then see if we really are an important ally or if it's
just daubing honey around our mouth.
quanttech , 14 hours ago
When the only candidates are murderers, voting is murder.
Liberals and "progressives" are traditionally against wars. This new "woke" group of
Demorats shows they are NOT liberals or progressives since they support the Establishment War
Criminals like Obama and his side kick, demented Biden, and Bloodthirsty Clinton.
HenryJonesJr , 8 hours ago
WTF? Liberals pushed for war the entire 20th Century - Wilson in WWI; Roosevelt in WWII;
Truman in Korea: Johnson in Vietnam. Did you go to high school?
yerfej , 9 hours ago
The federal government is big enough it gives cover to idiots and retards so they can push
others to participate in useless wars with no goal and no objective, just so they can promote
their careers or personally profit.
captain noob , 9 hours ago
What is America without war?
captain noob , 9 hours ago
Peace doesn't sell as much
captain noob , 9 hours ago
Vampirism and parasitism can't survive without wars
"... Attempting to neutralise a global competitor is the main goal of Americans. Neutralising China's rapid, dynamic development is the essence of the American strategy ..."
Recap from today's Global Times where the argument is to continue to stay the
course and counterpunch in the typical martial arts fashion, as this op/ed from today's Global
Times says :
"Chinese analysts said Sunday the key for China to handle the US offensive is to focus on
its own development and insist on continued reform and opening-up to meet the increasing
needs of Chinese people for better lives. In the upcoming three months, before the November
US presidential election, the China-US relationship is in extreme danger as the Trump
administration is likely to launch more aggressions to force China to retaliate, they
said."
Stay the course; Trump's shit is just an election ploy. However,
"The US' posturing is serving to distract from domestic pressure over President Trump's
failure in handling the pandemic when Trump is seeking reelection this year, Chinese
observers said. However, the Trump administration's China stance still reflects bipartisan
consensus among US elites, so China should not expect significant change in US policy toward
China even if there is a power transition in November, which means China should prepare
itself for a long fight."
Don't stray from the Long Game. An international conference was held that I'll try to get
a link for. Here's GT's summation:
"According to the Xinhua News Agency on Saturday, international scholars said at a virtual
meeting on the international campaign against a new cold war on China on Saturday that
'aggressive statements and actions by the US government toward China poses a threat to world
peace and a potential new cold war on China goes against the interests of humanity.'
"The meeting gathered experts from a number of countries including the US, China, Britain,
India, Russia and Canada.
"Experts attending the meeting issued a statement calling upon the US to step back from
this threat of a cold war and also from other dangerous threats to world peace it is engaged
in.
"The reason why international scholars are criticizing the US rather than China is that
they can see how restrained China remains and the sincerity of China to settle the tension by
dialogue, even though the US is getting unreasonably aggressive, said Chinese experts.
"Washington has made a huge mistake as it has chosen the wrong target - China - to be 'the
common enemy or common fear' to reshape its declining leadership among the West. Right now,
the common enemy of humanity is COVID-19, and this is why its new cold war declaration
received almost no positive responses from other major powers and even raised concern, said
Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, on
Sunday."
Today's Global Timeslead editorial asked most of the
questions everyone else's asking:
"People are asking: How far will the current China-US confrontation keep going? Will a new
cold war take shape? Will there be military conflicts and will the possible clashes evolve
into large-scale military confrontation between the two?
"Perhaps everyone believes that China does not want a new cold war, let alone a hot war.
But the above-mentioned questions have become disturbing suspense because no one knows how
wild the ambitions the US ruling team has now, and whether American and international
societies are capable of restraining their ambitions."
IMO, the editor's conclusions are quite correct:
"The world must start to act and do whatever it can to stop Washington's hysteria in its
relations with China.
"Right now, it is no longer a matter of whether China-US ties are in freefall, but whether
the line of defense on world peace is being broken through by Washington. The world must
not be hijacked by a group of political madmen. The tragedies in 1910s and 1930s must not be
repeated again ."
Trump is elevated to the same plane as Hitler and Mussolini, and the Outlaw US Empire is
now the equivalent of Nazi Germany and the Fascist drive to rule the world--a well
illustrated trend that's been ongoing since 1991 that only those blinded by propaganda aren't
capable of seeing. I think it absolutely correct for China to focus its rhetoric on the
Outlaw US Empire's utter failure to control COVID, which prompts some probing questions made
from the first article:
"Shen Yi, a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan
University, told the Global Times on Sunday that there is wide consensus among the
international community that the COVID-19 pandemic is the most urgent challenge that the
world should deal with. Whether on domestic epidemic control or international cooperation,
the US has done almost nothing right compared to China's efforts to assist others and its
successful control measures for domestic outbreaks .
"In response to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 'new Iron Curtain speech' at the
Richard Nixon Presidential Library on Thursday declaring a new cold war against China, Shen
said, ' We can also ask 'is Pompeo an ally of coronavirus?' Because he wants to confuse
the world to target the wrong enemy amid the tough fight against the pandemic, so that the
virus can kill more people, especially US people, since his country is in the worst
situation .'
Shen said, 'In 2018, US Vice President Mike Pence already made a speech which the media
saw as a new 'Iron Curtain speech,' and in 2020, Pompeo made a similar speech again, which
means their cold war idea is not popular and brings no positive responses from its allies, so
they need to try time and again. Of course, they will fail again.'" [My Emphasis]
Wow! The suggestion that Trump, Pompeo, Pence, and company want to "kill more people,
especially US people" seems to be proven via their behavior which some of us barflies
recognize and have discussed. Now that notion is out in the public, internationally. You
don't need Concentration Camps and ovens when the work can be done via the dysfunctional
structure of your economy and doing nothing about the situation.
Shen provides the clincher, what Gruff, myself, and others have said here:
"'So if we want to win this competition that was forced by the US, we must focus on our
own development and not get distracted. The US is not afraid of a cold war with us, it is
afraid of our development .'" [My Emphasis]
My synopsis of both articles omitted some additional info, so do please click the links to
read them fully.
Sputnik offers
this analysis of the China/Outlaw US Empire issue , where I found this bit quite apt from
"Alexey Biryukov, senior adviser at the Centre for International Information Security,
Science and Technology Policy (CIIS) MGIMO-University":
"'The US is fighting with a country that is developing very rapidly, gaining power,
increasing its competitiveness in areas where previously there was undeniably US leadership.
Attempting to neutralise a global competitor is the main goal of Americans. Neutralising
China's rapid, dynamic development is the essence of the American strategy .
Meanwhile, China is interested in developing friendly relations with all countries.
Recently, it presented the idea of building a community of common destiny for humanity.
That's what Sino-American relations should be built around . It would seem that the
pandemic should have brought people together around the idea of building a prosperous world
for all, not just someone. But the Americans didn't understand that: they started looking for
the guilty ones. This is the favourite strategy of Anglo-Saxons, Americans including, to
look for the guilty . As a result, they found their main competitor – China'". [My
Emphasis]
That is the "guilty ones" that aren't within the Outlaw US Empire. Many more opinions are
provided in the article, but they all revolve around the one theme of Trump's actions being
motivated by the election and his morbidly poor attempts to corral COVID.
Steele's "Primary Subsource" Was Alcoholic Russian National Who Worked With Trump
Impeachment Witness At Brookings by Tyler Durden Sat, 07/25/2020 - 16:50
Twitter Facebook Reddit EmailPrint
The mysterious "Primary Subsource" that Christopher Steele has long hidden behind to defend
his discredited Trump-Russia dossier is a former Brookings Institution analyst -- Igor "Iggy"
Danchenko, a Russian national whose past includes criminal convictions and other personal
baggage ignored by the FBI in vetting him and the information he fed to Steele , according to
congressional sources and records obtained by RealClearInvestigations. Agents continued to use
the dossier as grounds to investigate President Trump and put his advisers under
counter-espionage surveillance.
The 42-year-old Danchenko, who was hired by Steele in 2016 to deploy a network of sources to
dig up dirt on Trump and Russia for the Hillary Clinton campaign, was arrested, jailed and
convicted years earlier on multiple public drunkenness and disorderly conduct charges in the
Washington area and ordered to undergo substance-abuse and mental-health counseling, according
to criminal records.
Fiona Hill: She worked at the Brookings Institution with dossier "Primary Subsource" Igor
"Iggy" Danchenko (top photo), and testified against President Trump last year during
impeachment hearings. AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
In an odd twist, a 2013 federal case against Danchenko was prosecuted by then-U.S Attorney
Rod Rosenstein, who ended up signing one of the FBI's dossier-based wiretap warrants as deputy
attorney general in 2017.
Danchenko first ran into trouble with the law as he began working for Brookings - the
preeminent Democratic think tank in Washington - where he struck up a friendship with Fiona
Hill, the White House adviser who testified against Trump during last year's impeachment
hearings. Danchenko has described Hill as a mentor, while Hill has sung his praises as a
"creative" researcher.
Hill is also close to his boss Steele, who she'd known since 2006 . She met with the former
British intelligence officer during the 2016 campaign and later received a raw, unpublished
copy of the now-debunked dossier.
It does not appear the FBI asked Danchenko about his criminal past or state of sobriety when
agents interviewed him in January 2017 in a failed attempt to verify the accuracy of the
dossier, which the bureau did only after agents used it to obtain a warrant to surveil Trump
campaign adviser Carter Page. The opposition research was farmed out by Steele, working for
Clinton's campaign, to Danchenko, who was paid for the information he provided.
A newly declassified FBI summary of the FBI-Danchenko meeting reveals agents learned that
key allegations in the dossier, which claimed Trump engaged in a "well-developed conspiracy of
cooperation" with the Kremlin against Clinton, were largely inspired by gossip and bar talk
among Danchenko and his drinking buddies, most of whom were childhood friends from Russia.
The FBI memo is heavily redacted and blacks out the name of Steele's Primary Subsource. But
public records and congressional sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirm the
identity of the source as Danchenko.
In the memo, the FBI notes that Danchenko said that he and one of his dossier sources "drink
heavily together." But there is no apparent indication the FBI followed up by asking Danchenko
if he had an alcohol problem, which would cast further doubt on his reliability as a source for
one of the most important and sensitive investigations in FBI history.
The FBI declined comment. Attempts to reach Danchenko by both email and phone were
unsuccessful.
The Justice Department's watchdog recently debunked the dossier's most outrageous
accusations against Trump, and faulted the FBI for relying on it to obtain secret wiretaps. The
bureau's actions, which originated under the Obama administration, are now the subject of a
sprawling criminal investigation led by special prosecutor John Durham.
Rod Rosenstein: In an odd twist, a 2013 drunkenness case against Danchenko was prosecuted by
then-U.S Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who ended up signing one of the FBI's dossier-based wiretap
warrants as deputy attorney general in 2017. (Greg Nash/Pool via AP)
One of the wiretap warrants was signed in 2017 by Rosenstein, who also that year appointed
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and signed a "scope" memo giving him wide latitude to
investigate Trump and his surrogates. Mueller relied on the dossier too. As it happens,
Rosenstein also signed motions filed in one of Danchenko's public intoxication cases, according
to the documents obtained by RCI.
In March 2013 -- three years before Danchenko began working on the dossier -- federal
authorities in Greenbelt, Md., arrested and charged him with several misdemeanors, including
"drunk in public, disorderly conduct, and failure to have his [2-year-old] child in a safety
seat," according to a court
filing . The U.S. prosecutor for Maryland at the time was Rosenstein, whose name
appears in the docket filings .
The Russian-born Danchenko, who was living in the U.S. on a work visa, was released from
jail on the condition he undergo drug testing and "participate in a program of substance abuse
therapy and counseling," as well as "mental health counseling," the records show. His lawyer
asked the court to postpone his trial and let him travel to Moscow "as a condition of his
employment." The Russian trips were granted without objection from Rosenstein. Danchenko ended
up several months later entering into a plea agreement and paying fines.
In 2006, Danchenko was arrested in Fairfax, Va., on similar offenses, including "public
swearing and intoxication," criminal records show. The case was disposed after he paid a
fine.
At the time, Danchenko worked as a research analyst for the Brookings Institution, where he
became a protégé of Hill. He collaborated with her on at least two Russian policy
papers during his five-year stint at the think tank and worked with another Brookings scholar
on a project to
uncover alleged plagiarism in Russian President Vladimir Putin's doctoral dissertation --
something Danchenko and his lawyer boasted about during their meeting with FBI agents. (Like
Hill, the other scholar, Clifford Gaddy, was a Russia hawk. He and Hill in 2015 authored "Mr.
Putin: Operative in the Kremlin," a book strongly endorsed by Vice President Joe Biden at the
time.)
"Igor is a highly accomplished analyst and researcher," Hill noted on his LinkedIn page in
2011.
"He is very creative in pursuing the most relevant of information and detail to support
his research."
Strobe Talbott of Brookings with Hillary Clinton: He connected with Christopher Steele and
passed along a copy of his anti-Trump dossier to Fiona Hill. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
Hill also vouched for Steele, an old friend and British intelligence counterpart. The two
reunited in 2016, sitting down for at least one meeting. Her boss at the time, Brookings
President Strobe Talbott, also connected with Steele and
passed along a copy of his anti-Trump dossier to Hill. A tough Trump critic, Talbott
previously worked in the Clinton administration and rallied the think tank behind Hillary.
Talbott's brother-in-law is Cody Shearer, another old Clinton hand who disseminated his own
dossier in 2016 that echoed many of the same lurid and unsubstantiated claims against Trump.
Through a mutual friend at the State Department, Steele obtained a copy of Shearer's dossier
and reportedly submitted it to the FBI to help corroborate his own.
In August 2016, Talbott personally called Steele, based in London, to offer his own input on
the dossier he was compiling from Danchenko's feeds. Steele phoned Talbott just before the
November election, during which Talbott asked for the latest dossier memos to distribute to top
officials at the State Department. After Trump's surprise win, the mood at Brookings turned
funereal and Talbott and
Steele strategized about how they "should handle" the dossier going forward.
During the Trump transition, Talbott encouraged Hill to leave Brookings and take
a job in the White House so she could be "one of the adults in the room" when Russia and
Putin came up. She served as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for European
and Russian affairs on the National Security Council from 2017 to 2019.
She left the White House just before a National Security Council detailee who'd worked with
her, Eric Ciaramella, secretly huddled with Democrats in Congress and
alleged Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to launch an investigation of Biden and
his son in exchange for military aid. Democrats soon held hearings to impeach Trump, calling
Hill as one of their star witnesses.
Congressional investigators are taking a closer look at tax-exempt Brookings, which has
emerged as a nexus in the dossier scandal. As a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the liberal think tank is
prohibited from lobbying or engaging in political campaigns. Gryffindor/Wikimedia
Under questioning by Republican staff, Hill disclosed that Steele reached out to her for
information about a mysterious individual, but she claimed she could not recall his name. She
also said she couldn't remember the month she and Steele met.
"He had contacted me because he wanted to see if I could give him a contact to some other
individual, who actually I don't even recall now, who he could approach about some business
issues," Hill told the House
last year in an Oct. 14 deposition taken behind closed doors.
Congressional investigators are reviewing her testimony, while taking a closer look at
tax-exempt Brookings, which has emerged as a nexus in the dossier scandal.
Registered with the IRS as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the liberal think tank is prohibited from
lobbying or engaging in political campaigns. Specifically, investigators want to know if
Brookings played any role in the development of the dossier.
"Their 501(c)(3) status should be audited, because they are a major player in the dossier
deal," said a congressional staffer who has worked on the investigation into alleged Russian
influence.
Hill, who returned to Brookings as a senior fellow in January, could not be reached for
comment. Brookings did not respond to inquiries.
Ghost Employee
As a former member of Britain's secret intelligence service, Steele hadn't traveled to
Russia in decades and apparently had no useful sources there . So he relied entirely on
Danchenko and his supposed "network of subsources," which to its chagrin, the FBI discovered
was nothing more than a "social circle."
It soon became clear over their three days of debriefing him at the FBI's Washington field
office - held just days after Trump was sworn into office - that any Russian insights he may
have had were strictly academic.
Danchenko confessed he had no inside line to the Kremlin and was "clueless" when Steele
hired him in March 2016 to investigate ties between Russia and Trump and his campaign
manager.
Christopher Steele, former British spy, leaving a London court this week in a libel case
brought against him by a Russian businessman. Dossier source Danchenko's drinking pals fed him
a tissue of false "rumor and speculation" for pay -- which Steele, in turn, further embellished
with spy-crafty details and sold to his client as "intelligence." (Victoria Jones/PA via
AP)
Desperate for leads, he turned to a ragtag group of Russian and American journalists,
drinking buddies (including one who'd been arrested on pornography charges) and even an old
girlfriend to scare up information for his London paymaster, according to the FBI's January
2017 interview memo, which runs 57 pages. Like him, his friends made a living hustling gossip
for cash, and they fed him a tissue of false "rumor and speculation" -- which Steele, in turn,
further embellished with spy-crafty details and sold to his client as "intelligence."
Instead of closing its case against Trump, however, the FBI continued to rely on the
information Danchenko dictated to Steele for the dossier, even swearing to a secret court that
it was credible enough to renew wiretaps for another nine months.
One of Danchenko's sources was nothing more than an anonymous voice on the other end of a
phone call that lasted 10-15 minutes.
Danchenko told the FBI he figured out later that the call-in tipster, who he said did not
identify himself, was Sergei Millian, a Belarusian-born realtor in New York. In the dossier,
Steele labeled this source "an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican U.S. presidential
candidate Donald Trump," and attributed Trump-Russia conspiracy revelations to him that the FBI
relied on to support probable cause in all four FISA applications for warrants to spy on Trump
adviser Carter Page -- including the Mueller-debunked myth that he and the campaign were
involved in "the DNC email hacking operation."
Danchenko explained to agents the call came after he solicited Millian by email in late July
2016 for information for his assignment from Steele. Millian told RCI that though he did
receive an email from Danchenko on July 21, he ignored the message and never called him.
"There was not any verbal communications with him," he insisted. "I'm positive, 100%,
nothing what is claimed in whatever call they invented I could have said."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Millian provided RCI part of the email, which was written mostly in Russian. Contact
information at the bottom of the email reads:
Igor Danchenko
Business Analyst
Target Labs Inc.
8320 Old Courthouse Rd, Suite 200
Vienna, VA 22182
+1-202-679-5323
At the time, Danchenko listed Target Labs, an IT recruiter run by ethnic-Russians, as an
employer on his resumé. But technically, he was not a paid employee there. Thanks to a
highly unusual deal Steele arranged with the company, Danchenko was able to use Target Labs as
an employment front.
It turns out that in 2014, when Danchenko first started freelancing regularly for Steele
after losing his job at a Washington strategic advisory firm, he set out to get a security
clearance to start his own company. But drawing income from a foreign entity like Steele's
London-based company, Orbis Business Intelligence, would hurt his chances.
So Steele agreed to help him broker a special "arrangement" with Target Labs, where a
Russian friend of Danchenko's worked as an executive, in which the company would bring
Danchenko on board as an employee but not put him officially on the payroll. Danchenko would
continue working for Steele and getting paid by Orbis with payments funneled through Target
Labs. In effect, Target Labs served as the "contract vehicle" through which Danchenko was paid
a monthly salary for his work for Orbis, the FBI memo reveals.
Though Danchenko had a desk available to use at Target Labs, he did most of his work for
Orbis from home and did not take direction from the firm. Steele continued to give him
assignments and direct his travel. Danchenko essentially worked as a ghost employee at Target
Labs.
Asked about it, a Target Labs spokesman would only say that Danchenko "does not work with us
anymore."
Brian Auten: He wrote the memo on the FBI's interview with the Primary Subsource, which is
silent about Danchenko's criminal record. Patrick Henry College
Some veteran FBI officials worry Moscow's foreign intelligence service may have planted
disinformation with Danchenko and his network of sources in Russia. At least one of them,
identified only as "Source 5" in the FBI memo, was described as having a Russian "kurator," or
handler.
"There are legions of 'connected' Russians purveying second- and third-hand -- and often
made-up -- due diligence reports and private intelligence," said former FBI assistant
director Chris Swecker. "Putin's intelligence minions use these people well to plant
information."
Danchenko has scrubbed his social media account. He told the FBI he deleted all his
dossier-related electronic communications, including texts and emails, and threw out his
handwritten notes from conversations with his subsources.
In the end, Steele walked away from the dossier debacle with at least $168,000, and
Danchenko earned a large undisclosed sum.
The FBI interview memo, which is silent about Danchenko's criminal record, was written by
FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten, who was called out in the Justice inspector
general report for ignoring inconsistencies, contradictions, errors and outright falsehoods in
the dossier he was supposed to verify.
It was also Auten's duty to vet Steele and his sources. Auten sat in on the meetings with
Danchenko and also separate ones with Steele. He witnessed firsthand the countless red flags
that popped up from their testimony. Yet Auten continued to tout their reliability as sources,
and give his blessing to agents to use their dossier as probable cause to renew FISA
surveillance warrants to spy on Page.
As RCI first reported, Auten teaches a national security course at a Washington-area college
on the ethics of such spying .
Closing consulates is far from the best foreign policy and fat Pompeo known it. It just
starts the unnecessary and counter productive spiral of retaliation and Chinese have more
leverage over the USA as more the USA diplomatic personnel woks in China than the china
diplomatic personnel in the USA. They were always burned in Russia and now they stepped on the
same rake again.
Maybe fat Pompeo knows he's on his way out and desperate to make a lasting mark on the
geopolitical stage on behalf of the West Point mafia and his brothers-in-arm at the Jweish
mafia.
QABubba , 8 hours ago
Quit stealing Russian consulates, Chinese consulates, etc.
It serves no purpose.
Haboob , 7 hours ago
Closing diplomacy with nations as USA shrinks on the world stage shows America's juvenile
behavior.
Salisarsims , 7 hours ago
We are a young twenty something nation what do you expect but drama.
Haboob , 7 hours ago
It is funny how the young and arrogant always think they are right and have manifest
destiny over the old and wise. The young never listen to the old and as the story goes they
are defeated everytime. China is older than America, older than the west, they understand
this world we are living in far more than we do.
me or you , 9 hours ago
He is right!
The world has witnessed the US is not more than a banana Republic with a banana healthcare
system
To Hell In A Handbasket , 9 hours ago
I love seeing how gullible the USSA dunces are susceptible to hating an imaginary enemy.
Go on dunces wave the star spangled banner, and place the hand over the heart, you
non-critical thinking imbeciles. I told you fools years ago we are going to invoke the Yellow
Peril 2.0, and now we are living it. China bad, is just as stupid as Russia bad, while the
state stenographers at the MSM netowrks do all in their power to hide our rotten
behaviour.
Who falls for this ****? The poorly educated, and the inherently stupid.
To Hell In A Handbasket , 8 hours ago
No, it's called nationalism or self preservation.
What are the citizens of the US suppose to do,
You are wrong on so many levels, but ultimately the Chinese have beaten us at our own
rigged game. When I was riling against unfettered free-markets, and the movement of capital,
that allowed the west for centuries to move into undeveloped foreign markets and gain a
stranglehold, I was called a communist, and a protectionist.
While the USSA money printing b@stards was roaming around the planet like imperialists,
and their companies was not only raping the planet, but gouging foreign markets, the average
USSA dunce was brainwashed into believing USSA companies were the best.
Now these same market and economic rules we the west have set for the last several hundred
years no longer work for us, we want to change the rules. Again, my point is "where was you
on this position 5-10-20-30 years ago?" I've always seen this outcome, because logic said so.
To reject our own status quo, and return to mercantilism, makes us look like the biggest
hypocrites ever.
When it comes to debate about US military policy, the 2020 presidential election campaign is
so far looking very similar to that of 2016. Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the
strongest military in the world," promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our
troops for the challenges of the next century, not the last one."
In the White House, President Trump is repeating the kind of anti-interventionist head
feints that won him votes four years ago against a hawkish Hillary Clinton. In his recent
graduation address at West Point, Trump re-cycled applause lines from 2016 about "ending an era
of endless wars" as well as America's role as "policeman of the world."
In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military presence
abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As military
historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes ,
"endless wars persist (and in some cases have
even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of
overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like
140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to
increase astronomically ."
When the National Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year came before Congress
this summer, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a modest 10 percent reduction in military spending
so $70 billion could be re-directed to domestic programs. Representative Barbara Lee introduced
a House resolution calling for $350 billion worth of DOD cuts. Neither proposal has gained much
traction, even among Democrats on Capitol Hill. Instead, the House Armed Services Committee
just
voted 56 to 0 to spend $740. 5 billion on the Pentagon in the coming year, prefiguring the
outcome of upcoming votes by the full House and Senate.
An Appeal to Conscience
Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face
continuing bi-partisan resistance. In the never-ending work of building a stronger anti-war
movement, Pentagon critics, with military credentials, are invaluable allies. Daniel Sjursen, a
37-year old veteran of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is one such a critic. Inspired in part by
the much-published Bacevich, Sjursen has just written a new book called Patriotic Dissent:
America in the Age of Endless War (Heyday Books)
Patriotic Dissent is a short volume, just 141 pages, but it packs the same kind of punch as
Howard Zinn's classic 1967 polemic, Vietnam: The Logic of
Withdrawal . Like Zinn, who became a popular historian after his service in World War II,
Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment, and the
military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry president." His
appeal to the conscience of fellow soldiers, veterans, and civilians is rooted in the unusual
arc of an eighteen-year military career. His powerful voice, political insights, and painful
personal reflections offer a timely reminder of how costly, wasteful, and disastrous our post
9/11 wars have been.
Sjursen has the distinction of being a graduate of West Point, an institution that produces
few political dissenters. He grew up in a fire-fighter family on working class Staten Island.
Even before enrolling at the Academy at age 17, he was no stranger to what he calls
"deep-seated toxically masculine patriotism." As a newly commissioned officer in 2005, he was
still a "burgeoning neo-conservative and George W. Bush admirer" and definitely not, he
reports, any kind of "defeatist liberal, pacifist, or dissenter."
"The horror, the futility, the farce of that war was the turning point in my life,"
Sjursen writes in Patriotic Dissent .
When he returned, at age 24, from his "brutal, ghastly deployment" as a platoon leader, he
"knew that the war was built on lies, ill-advised, illegal, and immoral." This "unexpected,
undesired realization generated profound doubts about the course and nature of the entire
American enterprise in the Greater Middle East -- what was then unapologetically labeled the
Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)."
A Professional Soldier
By the time Sjursen landed in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, in early 2011, he had been
promoted to captain but "no longer believed in anything we were doing."
He was, he confesses, "simply a professional soldier -- a mercenary, really -- on a
mandatory mission I couldn't avoid. Three more of my soldiers died, thirty-plus were wounded,
including a triple amputee, and another over-dosed on pain meds after our return."
Despite his disillusionment, Sjursen had long dreamed of returning to West Point to teach
history. He applied for and won that highly competitive assignment, which meant the Army had to
send him to grad school first. He ended up getting credentialed, while living out of uniform,
in the "People's Republic of Lawrence, Kansas, a progressive oasis in an intolerant, militarist
sea of Republican red." During his studies at the state university, Sjursen found an
intellectual framework for his "own doubts about and opposition to US foreign policy." He
completed his first book, Ghost Riders , which combines personal memoir with counter-insurgency
critique. Amazingly enough, it was published in 2015, while he was still on active duty, but
with "almost no blowback" from superior officers.
Before retiring as a major four years later, Sjursen pushed the envelope further, by writing
more than 100 critical articles for TomDispatch and other civilian publications. He was no
longer at West Point so that body of work triggered "a grueling, stressful, and scary
four-month investigation"by the brass at Fort Leavenworth, during which the author was
subjected to "a non-publication order." At risk were his career, military pension, and
benefits. He ended up receiving only a verbal admonishment for violating a Pentagon rule
against publishing words "contemptuous of the President of the United States." His "PTSD and
co-occurring diagnoses" helped him qualify for a medical retirement last year.
Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my
adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit one
who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With several
left-leaning comrades, he started Fortress on A Hill, a lively podcast about military affairs
and veterans' issues. He's a frequent, funny, and always well-informed guest on progressive
radio and cable-TV shows, as well as a contributing editor at Antiwar.com , and a contributor to a host of mainstream liberal
publications. This year, the Lannan Foundation made him a cultural freedom fellow.
In Patriotic Dissent , Sjursen not only recounts his own personal trajectory from military
service to peace activism. He shows how that intellectual journey has been informed by reading
and thinking about US history, the relationship between civil society and military culture, the
meaning of patriotism, and the price of dissent.
One historical figure he admires is Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient
of two Medals of Honor for service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler
sided with the poor and working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I
bonus payments. And he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that
"war is just a racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big
Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers."
Reframing DissentNEVER MISS THE
NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Sjursen contrasts Butler's anti-interventionist whistle-blowing, nearly a century ago, with
the silence of high-ranking veterans today after "nineteen years of ill-advised, remarkably
unsuccessful American wars." Among friends and former West Point classmates, he knows many
still serving who "obediently resign themselves to continued combat deployments" because they
long ago "stopped asking questions about their own role in perpetuating and enabling a
counter-productive, inertia-driven warfare state."
Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About Face:
Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our Troops Home.
US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right. Each in, its own way, seeks to
"reframe dissent, against empire and endless war, as the truest form of patriotism." But
actually taming the military-industrial complex will require "big-tent, intersectional action
from civilian and soldier alike," on a much larger scale. One obstacle to that, he believes, is
the societal divide between the "vast majority of citizens who have chosen not to serve" in the
military and the "one percent of their fellow citizens on active duty," who then become part of
"an increasingly insular, disconnected, and sometimes sententious post-9/11 veteran
community."
Not many on the left favor a return to conscription.
But Sjursen makes it clear there's been a downside to the U.S. replacing "citizen
soldiering" with "a tiny professional warrior caste," created in response to draft-driven
dissent against the Vietnam War, inside and outside the military. As he observes:
"Nothing so motivates a young adult to follow foreign policy, to weigh the advisability or
morality of an ongoing war as the possibility of having to put 'skin in the game.' Without at
least the potential requirement to serve in the military and in one of America's now
countless wars, an entire generation -- or really two, since President Nixon ended the draft
in 1973–has had the luxury of ignoring the ills of U.S. foreign policy, to distance
themselves from its reality ."
At a time when the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and
anti-imperial wave" sweeping over the country, we have instead a "civil-military" gap that,
Sjursen believes, has "stifled antiwar and anti-imperial dissent and seemingly will continue to
do so." That's why his own mission is to find more "socially conscious veterans of these
endless, fruitless wars" who are willing to "step up and form a vanguard of sorts for
revitalized patriotic dissent." Readers of Sjursen's book, whether new recruits to that
vanguard or longtime peace activists, will find Patriotic Dissent to be an invaluable
educational tool. It should be required reading in progressive study groups, high school and
college history classes, and book clubs across the country . Let's hope that the author's
willingness to take personal risks, re-think his view of the world, and then work to change it
will inspire many others, in uniform and out.
Do we need to be in 160 countries with our military and can we afford it?
Cat Daddy , 1 hour ago
I am all for bringing the troops home except for this one unnerving truth; nature abhors a
vacuum, specifically, when we pull out, China moves in. A world dominated by the CCP will be
a dangerous place to be. When we leave, we will need to make sure our bases are safely in the
hands of our friends.
dogbert8 , 1 hour ago
War is effectively the way the U.S. has done business since the Spanish American War, our
first imperial conquests. War is how we ensure big business has the materials and markets
they demand in return for their support of political parties and candidates. War is the only
area left with opportunities for growth and profit. Don't think for a minute that TPTB will
ever let us stop waging war to get what we (they) want.
TheLastMan , 2 hours ago
If you are new to zh all you need to do is study PNAC and the related nature of all
parties to understand the criminality of USA militarization and for whose benefit it
serves
Anonymous IX , 2 hours ago
I have written many times on this platform the exact same sentiments.
I am most disheartened by the COVID + Antifa/BLM Riots because of the facts this author
presents.
We are distracted with emotional and highly volatile MASSIVELY PROPAGANDIZED stories by
MSM (I don't watch) while the real problem in the world is as the author describes above.
We are war-mongering nation who needs to bring our troops home and disband over half of
our overseas installations and bases.
We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the citizens
of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
Yet, we run around arguing about masks and who can go into a restaurant or toppling
statutes and throwing mortar-type fireworks at federal officers. This is what we do instead
of facing a real problem which is that we are war-mongering nation with no moral/ethical
conscience. These scraggily bearded white Antifas need to WTFU and realize who their true
enemy.
Oh, wait. They work for the true enemy! Get it?
Max21c , 1 hour ago
We have no right to levy economic sanctions to impoverish, sicken, and weaken the
citizens of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else.
I don't agree with the economic sanctions nonsense thing as they seem to be more of a
crutch for people that are not any good at planning, strategy, analytical thinking, critical
thinking, strategic thinking, and lack much in the way of talent or creativity or
intellectual acumen or intellectual skills...I believe there's around just shy of 10k
economic sanctions by Washington...
But the USA does have the right to receive or refuse to receive foreign Ambassadors and
Consuls and to recognize or not recognize other nations governments thus it does have some
degrees of the right to not trade or engage in commerce with other nations to a certain
extent... per imports and exports... et cetera... though it's not necessarily an absolute
right or power
IronForge , 2 hours ago
Sjursen may admire General Butler; but he doesn't seem to know that several of the
General's Descendants Served in the US Military.
Sjursen isn't Butler. The General Prevented a Coup in his Time.
The USA are a Hegemony whose KleptOchlarchs overtook the Original Constitutional
Republic.
PetroUSD, MIC, Corporate Expansion-Conquest, AgriGMO, and Pharma Interests Span the
Globe.
Wars are Rackets; and Societies to Nation-States have waged them over Real Estate, Natural
Resources, Trade Routes, Industrial Capacity, Slavery, Suppresive Spite,
Religious/Ideological Zeal, Economic Preservation, and Profiteering Greed.
YET, Militaries are still formed by Nation-States to Survive and for Some - Thrive above
such Competitive Existenstential Threats.
*****
The Hegemony are running up against New Shifts in Global Power, Systems, and Influences;
and are about to Lose their Unilateral Advantages. The Hegemon themselves may suffer Societal
Collapses Within.
Sjursen should read up on Chalmers Johnson. Instead of trying to Coordinate Ineffective
Peace Demonstrations, the Entire Voting/Political Contribution/Candidacy Schemes should be
Separated from the Oligarchy of Plutocrats and Corporate/Political KleptOchlarchs.
Without Bringing the Votes back to the Collective Hands of Citizenry Interests First and
Foremost, the Republic are Forever Conquered; and the Ethical may have to resort to
Emigration and/or Secession.
Ink Pusher , 2 hours ago
Nobody rides for free,there's always a cost and those who can't pay in bullion will often
pay in bodily fluids of one form or another.
Profiteers that create warfare for profit are simply parasitical criminals and should not
be considered a "special breed" when weighed upon the Scales of Justice.
gzorp , 2 hours ago
Read 'Starship Troopers' by Robert A Heinlein (1959) pay especial attention to the
"History and Moral Philosophy" courses... that's where his predictions for the future course
of 'America's' future appear.... rather accurately. Heinlein was a 1930's graduate of
Annapolis (Navy for you dindus and nohabs).....
A DUDE , 2 hours ago
t's not just the war machine but the entire system, the corporatocracy, of which the MIC
is a part. And there is no way to change the system from within the system because whatever
is anti-establishment becomes absorbed and neutered and part of the system.
Tulsi Gabbard ran on anti interventionism foreign policy.
Look how fast the DNC disappeared her.
Of course destroying Kamala Harris in a debate and going after the ancient evil Hitlery
sealed her fate.
BarkingWolf , 2 hours ago
In reality, since Trump took office, there's been no reduction in the US military
presence abroad, which last year required a Pentagon budget of nearly $740 billion. As
military historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes ,
"endless wars persist (and in some cases have
even intensified ); the nation's various alliances and its empire of
overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like
140 countries ; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to
increase astronomically ."
Now wait just a minute there mister, that sounds like criticism of the Donald John PBUH
PBUH PBUH ... you can't do that ... the cult followers will call you a leftist and a commie
if you point out stuff like that even if it is objectively true! That's strike one, punk.
An Appeal to Conscience
Even if Biden beats Trump in November, efforts to curb US military spending will face
continuing bi-partisan resistance.
November doesn't have anything to do with anything really. The appeal to conscience is
wasted. The appeal would be better spent on removing the political class that is on the AIPAC
dole and have dual citizenship in a foreign country in the ME while pretending to serve
America while they are members of Congress. That's only the tip of the spear ... and that is
a nonstarter from the get go.
Sjursen skillfully debunks the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy establishment,
and the military's own current generation of "yes men for another war power hungry
president."
I don't think Trump is necessarily a war power hungry president. While it is true that we
have not withdrawn from Syria and basically stole their oil as Trump has repeated promised he
would do, it is also true that Trump has yet to deliver Israels war with Iran and in fact had
called back an invasion of Iran ten minutes before a flotilla of US warships was about to set
sail to ignite such an invasion leaving Tel Aviv not only aggrieved, but angry as well.
Sjursen has now traded his "identity as a soldier -- the only identity I've known in my
adult life -- for that of an anti-war, anti-imperialist, social justice crusader," albeit
one who did not attend his first protest rally until he was thirty-two years old. With
several left-leaning comrades ...
Okay, this is where you are starting to lose me .... i't like listening to a concert and
suddenly the music is hitting sour notes that are off key, off tempo, and don't seem to fit
somehow.
Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, the recipient of two Medals of Honor for
service between 1898 and 1931. Following his retirement, Butler sided with the poor and
working-class veterans who marched on Washington to demand World War I bonus payments. And
he wrote a best-selling Depression-era memoir, which famously declared that "war is just a
racket" and lamented his own past role as "a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for
Wall Street, and for the Bankers."
Butler was correct, war especially nowadays, is a racket that makes rich people who never
seem to get their hands dirty, even richer. As one grunt put it long ago, "it's a dirty job,
but somebody has to do it."
That "somebody" is going to be the kids of the little people (the real high-class
muscle-men ) who are hated by their political class overlords even as the political class are
worshipped as gods.
Sjursen looks instead to small left-leaning groups like Veterans for Peace and About
Face: Veterans Against the War (formerly Iraq Veterans Against the War), and Bring Our
Troops Home. US, a network of veterans influenced by the libertarian right.
The problem here is that the so-called "left" brand has always been about war and the
capitalism of death.
The Democrat party is really the group that started the American civil war for instance,
they are the ones behind legacy of Eugenists like Margaret Sanger who was a card carrying
Socialist who founded the child murder mill known today as Planned Parenthood that sadly
still exists under Trump but has turned into the industrialized slaughter of children ...even
after birth so that their organs can be "harvested" for profit.
Sjursen's affinity for "the left" as saintly purveyors of peace, goodness, love, and life
strikes me as rather disingenuous. Then he seems to argue if I read the analysis correctly
that conscription will somehow be the panacea for the insatiable appetite for war?
One false flag such as The Gulf of Tonkin or 911 or even Perl Harbor or the Sinking of the
Lusitania or the assassination of an Arch Duke ... is all that is really needed to arouse the
unbridled hoards to march off to battle with almost erotic enthusiasm -the political class
KNOWS IT!
Amendment X , 2 hours ago
And don't forget President Wilson (D) who was re-elected on the platform "He kept us out
of the war" only to drag U.S. into the hopeless European Monarchary driven WWI.
11b40 , 1 hour ago
Yo! Low class muscle man here, and I have to agree with bringing back the draft. It should
never have been eliminated, and is the root of the golbalists abiity to keep us in
Afghanistan, and other parts of the ME, for going on 20 years.
Skin in the game. It means literally everything. As noted we now have 2 generations of men
who never had to give much thought at all to what's happening around the world, and how
America is involved....and look at the results. It would be a much different situation today
if all those 18 year olds had to face the draft board with an unforgiving lottery.
Yes, one false falg can whip up the country to a war time fever pitch, but unless there is
a real, serious threat, the fever cannot be maintained. The 1969 draft lottery caught me when
I stayed out the first semester of my senior year. Didn't want to go, but accepted my fate
and did the best job I could to stay alive and keep those around me as safe as possible. In
1966, I was in favor of the war, and was about to go Green Beret on the buddy system. We were
going to grease gooks with all the enthusiasm of John Wayne. My old man, an artillery 1st Sgt
at the time in Germany, talked me out of it. More like get your *** on a plane back to the
States and into college, befroe i kick it up around your shouders. A WW2 & Korea vet, he
told me then it was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
The point is, when kids are getting drafted, Mom's, Dad's, and everyone else concerned
with the safety of their friends & relatives, start paying attention and asking hard
questions of politicians. Using Afghanistan as an example, we would have been on the way out
by the 2004 election cycle, or at max before the next one in 2008. That was 12 years ago, and
we are still there.
I addition, the reason we went would have been more closely examined, and there may have
been a real investigtion into 9/11. Plus, I am convinced that serving your country makes for
a better all around citizen, and God knows, we need better citizens.
Cassandra.Hermes , 2 hours ago
Trump and Pompeo started new cold war with China, but have no way to back up their threats
and win it!! When i was in Kosovo peace corps i heard so many stories from Albanian who were
blamed to be Russian or American spy because of double cold war against Albania. Trump and
Pompeo just gave excuse to Xi to blame anyone who protest as American spy. BBC were showing
China's broadcast of the protests in Oregon to Hong Kong with subtitle "Do you really want
American democracy?", LMFAO
Max21c , 2 hours ago
Joe Biden has pledged to ensure that "we have the strongest military in the world,"
promising to "make the investments necessary to equip our troops for the challenges of the
next century, not the last one."
The United States shall continue to have a weak military until it starts to fix its
foreign policy and diplomacy. You cannot have the strongest military in the world if you lack
a good foreign policy and good diplomacy. Brains are a lot more important than battleships,
battalions, bullets, barrels, or bombs. Get a frickin' clue you friggin' Washington
morons.
Washington is weak because they are dumb. Blind, deaf, and dumb.
Heroic Couplet , 2 hours ago
Too little, too late. Great ad for a book that will be forgotten in a week. Read Bolton's
book. The minute Trump tries to reduce troops, Bolton is right there, saying "No, we can't
move troops to the perimeter. No, we can't move troops from barracks to tents at the
perimeter." Who needs AI?
Erik Prince wrote 3.5 years ago that 4th gen warfare consists of cyberwarfare and
bio-weapons. The US military is fooked. There's probably an interesting book to be
researched: How do Republicans feel about contracting COVID-19 after listening to Trump
fumble?
ChecksandBalances , 3 hours ago
Blame the voters. Run on a platform to reduce military and police spending. See how many
of those lose. Probably all of them. You have to stop feeding the beast. This is a slogan
Trump correctly said but as usual didn't actually mean. We should cut all military and police
spending by 1/2 and then take the remaining money and build a smarter, more efficient
military and police force.
Max21c , 3 hours ago
It's not just the "Deep State." It's Washingtonians overall. It's Deep Crazy. They're all
Deep Crazy! They're nuts. And the rare exceptions that may know better and have enough common
sense to know its wrong to sick the secret police on innocent American civilians aren't going
to say anything or do anything to stop it. The few that know better in foreign policy aren't
going to say anything or do anything against the new Cold Wars on the Eastern Front against
China or on the Western Front against Russia since they're not willing to go up against the
Regime. So the Regimists know they have carte blanche to persecute or terrorize or go after
any that stand in their way. This is how tyrannies and police states operate. It's the nature
of the beast. At a minimum they brow beat people into submission. People don't want to stick
their neck out and risk going up against the Regime and risk losing to the Regime, its secret
police, and the powers that be. They shy away from anything that would bring the Regime and
its secret police and its radicals, extremists, fanatics, and zealots their way.
nonkjo , 4 hours ago
It's okay to be against "forever war" and still not have to be a progressive douchbag.
Sjursen is an unprincipled ******** artist. He leaves Iraq disillusioned as a lieutenant
but sticks around long enough for them to pay for his grad school and give him some sweet
"resume building" experiences that he can stand on to sell books? FYI, from commissioning
time as a second lieutenant to promotion to captain is 3 years...that means Sjusen was so
disillusioned that he decided to stick around for 12 more years which is about 9 years longer
than he actually needed to as an Academy grad (he only had to serve 6 unless he elected to go
to grad school).
The bottom line is Sjusen capitalizes on people not knowing how the military works. That
is, that his own self-interest far outweighs his the principles he espouses. Typical leftist
hypoctite.
Max21c , 4 hours ago
...the U.S. "desperately needs a massive, public, empowered anti-war and anti-imperial
wave ..."
Perhaps the USA just needs a better foreign policy. Though we all know that's not going to
happen with the flaky screwballs of Washington and the flaky screwballs in the Pentagon, CIA,
State Department, foreign policy establishment, think tanks et cetera.
Minor technical point: the time for the "anti-imperial wave" was before Washingtonians
destroyed much of the world and created their strategic blunders and disastrous foreign
policy. You folks all went along with this nonsense and now you have your quagmires, forever
wars, and numerous trouble spots that have popped up here and there along the way to
boot.
Pottery barn rule: you broke it and you own it and it's yours...Ma'am please pay at the
register on the way out...Sorry Ma'am there's no more free gluing...though the gluing
specialist may be in on the third Thursday this month though it's usually the second Tuesday
each month...
Contemporaneously, in the same vein the American public has been brainwashed into going
along with the new Cold Wars on the Western Front against Moscow and the even newer Cold War
on the Eastern Front against Beijing. It's like P.T. Barnum said "There's a sucker born every
minute," and you fools in the American public just keep buying right in to the brainwashing.
They're now successfully indoctrinating you into buying into their new Cold Wars with Russia
and China. The Cold War on the Eastern Front versus Peking is more getting more fanciful
attentions at the moment and the Cold War on the Western Front has temporarily been relegated
to the back burner but they'll move the Western Front Cold War from simmer to boil over
whenever it suits their needs. It's just a rendition of the Oceania has always been at war
with East Asia and Eurasia is our friend are just gameplays right out of George Orwell's
1984.
Most of the quagmires can be fixed to a certain extent by applying some cement and
engineering to the quicksand and many of the trouble spots can become more settled and less
unstable if not stable in some instances. Even some of the more serious strategic problems
like the South China Sea, North Korean nuclear weapons development, and potential Iranian
nuclear weapons development can still be resolved through peaceful strategies and
solutions.
In re sum, while I won't disparage a peace movement I do not believe it is either
necessary nor proper simply because you will not solve anything through a peace movement. The
sine qua non or quintessential element is simply to end one of these wars successfully
through a peaceful diplomatic solution or solve one of these serious foreign policy problems
through diplomacy which is something that hasn't been the norm since the downfall of the
Berlin Wall, is no longer in favor, and which is the necessary element to prove that peace
can be achieved through strategy and diplomacy and thereby change the course of the country's
future.
In foreign affairs the foreign policy establishment has its pattern of behavior and it is
that pattern of behavior that has to be changed. It's the mindset of the Washingtonians &
elites that has to be changed. Just taking to the streets won't really change their ways or
their beliefs for any significant part of the duration. They may pay lip service to peace
& diplomacy but it won't win out in their minds in the long run. They are so warped in
their views and beliefs that it'll have little or no effect over the long haul. As soon as
the protests dissipate they'll be right back at it, back to their bad ways and bad
behavior.
Son of Captain Nemo , 4 hours ago
For the past 19 years... And as Anti-War as you will ever get!...
Was it George Carlin that said " if voting made a difference they wouldn't let us do it "
? The only way to stop these forever wars is for people to stop joining the military. Parents
should teach their children that joining the military and trotting off to some country to
fight a war for the elite is not being patriotic . I was in the military from 1964 -1968.
When Lyndon Johnson became president he drug out the Vietnam war as long as he could. Oh !
Lady Byrd Johnson bought Decon Company [ rat poison ] when most people never heard of it.
Johnson bought this rat poison , government paid for ,at an inflated price . Sent ship loads
of it to Vietnam .Never mind all the Americans and so called enemy killed.. Jane Fonda ,
Hanoi Jane , was really a hero who helped save countless lives by helping to end the war.
Tommy and **** Smothers , Smother Brothers , spoke out against the war . Our government had
them black balled from TV. Our government is probably as corrupt as any other country.
A piece of irony, one of our greatest generals was Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied Supreme
Commander in WWII and two term president. He kept the peace for almost 10 years and warned
Americans to beware of the "military-industrial complex." Most military men never want war,
they just make sure they are ready if it comes. We have had the military industrial complex
for way too long, it needs to be reduced and we need more generals to run for president, Gen.
Flynn maybe? I'll also take Schwartzkoff.
cowboyted , 7 hours ago
The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson
astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.
captain noob , 7 hours ago
Capitalism has no morals
Profit is the driving force of every single thing
cowboyted , 7 hours ago
The U.S. should only use our military if we are attacked, period. Otherwise, as Jefferson
astutely stated, a standing army is a threat to democracy.
Chief Joesph , 7 hours ago
After what General Smedley Butler had to say and warned us about, here we are, 90 years
later, doing the very same thing. Goes to show how utterly dumb, unprogressive, sheepish, and
Medieval Americans really are. And you thought this is what makes America Great????
cowboyted , 8 hours ago
The U.S. Constitution provides for a "national defense." Yet, the last time we were
attacked by a foreign nation was on Dec. 7, 1941 in which, the Congress declared war on
Japan. Yet, in the past 100 years our country's leaders have convinced Americans that we can
wage war if the issue concerns our "national INTEREST." This is wrong and needs to be deleted
and replaced with our Constitution's language. Also, Congress is the ONLY Constitutional
authority to declare war, not the executive branch. Too many countries, including the U.S.,
spend too much money preparing for war on levels of destruction that are unnecessary. We must
attain a new paradigm with leading countries to achieve a mutual understanding that the
people of the world are better off with jobs, food, families, peace, and a chance at a better
life, filled with hope, faith, and flourishing communities. Things have to change.
transcendent_wannabe , 8 hours ago
I have to agree in sentiment with the author, but the reality of humans on earth almost
demands constant war, it is the price we pay for the modern city lifestyle. There are various
reasons.
1. Ever since WW1, the country has become citified, and the old peaceful country farm life
was replaced with the rat race of industrial production. Without war, there is no need for
the level of industrial production required to give full employment to the overpopulated
cities. People will scream for war and jingoism when they have no city jobs. How do you deal
with that? Sure, War is a Racket, but so far a necessary racket.
2. Every 20 years the military needs a real shooting war to battle test its upcoming
soldiers and new equipment. Now the battles are against insurgencies... door-to-door in
cities and ghettos, and new tactics need to be field tested. If the military goes more than
20 years without a real shooting war, they lose the real men, the sargeant majors, who just
become fat pot bellied desk personel without the adrenaline of a real fight.
3. Humans inately like to fight. Even children, boys wrestle, girls taunt one another.
There is no way discovered yet to keep people from turning violent in their attempts to steal
what others have, or to gain dominance thru physical intimidation. Without war, gangs will
form and fight over territorial boundaries. There is no escaping it.
4. Earth is where the battle field is, Battlefield Earth. There is no fighting allowed in
heaven, so Earth is where souls come to fight. Nobody on earth likes it, but fighting and war
is here to stay, and you should really use this life to find out how to transcend earth and
get to a place where war is not needed or allowed, like heaven or Valhalla.
Tortuga , 8 hours ago
So. He thinks the crooked, grifting, regressive hate US murdering dim pustules aren't the
warmongering, globalist, hate US, crooked, grifting, murdering republicrats. What a mo
ron.
HenryJonesJr , 8 hours ago
Real conservatives were always against foreign intervention. It was the Left that embraced
foreign wars (Wilson / Roosevelt / Truman / Johnson).
messystateofaffairs , 8 hours ago
From my perspective being a professional goon to serve the greater glory of international
criminals, is, aside from having to avoid the mirror, way too much hard and dangerous work
for the money. As a civilian of a society run by criminals on criminal imperialist
principles, I have no literal PTSD type of skin in that filthy game, but like most citizens,
knowing and unknowing, I do swim in that sewer everyday, doing my best to avoid bumping into
the larger turds. My "patriotism" lies where the turds are fewest, anywhere in the world that
might be.
bh2 , 8 hours ago
The threat to US interests is not in the ME (apart from Israel). It's in the Pacific.
NATO was never intended to be a defense arrangement perpetually funded by the US. Once
stood up and post-war economies in Europe were restored, it was supposed to be a European
defense shield with the US as ultimate backup. Not as a sugar-daddy for wealthy nations. Now
that Russia is no longer situated to attack through the Fulda Gap, NATO is a grotesque
expression of Parkinson's Law writ large.
China is a real threat to US interests. That's obvious simply by consulting a map.
Military assets committed to engagement in theaters that no longer seriously matter is
feckless and spendthrift. Particularly when Americans are put in harm's way with no prospect
of either winning or leaving.
Worse yet is the accelerating prospect of being drawn into conflict in the South China Sea
because fewer than decisive US and allied assets are deployed there.
While nations are now responding to that threat (including Japan, who are re-arming),
China must realize a successful Taiwan invasion faces steadily diminishing prospects. They
must act soon or give up the opportunity. Moreover, the CCP are loosing face with their own
people because of multiple calamities wreaking havoc. The danger of a desperate CCP turning
to a hot war to save face is an ever-rising threat. (If Three Gorges Dam fails, that could be
the final straw.)
FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it
would be on Pearl Harbor). It appears modern neo warmongers of all stripes would be delighted
if China were tempted into yet another senseless war in the Pacific. And more lives lost on
all sides.
While the size of US military and (ineptly named) "intelligence" budgets are vastly out of
scale, the short-term cost in money is secondary to risk of long-term cost in blood. Surging
the budget may make good sense when guns are all pointing in the wrong direction and
political donors don't care as long as it pays well.
Defeating that outrageously wasteful spending is the first battle to be won. Disengaging
from stupid, distracting, unwinnable conflicts is an imperative to achieve that goal.
The Judge , 8 hours ago
US. is the real threat to US interests.
DeptOfPsyOps-14527776 , 8 hours ago
An important part of this statue quo is propaganda and in particular neo-con
propaganda.
Once it was clear that agitating against the Russian federation had failed, they started
agitating against the PRC.
FDR administration wasn't that clever, they just had (((support))). They wanted Imperial
Japan unable to strengthen itself against the United Kingdom as it was waging a war against
the European Axis, did not realize that the Japanese fleet could reach as far as Hawaii and
after Pearl Harbor, believed the West Coast could have been attacked as well.
Hovewer, they likely expected the Japanese to intercept their fleet on the way to the
Phillipines after a war between Imperial Japan and the Commonwealth had started.
Salzburg1756 , 8 hours ago
"FDR deliberately suckered Japan into attacking the US (but apparently never guessed it
would be on Pearl Harbor)." No, we knew the japs were going to attack Pearl Harbor. We had
broken their code. That's why we sent our best battle ships away from Hawaii just before the
attack. Most of the ships they sank were old and worthless; our good ships were out at
sea.
TheLastMan , 4 hours ago
What constitutes "America's interests"?
the us military is the world community welcome wagon for global multi national Corp
chamber of commerce
Do us citizens serve corporations or do corporations serve us citizens?
next ?, who owns / controls corporations?
Alice-the-dog , 8 hours ago
There is a reason why suicide is the leading cause of death among active duty military.
They come to realize that what they are doing is perfect male bovine fecal matter. That they
are guilty of participating in completely unwarranted death and destruction.
847328_3527 , 9 hours ago
Liberals and "progressives" are traditionally against wars. This new "woke" group of
Demorats shows they are NOT liberals or progressives since they support the Establishment War
Criminals like Obama and his side kick, demented Biden, and Bloodthirsty Clinton.
The seldom-seen niece's shoddy attempt at psychoanalysis may, despite its flaws, point to
worthwhile considerations. (By Gino Santa
Maria/Shutterstock)
President Trump is obviously not happy about about the highly unflattering portrait of him
painted by his niece, Mary Trump, in her best-selling book, Too Much and Never Enough: How
My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man.
On July 17, reacting to her description of him as "narcissistic," "dysfunctional," and
"perverted," the president jabbed back in a tweet , describing her as
"a seldom seen niece who knows little about me, says untruthful things about my wonderful
parents (who couldn't stand her!) and me."
Of course, the Main Stream Media loves the new book; indeed, pressies are always careful to
insert that Mary Trump is a "clinical psychologist," thereby seeking to assign greater weight
to her judgment on the famous uncle; she's not just an estranged family member, she's a
trained clinician . Thus when Mary declares that Donald's "pathologies are so complex
and his behaviors so often inexplicable that coming up with an accurate and comprehensive
diagnosis would require a full battery of psychological and neuropsychological tests that he'll
never sit for" -- the MSM treats her words as the voice of an oracular psycho-authority.
Indeed, speaking of long-distance diagnosis, it might be small comfort to the 45th president
to know that plenty of other American presidents have been similarly psychoanalyzed. In fact,
no less than the father of psychoanalysis himself, Sigmund Freud, co-authored
an unsparing assessment of our 28th president, Thomas Woodrow Wilson: A Psychological
Study .
Moreover, we've learned, over the last century or so, that the mind of any individual, when
perceived though the Freudian prism, appears to be nothing more than a heaving mass of
Greek-named complexes and phobias. And yet through it all, most people manage to get off the
couch and do things, including becoming politicians -- a very few even becoming president of
the United States. So how do they manage that? And what does that mean for the rest of us?
Some enduring answers to such questions can be found in Harold Lasswell's 1930 book,
Psychopathology and Politics. Lasswell is obscure now, but in his day, he was a
professor at Yale Law School as well as president of the American Political Science
Association. Moreover, he was active when Freud was at the peak of his influence;
Psychopathology and Politics is much shaped along the contours of the Viennese Herr
Doktor 's thought.
Evidently realizing that the word "psychopathology" in the title would send a strong signal,
Lasswell opened his book, a bit defensively, with the declaration, "The purpose of this venture
is not to prove that politicians are 'insane.'" In fact, Lasswell, being mostly a political
scientist, was careful to stipulate that "the specifically pathological is of secondary
importance to the central problem of exhibiting the developmental profile of different types of
public characters." In other words, for all his fascination with individual minds, in the end,
the author was actually most interested in collective political outcomes.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.398.1_en.html#goog_30920151 00:00 / 00:59
00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker,
Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
For purposes of analysis, Lasswell categorized three types of political personality: the
"agitator," the "administrator," and the "theorist." To illustrate this triptych, Lasswell
named a few names; Herbert Hoover, for instance, was labeled an administrator, while Old
Testament prophets were labeled as agitators, and Karl Marx labeled as a theorist.
Interestingly, Vladimir Lenin was listed as all three types.
Still, for the most part, Lasswell chose to focus, in the Freudian clinical style, on
anonymized exemplars of each political personality type, detailing the mental circuities of
"Mr. A," as well as "B," "C," and so on.
From there, Lasswell considers how each type meshes with politics. As he puts it, the state
is a "manifold," into which political figures enter, and through which political events "are to
be understood."
He writes, "political movements derive their vitality from the displacement of private
affects upon public objects." Using dark Freudian terminology, Lasswell asserts that "Political
crises are complicated by the concurrent reactivation of specific primitive impulses." In that
same bleak spirit, he also avers, "Politics is the process by which the irrational bases of
society are brought out into the open."
Yet while phrases such as "primitive impulses" and "irrational bases" are the stuff of
psychiatry, Lasswell also wrote in political science-y language, as when he laid out his
equation for political action: p } d } r = P . Here, p stands for "private
motives," } stands for "transformed into," d equals "displacement on to public
objects," r stands for " rationalization in terms of public interest," and
P "signifies the political man."
In Lasswell's formula, individuals bring their personality with them into the political
arena, and then, if they wish to make a mark in politics, they must reconcile, somehow, their
own personalities with the political environment. As Lasswell explains, "The distinctive mark
of the homo politicus is the rationalization of the displacement in terms of public
interests."
We might note that in no sense was Lasswell saying that homo politicus was
necessarily good-hearted, or that people were always wise about their own well-being; as he put
it, oftentimes, "people are poor judges of their own interests." And so the "solution" in
politics, he continued, is "not the 'rationally best' one," but rather, "the emotionally
satisfactory one."
Still, Lasswell did not believe in autocracy or dictatorship; he approvingly quoted another
political scientist who argued, "Society is not safe . . . when it is forced to follow
the dictations of one individual."
Yet because Lasswell shared Freud's gloomy view of human nature, he argued for a sort of
guided system, dubbing it "preventive politics." As he put it, "The politics of prevention
draws attention squarely to the central problem of reducing the level of strain and
maladaptation in society." Thus Lasswell endorsed the application of therapeutic psychology to
the population as a whole -- putting the country, as it were, on the therapist's couch.
If that doesn't sound like a plausible solution, we might note that we often do just that to
our country's leaders -- and the latest instance is what Mary Trump has done to her uncle.
Yet even those who mistrust a long-distance diagnosis -- and who might see Mary Trump's book
as opportunistically timed to the election -- might nonetheless reflect on Lasswell's political
equation, p } d } r = P.
After all, individuals do enter into the political system, and they do what they do -- and
so it's best if we understand them as well as we can. Indeed, each new entry can be seen as a
case study, providing us with an opportunity to learn: What went right? Or, what went wrong?
And who makes a good leader?
Such cumulative study gives us all a chance to practice a Lasswellian "politics of
prevention." That is, while we don't seem to be able to cure the mentally ill, we can
nevertheless take sterner measures to keep the pathological out of political office, especially
high political office.
In particular, we might take the view that the electoral political system should serve as a
kind of filter, separating out the gold from the dross. If, as
Max Weber put it, politics is "the slow boring of hard boards," then maybe we should favor
politicians who actually know how to drill a hole, and who know to drill it in the right place
-- and not smash the board.
Indeed, if we think of prosaic electoral politics as a filtering process, we might gain more
respect for those who prove themselves in a minor office before seeking a major office -- and
major responsibility. To put the matter bluntly, if a wannabe pol is maladaptive, let's know
early on, when the stakes are low.
This wisdom was well expressed by Sam Rayburn, the Texas politician who served in the U.S.
House of Representatives for 48 years, as well as in the Texas state house for six years before
that -- and, remarkably, rose to be speaker in both chambers, in Austin as well as in
Washington, D.C. As recorded in David Halberstam's classic book about the origins of America's
fiasco in the Vietnam War, The Best and the Brightest , in 1961, then-Vice President
Lyndon B. Johnson gushed to his old pal Rayburn about how smart and impressive were the men of
John F. Kennedy's administration, bandying about brilliant ideas for saving the world. To which
Rayburn responded to LBJ, "You may be right and they may be every bit as intelligent as you
say, but I'd feel a whole lot better about them if just one of them had run for sheriff
once."
In other words, it would be better if the soaring kites of their intellects were tethered to
mundane human experience and political reality -- including the reality of running for office.
As we know, absent such tethering, those best and brightest led us into an Asian quagmire,
drowning even the political career of LBJ.
So now, in 2020, in these extraordinarily trying times, the voters are about to run their
political filter yet again. Indeed, if the
presidential polls are to be believed, this filtration system is favoring Joe Biden, who
has, after all, undergone the "extreme vetting" of a half-century in elective politics.
So is this an instance in which Lasswell's idea of "preventive politics" is being applied?
We can never know from the Yale professor himself, of course, since he long ago went to that
great ivory tower in the sky. Yet still, one senses that the author of Psychopathology and
Politics would be pleased.
Because, after all, the fate of the nation is more important than the strange case of Trump
vs. Trump. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
James P. Pinkerton is a longtime contributing editor at The American Conservative
, columnist, and author. He served as longtime regular columnist for Newsday. He has
also written for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los
Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, The New Republic, Foreign Affairs, Fortune,
and The Jerusalem Post. He is the author of What Comes Next: The End of Big
Government--and the New Paradigm Ahead (1995) .He worked in the White House domestic
policy offices of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and in the 1980, 1984, 1988 and
1992 presidential campaigns.
O MG you guys Putin hacked our coronavirus vaccine secrets!
Today mainstream media is reporting what is arguably the single dumbest Russiavape story of
all time, against some very stiff competition.
"Russian hackers are targeting health care organizations in the West in an attempt to steal
coronavirus vaccine research, the U.S. and Britain said," reportsThe New York
Times .
"Hackers backed by the Russian state are trying to steal COVID-19 vaccine and treatment
research from academic and pharmaceutical institutions around the world, Britain's National
Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) said on Thursday,"
Reuters reports .
"Russian news agency RIA cited spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying the Kremlin rejected
London's allegations, which he said were not backed by proper evidence," adds Reuters.
First of all, how many more completely unsubstantiated government agency allegations about
Russian nefariousness are we the public going to accept from the corporate mass media? Since
2016 it's been wall-to-wall narrative about evil things Russia is doing to the empire-like
cluster of allies loosely centralized around the United States, and they all just happen to be
things for which nobody can actually provide hard verifiable evidence.
Ever since the shady
cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike
admitted that it never actually saw hard proof of Russia hacking the DNC servers, the
already shaky and always unsubstantiated narrative that Russian hackers interfered in the
U.S. presidential election in 2016 has been on thinner ice than ever. Yet because the mass
media converged on this narrative and
repeated it as fact over and over they've been able to get the mainstream headline-skimming
public to accept it as an established truth, priming them for an increasingly idiotic litany of
completely unsubstantiated Russia scandals, culminating most recently in the entirely
debunked claim that Russia paid Taliban-linked fighters to kill coalition forces in
Afghanistan.
Secondly, the news story doesn't even claim that these supposed Russian hackers even
succeeded in doing whatever they were supposed to have been doing in this supposed
cyberattack.
"Officials have not commented on whether the attacks were successful but also have not ruled
out that this is the case," Wired reports
.
Thirdly, this is a "vaccine" which does not even exist at this point in time, and the
research which was supposedly hacked may never lead to one. Meanwhile, Sechenov First Moscow
State Medical University
reports that it has "successfully completed tests on volunteers of the world's first
vaccine against coronavirus," in Russia.
Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, how obnoxious and idiotic is it that coronavirus
vaccine "secrets" are even a thing?? This is a global pandemic which is hurting all of us;
scientists should be free to collaborate with other scientists anywhere in the world to find a
solution to this problem. Nobody has any business keeping "secrets" from the world about this
virus or any possible vaccine or treatment. If they do, anyone in the world is well within
their rights to pry those secrets away from them.
This intensely stupid story comes out at the same time British media are blaring stories about Russian
interference in the 2019 election, which if you actually listen carefully to the claims
being advanced amounts to literally nothing more than the assertion that Russians talked about
already leaked documents pertaining to the U.K.'s healthcare system on the internet.
"Russian actors 'sought to interfere' in last winter's general election by amplifying an
illicitly acquired NHS dossier that was seized upon by Labour during the campaign, the foreign
secretary has said,"
reports The Guardian .
"Amplifying." That's literally all there is to this story. As we learned with the ridiculous U.S. Russiagate narrative , with such
allegations, Russia "amplifying" something can mean anything from RT reporting on a
major news story to a Twitter account from St. Petersburg sharing an article from The
Washington Post . Even the
foreign secretary's claim itself explicitly admits that "there is no evidence of a broad
spectrum Russian campaign against the General Election."
"The statement is so foggy and contradictory that it is almost impossible to understand it,"
responded Russia's foreign
ministry to the allegations. "If it's inappropriate to say something then don't say it. If you
say it, produce the facts."
Instead of producing facts you've got the Murdoch press pestering Jeremy Corbyn, the
Labour Party candidate, on his doorstep over this ridiculous non-story, and popular
right-wing outlets like Guido Fawkes running the blatantly false
headline "Government Confirms Corbyn Used Russian-Hacked Documents in 2019 Election." The
completely bogus allegation that the NHS documents came to Jeremy Corbyn by way of Russian
hackers is not made anywhere in the article itself, but for the headline-skimming majority this
makes no difference. And headline skimmers get as many votes as people who read and think
critically.
All this new Cold War Russia hysteria is turning people's brains into guacamole. We've got
to find a way to snap out of the propaganda trance so we can start creating a world that is
based on truth and a desire for peace.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Putin Apologist , July 19, 2020 at 17:50
"How many more completely unsubstantiated government agency allegations about Russian
nefariousness are we the public going to accept from the corporate mass media?"
The Answer is none. Nobody (well, nobody with a brain) believes anything the "corporate
mass media" says about Russia, or China, Iran or Venezuela or anything else for that
matter.
James Keye , July 19, 2020 at 10:26
Guy , July 18, 2020 at 15:32
But,but, but we never heard the words "highly likely" ,they must be slipping.LOL
DH Fabian , July 18, 2020 at 13:41
The Democrat right wing are robotically persistent, and count on the ignorance of their
base. By late last year, we saw them begin setting the stage to blame-away an expected 2020
defeat on Russia. Once again, proving that today's Democrats are just too dangerous to vote
for. Donald Trump owes a great deal to his "friends across the aisle."
I've been saying that black is the new orange (revolution) but purple works to.
It's hard to know what is going on any more because the only people who talk politics are
yelling about it while the people I am most interested in hearing from in my personal life have
gone silent.
I think the neoliberals are more afraid of losing institutional control than they are losing
this or that election. Thus Trump's haplessness has been reassuring to them. If I were a
globalist, I would want Democrats to take the senate and Trump to win a narrow election that I
could say was illegitimate.
One thing I am interested in knowing is if/how divided the security and intelligence
agencies are about all of this. There are wild rumors going around to the effect that the CIA
is anti-Trump but the NSA is pro-Trump.
Personally, I have come reluctantly but now immovably to the idea that white identity
politics are inevitable and that whites must begin waging them en masse sooner rather than
later. The age of ideology is over and the demographic age has begun. The globalists understand
this (indeed, they arranged it), as do non-white elites. It is only the corrupt and incompetent
white elite that either can't or won't see this.
The institutional GOP is the biggest gatekeeper to a pro-white politics, and so it must
either be subverted, seized or destroyed. The clown car that is late-stage conservatism must be
diminished to the same stature as, say, the Fourth International over at wsws.org.
Those who want the GOP to remain a gate-keeping exercise - think Israelis like Hazony - are
now trying to concoct a sham called "national conservatism" to keep whites on the conservative
plantation but there are too many who already see this for what it is and so I expect it to go
nowhere.
It may be that normal people are so appalled by this globaist-sponsored and Democrat-abetted
violence that a backlash is building. If so, I can't see it.
likbez: The only "purple revolution" we are now experiencing in the US is the purple
tee-shirted SEIU types and the teachers unions against the blue line police unions.
This is simply a public sector union turf war we are now experiencing.
Covid hysteria reduced the tax dollar pie which long supported all three of them. Not they
are fighting over the size of the slices of the pie - with the police unions long getting the
largest slices. Defund the police --and divert those same funds, not back to the taxpayers, but
to teachers and other government support employee unions tells you all you need to know.
Using this lens to view events of the past few months in the US and everything finally makes
sense: Internecine public sector turf war.
Even WSJ editorial today admits Gov Newsom, when he speaks, is merely representing the
demands of the state teachers unions (CTA). Truth be told, and this is an existential election
year for the 44 million public sector union members - 99% all Democrats. OrangeMan must be
defeated., by any means necessary. They have all their skin in this game.
If not this also about conformism? Social desirability == conformism.
Notable quotes:
"... Mark Twain is credited with introducing into the American vernacular the phrase, "Lies, damned lies and statistics." One of the pervasive damned lies people take for granted is the results of political polls, especially in the Trump era. Most polls show him behind several of the myriad candidates vying to represent Democrats in the 2020 election. But the American Association for Public Opinion Research confirms that "national polls in 2016 tended to under-estimate Trump's support significantly more than Clinton's." ..."
"... Social desirability is a concept first advanced by psychologist Allen L. Edwards in 1953. It advances the idea that when asked about an issue in a social setting, people will always answer in a socially desirable manner whether or not they really believe it. Political polling, whether by telephone or online, is a social setting. Respondents know that there is an audience who are posing the questions and monitoring their response. As a result, despite a respondent's true belief, many will answer polling questions in what may appear to be a more socially desirable way, or not answer at all. ..."
Many conservatives are concerned about polling results regarding conservative issues,
especially about President Trump. For example, the latest CNN poll
found that 51% of voters believe the president should be impeached. How much credence should
conservatives give these polls?
Mark Twain is credited with introducing into the American vernacular the phrase, "Lies,
damned lies and statistics." One of the pervasive damned lies people take for granted is the
results of political polls, especially in the Trump era. Most polls show him behind several of
the myriad candidates vying to represent Democrats in the 2020 election. But the American
Association for Public Opinion Research
confirms that "national polls in 2016 tended to under-estimate Trump's support
significantly more than Clinton's."
We are inundated with the latest polling on President Trump's approval rating and how people
are likely to vote in the 2020 election. Both bode poorly for the president, but he doesn't
believe them and neither should we. As an academic, I ran a research center that conducted
local, state-wide and national public opinion polls and took a year's leave of absence from my
university to work for Lou Harris, founder of the Harris Poll.
Social Desirability
The reason why we shouldn't believe most of the current or future polling results about
President Trump can be summarized in two words: Social Desirability.
Social desirability is a concept first advanced by psychologist Allen L. Edwards in 1953. It
advances the idea that when asked about an issue in a social setting, people will always answer
in a socially desirable manner whether or not they really believe it. Political polling,
whether by telephone or online, is a social setting. Respondents know that there is an audience
who are posing the questions and monitoring their response. As a result, despite a respondent's
true belief, many will answer polling questions in what may appear to be a more socially
desirable way, or not answer at all.
When it comes to President Trump, the mainstream media and academics have led us to believe
that it is not socially desirable (or politically correct) to support him. When up against such
sizable odds, most conservatives will do one of three things:
1) Say we support someone else when we really support the president (lie);
2) tell the truth despite the social undesirability of that response;
3) Not participate in the poll (nonresponse bias).
This situation has several real consequences for Trump polling. First, for those in the
initial voter sample unwilling to participate, the pollster must replace them with people
willing to take the poll. Assuming this segment is made up largely of pro-Trump supporters,
finding representative replacements can be expensive, time-consuming and doing so increases the
sampling error rate (SER) while decreasing the validity of the poll. Sampling error rate is the
gold standard statistic in polling. It means that the results of a particular poll will vary by
no more than + x% than if the entire voter population was surveyed. All else being equal, a
poll with a sampling error rate of + 2% is more believable than one of + 4% because it has a
larger sample. Immediate polling on issues like President Trump's impeachment may provide
support to journalists with a point of view to broadcast, but with a small sample and high
sampling error rates, the results aren't worthy of one's time and consideration.
Some political pollsters often get around the necessity of repeated sampling over the course
of an election by forming a panel of people who match the demographics (party affiliation, age,
gender, race, location, etc.) of registered voting public. Polling companies often compensate
panel members and use them across the entire election cycle. Such panels are still subject to
the effects of social desirability and initial substitution error.
Interpretive Bias
Another factor to consider is the institution that is conducting the poll and those
reporting the data. Their progressive sensibilities are thumbing the scale of truth. In my
experience, polls conducted by media companies are less credible since they are often guilty of
the same biases seen in their news reports. The perfect example of this is The New York Times's
"
Poll Watch ," which provides a weekly review of their political poll. My experience is that
it reflects strongly the Times's negative opinions about President Trump and conservative ideas
and the paper's heavy political bias.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Even the Harris Poll, when Lou was alive, suffered somewhat from this bias. Lou Harris was
the first person to conduct serious political polling on a national level and is credited with
giving John Kennedy the competitive advantage over Richard Nixon in the 1960 election. He made
political polling de require for future elections. While many people point to Nixon's twelve
o'clock shadow during the televised debate, Harris gave Kennedy the real competitive advantage
-- a more complete grasp of what issues voters thought were most important and how to tailor
his policy pitches toward that end.
I worked for Lou between 1999-2000. During the election season we would get the daily tab
read-outs. While the results were pristine, Lou would interpret those numbers on NPR and in
other media in a way that showed his clear Democrat bias. His wishful thinking that Al Gore
would beat George W. Bush would color his interpretation of what the numbers meant. In the end,
by a razon thin margin, Bush took the White House and Gore was relegated to inconvenient
environmental truths. Similarly, the 2016 election saw Trump beat favorite Hillary Clinton by a
significant electoral margin, despite
the vast majority of polls giving Mrs. Clinton the edge by between 3-5%.
Where We Go
from Here
Public opinion polling is generally not junk science although with some companies it can be.
Companies like Gallup and Pew consistently do a good job of chronicling political opinion in
America. At issue is the fact that these polling stalwarts don't work for media companies and
use large national samples from current voter rolls; they also tend to not put their thumbs on
the interpretation of data. President Trump is a president unlike any other and most of his
supporters don't participate in political polls. Even Trump's
own pollsters were surprised by his 2016 win. We would do well during these fractured times
to ignore political opinion polls for they will continue to be much to do about nothing.
Just be sure to vote your conscience and that is nobody's opinion but your own.
AntiSocial , 5 hours ago
The polls are skewed, intentionally by the pollsters and unintentionally by anyone with
the common sense not to identify as a Trump supporter.
Would you tell the Nazi Party questioner you were anti - Nazi? How do you feel about Josef
Stalin might be the last question someone would ever answer. Trump people have an
overwhelmingly justified reason to keep it to themselves. Especially in the age of digital
record keeping, and Neo fascism on the Left.
Trump vs: a man whose brain is dying should be a landslide, and could be. BUT the
democrats have succeeded in making the entire population sick to death of hearing about Trump
Is The Devil.
People en masse are not very intelligent and generally do what everyone else is doing,
whatever it is. This time they may know instinctively that the Biden regime will be American
history's biggest failure but they just don't want to hear about Trump anymore, or Covid, or
BLM, and will vote for Biden making just hoping to make it all go away. After that they will
find that when you make mistakes on purpose you usually get what you deserve.
Hawkenschpitt , 6 hours ago
There is another bias besides the article's "interpretive bias." I call it "assumption
bias."
I am one of those whom Pew samples on a regular basis, and across a wide range of issues.
In responding to their queries, I have in the back of my mind how I perceive my responses are
going to show up in the aggregations and the public reporting. It certainly is a
consideration when the survey question is double-edged. For example, given a series of
questions surrounding my perceptions of "climate change" overlooks the wide variance of what
is exactly meant by climate change: are the questions related to the natural dynamism of the
earth's climate, or are they surrogates for Anthropogenic Global Warming? Their questions
assume an agreed-upon definition, and my responses will vary, depending upon what I perceive
to be the underlying basis to the series of questions. This introduces a bias in my
responses.
A recent poll had a series of questions about my activities during these coronavirus
lock-downs: e.g. how does the lock-down affect various of my activities (charitable
donations, volunteer services, neighborly assistance)? Do I do more? Less? About the same?
The wording of the questions shows that they had made an underlying, but false, assumption
that the coronavirus affects my actions.
At the end of every Pew survey, they ask whether I perceived bias in the questions; they
also allow comments on the survey. I take them to task when I encounter these kind of things.
I can only hope that they take my remarks under consideration for their next efforts.
Homer E. Rectus , 6 hours ago
This article spends most of its words trying to convince us that polls are junk science
and then says Pew and Gallup are not. How are they not also junk if they fail to get truthful
answers?
isocratic , 6 hours ago
You have to be really special to trust polls after 2016.
Im4truth4all , 9 hours ago
Polls are just another example of the propaganda...
DrBrown314 , 10 hours ago
Public polls have been rubbish for decades. They average a 0.9% response rate. That is not
a random sample folks. If only 1 person in 100 will agree to take a poll you have a self
selecting sample. Pure garbage. The pollsters have resorted to using "invitation" polling on
the internet and claim this is a probability sample. It is not. It too is rubbish. But you
already knew that because of what the polls said in 2016 and what actually happened. qed.
Alice-the-dog , 10 hours ago
Not to mention that I'm sure there are many like me, who has lied profusely in answer to
every polling call I've gotten ever since I became eligible to vote in 1972. In fact, I
strongly suspect that Trump voters are the most likely demographic to do so.
The Herdsman , 11 hours ago
Bottom line; the polls are fake. We already saw this movie in 2016, we know how it ends.
Back in 2016 you might be fooled by the polls but we already know empirically that they are
rigged. We literally saw it all with our own eyes.... never let anyone talk you out of what
you saw.
Ex-Oligarch , 11 hours ago
This article gives way too much credit to the pollsters.
Polls are constructed to produce a desired result. The respondents selected and the
questions asked are designed to produce that result.
If they do not produce that result, the data can be altered. No one polices this sort of
manipulation, formally or informally.
Adding spin to the result when it is "interpreted" is only the last step. The narrative
promoted in this article that pollsters are honest social scientists carried away by
unconscious biases is a crock.
We have seen articles blaming the respondents for the failures of pollsters over and over
again. This narrative that Trump voters are ashamed of supporting him and so lie to the
pollsters is just more spin designed to make republicans look insincere, amoral and
devious.
Hook-Nosed Swede , 12 hours ago
Mark Twain was quoting Benjamin Disraeli and admitted he wasn't sure the PM actually ever
used that phrase. Incidentally, Twain threw his Confederate uniform away and headed West in
the middle of America's Civil War. I don't see support for Jefferson Davis or Abraham Lincoln
there.
whatisthat , 12 hours ago
I would observe every intelligent and experienced person knows that political based
polling data is suspect to corruption and used as propaganda...
hootowl , 13 hours ago
Political and media polls are used to persuade people to vote for the demonunists by
purposely exaggerating the numbers of demonunists in their polling samples to deceive the
public in order to try to swing the vote to the demonunists and/or to dissuqade conservatives
into believing it is futile to vote because the demonunists are too numerous to overcome.
Ignore the political polls because they are largely conducted by paid liars, manipulators,
and propagandists. The 2020 presidential election is easy to assess. Do you want to elect a
senile, old , treasonous, crook and his family into the WH; or a man, who may, at times make
you a little upset with his abrasive rhetoric, but can be trusted to do what he thinks is
best for his fellow Americans, while he is continuously beset by the worst political cadre of
communists, demonunists, lying MSM/academia, and anti-American deep state crooks in the
history of our great republic.
Gold Banit , 13 hours ago
This is the end for the corrupt racist DemoRat party.
The DemoRats and their fake news media are in a panic and are very desperate and this is
why they are promoting this rioting looting destroying and burning cause their internal
polling has Trump wining 48 states in a landslide....
There is something rotten in the state .. of England.
This Skripal thing smelled to high heaven from day 1. My opinion is that Sergei Skripal was
involved (to what degree is open to speculation) with the Steele dossier. He was getting
homesick (perhaps his mother getting older is part of this) for Russia and he thought that to
get back to Russia he needed something big to get back in Putin's good graces. He would have
needed something really big because Putin really has no use for traitors. Skripal put out some
feelers (perhaps through his daughter though that may be dicey). The two couriers were sent to
seal or move the deal forward. The Brits (and perhaps the CIA) found out about this and decided
to make an example of Sergei. Perhaps because they found out about this late, the deep
state/intelligence people had to move very quickly. The deep state story was was extremely
shaky (to put it mildly) as a result. Or they were just incompetent and full of hubris.
Then they were stuck with the story and bullshit coverup was layered on bullshit coverup. 7
Reply FlorianGeyer Reply to
Marcus April 20, 2019
@ Marcus.
To hope to get away with lies, one must have perfect memory and a superior intellect that
can create a lie with some semblance of reality in real life, as opposed to the digital
'reality' in a Video game. And a rather corny video game at that.
MI5/6 failed on all parts of Lie creation 2 Reply Mistaron April 21, 2019
If Trump was so furious about being conned by Haspel, how come he then went on to promote
her to becoming the head of the CIA? It's quite perplexing.
----his erratic response to this pandemic,
---- his pathetic non-response to this globalist/deep state color revolution,
----his continued reliance on anti-white and anti-American Israelis like Kushner,
----his apparent willingness to grant amnesty for criminal Mexicans and
----go along with idiotic GOP calls to end relief for those thrown out of work, etc,
etc.
Sorry, none of these have any traction with 2020 Trump supporters. Trump is 2020 by
entirely different yardsticks. The first one is Trump is not Joe Biden and he is not a
Democrat. There are other positives as well. Sorry you can't see them.
But "covid" is not going to take Trump down because "covid" exposed the failings of the
deep state and Democrat state leadership more than anything else. Medicare for All, after
this string of Fauci and CDC stunts, is DOA.
----his continued reliance on anti-white and anti-American Israelis like
Kushner,
Sorry, none of these have any traction with 2020 Trump supporters.
What is interesting is that why pathetic Zionist stooge Kushner really discredits and drags
down Trump, Trump pro-Zionist stance is now slightly more understandable and, may be, even
slightly more acceptable than before BLM/Antifa riots.
What would you do if a minority does not want to integrate and asks for an undeserved
preferential treatment? And which stages riots increasing social tension and wantonly looting
and destroying property (that's what "peaceful protesters" during "summer of love" actually
do ) .
Thank you Col. Lang for posting portions of the Pettegrew essay.
I'm taking the liberty to clarify Pettegrew essay.
[[Sampling error rate is the gold standard statistic in polling. It means that the results
of a particular poll will vary by no more than +x% than if the entire voter population was
surveyed. All else being equal, a poll with a sampling error rate of +2% is more believable
than one of +4% because it has a larger sample.]]
First, inference may be drawn from a poll ONLY when [IF] there is an actual random
sample.
Thus random sample creates condition for inference [prediction]; this does not guarantee
it.
Second, the inference is a snapshot, at a point in time, not a motion picture, thus any
value days or weeks later may be nil.
This is why polls done weekly or monthly, and if they are done daily, one may perceive a
trend, more easily.
[[Sampling Error rate is the gold standard statistic in polling]]
SE is the difference between what is actual, from the entire population, versus what a
sample – what the sampled data says.
There is no way to know this ahead of time. This is why there are polls.
Polls attempt to know this, within a certain range, usually expressed in percentages.
Polls are supposed to be designed to keep bias as low as possible; because it is bias that
distorts them.
How to measure and/or cure this? There is the tried and true method.
Randomization.
The problem with polls is an age-old one: are data truly taken from a random sample; or
not?
Most these days are not, for many reasons. And pollsters come up with all sorts of models
[often using junk science] to try and get around this elephant in the room as it were.
Some polls may be less non random than others.
This is the problem.
This polling problem is compounded by non response.
Non response is related to problem -- simply because prior to polling, a random sample is
selected ahead of time.
The sample selected may in fact be random; non response destroys the randomness simply
because for each individual who does not respond, the rigor of the poll is diminished.
Even one or two people not responding greatly erodes the rigor of a random sample. [A poll
of 500 people to represent a nation of more than 300 million.]
What actually happens is a polling company may have designed an experiment -- and selected a
random sample of 1,000, or 2,000, or more.
Often they get about 2 percent response rate!
Thus, they have 20 responses; from which no inference can be drawn.
So they re poll and re poll, and might get 400 responses, or more, eventually.
This is where the problems begin. It is a huge problem, from the perspective of trying to
draw inference [prediction] – because what began as an attempt to poll a random sample is
no longer a random sample.
This particular phenomena – is a different problem [which is not to say this is not
related to] the fact that many Trump supporters either do not participate in answering
pollsters; or, on purpose lie to them because -- owing to lack of random sample and pollster
bias – i.e., the pollsters may have a political agenda, or a perceived political agenda.
. . as opposed to conducting a poll that is the public interest.
[["Political polling, whether by telephone or online, is a social setting."]] Pettegrew
states.
Wrong.
Social setting only involve physical interaction; the nature of social is person to person.
This is beyond dispute.
"Social desirability" as Pettegrew frames it, as a factor to potentially distort polling
data is an interesting thesis; however, polling organizations are supposed to and are expected
to have trained questioners and well-designed questions, and ways of asking to adequately
address what this phenomena actually is: plain old "bias." [This training and apropriate
framing of questions reduces bias or at least is supposed to.]
In fact, interviewing someone in person, asking a person questions for a poll, this method
– which is actual social interaction – is not done because it is time consuming and
expensive.
However, expert questioners are much more able to get honest answers, when done in person,
for obvious reasons.
The most obvious one is that someone is not going to sit down and be asked questions unless
they want to.
Since they want to, there is no reason to want to lie, on the face of it.
This person sits down because they believe that their opinion matters.
[[Sampling error rate is the gold standard statistic in polling. It means that the results
of a particular poll will vary by no more than +x% than if the entire voter population was
surveyed. All else being equal, a poll with a sampling error rate of +2% is more believable
than one of +4% because it has a larger sample.]]
1] Thus sampling error is the difference between what a total population actually
thinks/believes; and what a survey, via a sample of them say – which cannot be known.
The SE itself is a guess, and there is no way to verify if it is right or wrong; random
sample can be used to obtain a good approximation – to address this conundrum.
2] SE does not mean "that the results of a particular poll will vary by no more than [plus
or minus] + or - x% than if the entire voter population was surveyed."
This refers to something else actually.
It is called the Confidence Interval.
Typical CI is 95 percent [less common CI for polling are 90 percent, and 99 percent].
The plus or minus percent [the range] Pettegrew refers to is a function of
A] the sample size
B] the confidence interval
The higher the confidence interval, the greater the plus or minus range – what
Pettegrew refers to as: "It means that the results of a particular poll will vary by no more
than +x%"
A 99 percent CI means that if a sample surveyed was done 100 times, 99 of those times it
would be within this plus or minus range.
95 percent CI means 19 out of 20 times.
90 percent CI means 9 out of 10 times.
In other words: As the confidence level increases, the margin of error increases –
that is to say, the "+x%" is greater, to use Pettegrew's terminology.
The x becomes a larger percent as confidence interval increases.
With a 90 percent CI, there is always a one in ten chance the data from the sample is a
total bust, for example.
Statisticsshowto.com says it this way: [[A margin of error tells you how many percentage
points your results will differ from the real population value. For example, a 95% confidence
interval with a 4 percent margin of error means that your statistic will be within 4 percentage
points of the real population value 95% of the time.]]
This means the "+x%" will be within this/the range: 19 out of 20 attempts at sampling.
Pettegrew says [[All else being equal, a poll with a sampling error rate of +2% is more
believable than one of +4% because it has a larger sample]]
This is because: The Central Limit Theory says that the greater the number of participants
in a random sample, the closer the statistic obtained [from the sample] will be to the actual
population parameter. [Also, the larger the sample size, the more its distribution approaches a
normal probability distribution – the bell curve – and this is key for inference or
attempts at inference from data from a random sample: because inference is a function of
probability.]
Since the actual population universe is not known, the actual parameter is unknown, thus a
statistic from a sample can [potentially] mimic or come close to reality, assuming it is from
an actual random sample.
PS
A quick note on the man most responsible for developing and making modern statistics and
probability a worthwhile and excellent system and advancing the field of knowledge.
This man is as important to the science of modern statistics and probability as Jesus Christ
and St. Joan are to Christianity, and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King is too – to the spirit
of freedom and dignity [as opposed to fraudulence and propaganda and parstisan-ism – all
enemies of knowledge and the human spirit] -- Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, is to the science of
statistics and probability.
Because of Fisher's painstaking work, the design of scientific experiments, especially the
use of inference, became a great advance in human knowledge and science.
Because of Fisher, the field of medicine and disease prevention expanded and blossomed.
Random drug trials, for example, all use the pioneering work of Fisher, his conception of
the absolute necessity of random samples from which inference may be drawn from designed
experiments to test medicines -- using probability.
A window honoring him was recently removed from a college at University of Cambridge.
Feel free to read this story [link below], which, sad to say, though it includes the basics
of what just happened, fails to underscore in any way shape or form the perfidy of it all, this
malice, the evil behind it.
A symbolic crucifixion, as it were.
This, the moral turpitude of this counter cultural revolution and their myriad agents
– and all that this implies in western civilization here and now.
Fisher was born February 17, 1890, East Finchley, London; died July 29, 1962, Adelaide,
Australia.
Reason . . . --55 years ago, Barrington Moore Jr. noted that it always hangs in the balance,
on the verge of being murdered, destroyed. This scum trying to destroy us [and themselves --
they are stuck on self-destruction] is a project to destroy Reason. Plain and simple.
"Science is tolerant of reason; relentlessly intolerant of unreason and sham. A flickering
light in our darkness it is, as Morris Cohen once said, but the only one we have, and woe to
him who would put it out."
I just cannot see why the US public -- better said, some of the US public. -- fall for
that torrent of verbal diarrhoea that Maddow regularly gushes forth on TV about all things
Russian.
The shite that she so regularly spews out is patently untrue and clearly propagandistic.
Time and time again, the content of "The Rachel Maddow Show" (Why "show" FFS? Is it because
that is what it is -- a distraction, an entertainment vehicle for the uncritical masses?) has
repeatedly been shown to be untrue, but never an apology from Maddow.
Oh, what a surprise! Her paternal grandfather's family name was Medvedev, a Four-by-Two
who fled the Evil (Romanov) Empire and set up shop in the "Land of the Free".
Something that has often puzzled me is this: If the Russian Empire was such a "Prison of
Nations", all crushed by the autocratic state, how come Western Europe and the USA is
swarming with the descendants of the Tsar's former Jewish subjects?
To be fair to Maddow -- though I see no reason why I should be, for she is a lying cnut --
her family background is not really kosher: her mother hails from Newfoundland and is of
English/Irish descent, and one of her grandmother's forebears were from the Netherlands.
Furthermore, Maddow says that she had a conservative Catholic upbringing. I suppose that's
why she's now a liberal lesbian. And guess what: she's a Rhodes Scholar with an Oxford
PhD.
"... There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly. ..."
"... Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence of the enemy system'? ..."
"... a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naïve habit of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities. With a great deal of outside effort and resources. ..."
"... His "playbook" is useful to outside powers that want to overthrow governments they don't like. Especially those run by "dictators" not brutal enough to shoot the protesters down. ..."
Once I'd seen this mention of The Russian Playbook (aka KGB, Kremlin or Putin's Playbook), I
saw the expression all over the place. Here's an early – perhaps the earliest – use
of the term. In October 2016, the Center for Strategic and International studies (" Ranked #1 ") informed us of the "
Kremlin Playbook "
with this ominous beginning
There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their
positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has
experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same
time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly.
And asks
Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode
the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence
of the enemy system'?
Well, to these people, to ask the question is to answer it: can't possibly be disappointment
at the gap between 2004's expectations and 2020's reality, can't be that they don't like the
total Western values package that they have to accept, it must be those crafty Russians
deceiving them. This was the earliest reference to The Playbook that I found, but it certainly
wasn't the last.
Of course, all these people are convinced Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential
election. Somehow. To some effect. Never really specified but the latest outburst of insanity
is this video from the
Lincoln Project . As Anatoly Karlin observes: "I think it's really
cool how we Russians took over America just by shitposting online. How does it feel to be
subhuman?" He has a point: the Lincoln Project, and the others shrieking about Russian
interference, take it for granted that American democracy is so flimsy and Americans so
gullible that a few Facebook ads can bring the whole facade down. A curious mental state
indeed.
What can we know about The Playbook? For a start it must be written in Russian, a language
that those crafty Russians insist on speaking among themselves. Secondly such an important
document would be protected the way that highly classified material is protected. There would
be a very restricted need to know; underlings participating in one of the many plays would not
know how their part fitted into The Playbook; few would ever see The Playbook itself. The
Playbook would be brought to the desk of the few authorised to see it by a courier, signed for,
the courier would watch the reader and take away the copy afterwards. The very few copies in
existence would be securely locked away; each numbered and differing subtly from the others so
that, should a leak occur, the authorities would know which copy read by whom had been leaked.
Printed on paper that could not be photographed or duplicated. As much protection as human
cunning could devise; right up there with
the nuclear codes .
And so on. It's all quite ridiculous: we're supposed to believe that Moscow easily controls
far-away countries but can't keep its neighbours under control.
There is no Russian Playbook, that's just projection. But there is a "playbook" and it's
written in English, it's freely available and it's inexpensive enough that every pundit can
have a personal copy: it's named "
From Dictatorship To Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation " and it's written by
Gene Sharp (1928-2018) .
Whatever Sharp may have thought he was doing, whatever good cause he thought he was assisting,
his book has been used as a guide to create regime changes around the world. Billed as
"democracy" and "freedom", their results are not so benign. Witness Ukraine today. Or Libya. Or
Kosovo whose long-time leader has just been indicted for numerous crimes .
Curiously enough, these efforts always take place in countries that resist Washington's line
but never in countries that don't. Here we do see training, financing, propaganda, discord
being sown, divisions exploited to effect regime change – all the things in the imaginary
"Russian Playbook". So, whatever he may have thought he was helping, Sharp's advice has been
used to produce what only the propagandists could call "
model interventions "; to the "liberated" themselves, the reality is poverty , destruction ,
war and
refugees .
Reading Sharp's book, however, makes one wonder if he was just fooling himself. Has there
ever been a "dictatorship" overthrown by "non-violent" resistance along the lines of what he is
suggesting? He mentions Norwegians who resisted Hitler; but Norway was liberated, along with
the rest of Occupied Europe, by extremely violent warfare. While some Jews escaped, most didn't
and it was the conquest of Berlin that saved the rest: the nazi state was killed . The
USSR went away, together with its satellite governments in Europe but that was a top-down
event. He likes Gandhi but Gandhi wouldn't have lasted a minute under Stalin. Otpor was greatly aided by NATO's war
on Serbia. And, they're only "non-violent" because the Western media doesn't talk much about
the violence ;
"non-violent" is not the first word that comes to mind in this video of Kiev 2014 . "Colour revolutions" are
manufactured from existing grievances, to be sure, but with a great deal of outside assistance,
direction and funding; upon inspection, there's much design behind their "spontaneity". And,
not infrequently, with mysterious sniping at a expedient moment – see Katchanovski's
research on the "Heavenly Hundred" of the Maidan showing pretty convincingly that the
shootings were " a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right
organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as
Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have
had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naïve habit
of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and
codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many
shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it
only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities.
With a great deal of outside effort and resources.
Did Skripal played any role in this mess. In this case his poisoning looks more logical as an attempt to hide him from
Russians, who might well suspect him in playing a role in creating Steele dossier by some myths that were present in it.
Notable quotes:
"... Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence". ..."
Much of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Donald Trump was built on the premise
that Christopher Steele and his dossier were to be believed. This even though, early on,
Steele's claims failed to bear scrutiny. Just how far off the claims were became clear when the
FBI interviewed Steele's "Primary Subsource" over three days beginning on Feb. 9, 2017.
Notes taken by FBI agents of those interviews were released by the Senate Judiciary
Committee Friday afternoon.
The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele's sole source, a long-time Russian-speaking
contractor for the former British spy's company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the
Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names remain redacted. From
the FBI interviews it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled
warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence
memos.
Paul Manafort: The Steele dossier's "Primary Subsource" admitted to the FBI "that he was
'clueless' about who Manafort was, and that this was a 'strange task' to have been given." AP
Photo/Seth Wenig, File
Steele's operation didn't rely on great expertise, to judge from the Primary Subsource's
account. He described to the FBI the instructions Steele had given him sometime in the spring
of 2016 regarding Paul Manafort: "Do you know [about] Manafort? Find out about Manafort's
dealings with Ukraine, his dealings with other countries, and any corrupt schemes." The Primary
Subsource admitted to the FBI "that he was 'clueless' about who Manafort was, and that this was
a 'strange task' to have been given."
The Primary Subsource said at first that maybe he had asked some of his friends in Russia
– he didn't have a network of sources, according to his lawyer, but instead just a
"social circle." And a boozy one at that: When the Primary Subsource would get together with
his old friend Source 4, the two would drink heavily. But his social circle was no help with
the Manafort question and so the Primary Subsource scrounged up a few old news clippings about
Manafort and fed them back to Steele.
Also in his "social circle" was Primary Subsource's friend "Source 2," a character who was
always on the make. "He often tries to monetize his relationship with [the Primary Subsource],
suggesting that the two of them should try and do projects together for money," the Primary
Subsource told the FBI (a caution that the Primary Subsource would repeat again and again.) It
was Source 2 who "told [the Primary Subsource] that there was compromising material on
Trump."
And then there was Source 3, a very special friend. Over a redacted number of years, the
Primary Subsource has "helped out [Source 3] financially." She stayed with him when visiting
the United States. The Primary Subsource told the FBI that in the midst of their conversations
about Trump, they would also talk about "a private subject." (The FBI agents, for all their
hardnosed reputation, were too delicate to intrude by asking what that "private subject"
was).
Michael Cohen: The bogus story of the Trump fixer's trip to Prague seems to have originated
with "Source 3," a woman friend of the Primary Subsource, who was "not sure if Source 3 was
brainstorming here." AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File
One day Steele told his lead contractor to get dirt on five individuals. By the time he got
around to it, the Primary Subsource had forgotten two of the names, but seemed to recall Carter
Page, Paul Manafort and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. The Primary Subsource said he asked his
special friend Source 3 if she knew any of them. At first she didn't. But within minutes she
seemed to recall having heard of Cohen, according to the FBI notes. Indeed, before long it came
back to her that she had heard Cohen and three henchmen had gone to Prague to meet with
Russians.
Source 3 kept spinning yarns about Michael Cohen in Prague. For example, she claimed Cohen
was delivering "deniable cash payments" to hackers. But come to think of it, the Primary
Subsource was "not sure if Source 3 was brainstorming here," the FBI notes say.
The Steele Dossier would end up having authoritative-sounding reports of hackers who had
been "recruited under duress by the FSB" -- the Russian security service -- and how they "had
been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct
'altering operations' against the the Democratic Party." What exactly, the FBI asked the
subject, were "altering operations?" The Primary Subsource wouldn't be much help there, as he
told the FBI "that his understanding of this topic (i.e. cyber) was 'zero.'" But what about his
girlfriend whom he had known since they were in eighth grade together? The Primary Subsource
admitted to the FBI that Source 3 "is not an IT specialist herself."
And then there was Source 6. Or at least the Primary Subsource thinks it was Source 6.
Ritz-Carlton Moscow: The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "he had not been able to
confirm the story" about Trump and prostitutes at the hotel. But he did check with someone who
supposedly asked a hotel manager, who said that with celebrities, "one never knows what they're
doing." Moscowjob.net/Wikimedia
While he was doing his research on Manafort, the Primary Subsource met a U.S. journalist "at
a Thai restaurant." The Primary Subsource didn't want to ask "revealing questions" but managed
to go so far as to ask, "Do you [redacted] know anyone who can talk about all of this
Trump/Manafort stuff, or Trump and Russia?" According to the FBI notes, the journalist told
Primary Subsource "that he was skeptical and nothing substantive had turned up." But the
journalist put the Primary Subsource in touch with a "colleague" who in turn gave him an email
of "this guy" journalist 2 had interviewed and "that he should talk to."
With the email address of "this guy" in hand, the Primary Subsource sent him a message "in
either June or July 2016." Some weeks later the Primary Subsource "received a telephone call
from an unidentified Russia guy." He "thought" but had no evidence that the mystery "Russian
guy" was " that guy." The mystery caller "never identified himself." The Primary Subsource
labeled the anonymous caller "Source 6." The Primary Subsource and Source 6 talked for a total
of "about 10 minutes." During that brief conversation they spoke about the Primary Subsource
traveling to meet the anonymous caller, but the hook-up never happened.
Nonetheless, the Primary Subsource labeled the unknown Russian voice "Source 6" and gave
Christopher Steele the rundown on their brief conversation – how they had "a general
discussion about Trump and the Kremlin" and "that it was an ongoing relationship." For use in
the dossier, Steele named the voice Source E.
When Steele was done putting this utterly unsourced claim into the style of the dossier,
here's how the mystery call from the unknown guy was presented: "Speaking in confidence to a
compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US
presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of
co-operation between them and the Russian leadership." Steele writes "Inter alia," – yes,
he really does deploy the Latin formulation for "among other things" – "Source E
acknowledged that the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail
messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee [DNC], to the WikiLeaks
platform."
All that and more is presented as the testimony of a "close associate" of Trump, when it was
just the disembodied voice of an unknown guy.
Perhaps even more perplexing is that the FBI interviewers, knowing that Source E was just an
anonymous caller, didn't compare that admission to the fantastical Steele bluster and declare
the dossier a fabrication on the spot.
But perhaps it might be argued that Christopher Steele was bringing crack investigative
skills of his own to bear. For something as rich in detail and powerful in effect as the
dossier, Steele must have been researching these questions himself as well, using his
hard-earned spy savvy to pry closely held secrets away from the Russians. Or at the very least
he must have relied on a team of intelligence operatives who could have gone far beyond the
obvious limitations the Primary Subsource and his group of drinking buddies.
But no. As we learned in December from Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Steele "was not
the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting." Steele, the IG
reported "relied on a primary sub-source (Primary Sub-source) for information, and this Primary
Sub-source used a network of [further] sub-sources to gather the information that was relayed
to Steele." The inspector general's report noted that "neither Steele nor the Primary
Sub-source had direct access to the information being reported."
One might, by now, harbor some skepticism about the dossier. One might even be inclined to
doubt the story that Trump was "into water sports" as the Primary Subsource so delicately
described the tale of Trump and Moscow prostitutes. But, in this account, there was an effort,
however feeble, to nail down the "rumor and speculation" that Trump engaged in "unorthodox
sexual activity at the Ritz."
While the Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "he had not been able to confirm the story,"
Source 2 (who will be remembered as the hustler always looking for a lucrative score)
supposedly asked a hotel manager about Trump and the manager said that with celebrities, "one
never knows what they're doing." One never knows – not exactly a robust proof of
something that smacks of urban myth. But the Primary Subsource makes the best of it, declaring
that at least "it wasn't a denial."
If there was any denial going on it was the FBI's, an agency in denial that its
extraordinary investigation was crumbling.
bh2, 23 minutes ago
Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence".
Polls are designed to influence public opinion, not so much to inform. This is especially
true for MSNBC and CNN polls. They are just a powerful tool to win the election by projecting
the aura of invincibility over Creepy Joe and thus influencing undecided voters and voters who
look for a winner.
I think that the increase in polarization of the USA society after the "Summer of love"
favors Trump. Neoliberal Dems burned all the bridges, so to speak. Now they symbolize an
abysmal failure during the "summer of love," including CHAZ fiasco and the recent Chicago riot
-- attempt to topple the Columbus statue.
I wonder how many Americans watched the video with the view from above (probably from a
drone) embedded in WGN TV News twit referenced in the article below. It is clear from this
video that this was a well-organized attack by a determined group of rioters.
Looks like a typical Soros staged spectacle with hired guns/thugs coordinating with
neoliberal MSM, who is running the show.
Add to this the fallout from Russiagate/Obamagate that probably is coming in some form later
and, possibly, from Maxwell scandal (where Clinton was probably involved and needs to be
questioned )
It will be an example of the "Bradley Effect" only if this transparent effort to depress
turn-out succeeds and Trump supporters stay home because they think his re-election is
hopeless.
However, unless what we are seeing is some kind of rope-a-dope, the President's own
behavior so far may depress the votes among those who in 2016 put him over the top. I am one
of these.
That's true that Trump was a disappointment for many (probably majority) of low and middle
income voters who voted for him in 2016. But I think more powerful factors are now in play that
can override Trump inaptness and his betrayal of voters and his election promises.
The BLM movement codified the prejudices of black ethno-nationalists and is fully supported
by neoliberal Dems as the last desperate attempt to topple Trump. Kind of "stage three" of the
Purple color revolution (with Russiagate and Ukrainegate as previous two).
Effectively, neoliberal Dems decided that ethno-narcissism and in-group preference can serve
as a smoke screen of their coziness to Wall Street and their utter disregard of the interests
of common Americans in having decent jobs and stemming the sliding standard of living (which
led a large part of working class to vote for Trump in 2016).
They bet that can became the new ideology of Democratic Party creating rag tag coalition
from disaffected minorities and East and West Coast financial and technocratic elite as well as
selected groups of professionals. In short the groups who are net winners from neoliberal
globalization and are not that affected by outsourcing of jobs. I think this is a huge
mistake.
IMHO this might became a very powerful, may be the decisive factor that favors Trump in 2020
re-election.
In fact, I suspect that BLM enablers in the neoliberal MSM actually are working for Trump
re-election. In no way the rest of America will throw their support behind ethno-narcissism and
BLM bigoted underbelly with the new Red Guards running amok.
These catch-all buzzwords about racial justice make it perfectly OK for rioters to tear down
public monuments, loot and pillage stores and businesses, beat others who do not conform to
their views, lay siege to police stations, and take up arms against the state. If you disagree
with this, however, you're the racist. This trick will not work.
Truth be told, the USA criminal justice system, for all its faults, has been reasonably fair
and effective in creating a harmonious environment for the various tribes that exist in modern
USA.
And it egregious to call the USA a racist country, if we compare it for example with Israel
or even Russia, to say nothing about various "stans", or China.
It will be interesting to see poll results a few days before the November election, as
that'll be when many pollsters try to bolster their reputations by presenting results using the
best methodologies they're capable of. We witnessed this in 2016 when final polling suddenly
indicated a tight race.
Most polls are commissioned or sponsored by the MSM. Enough said I guess...
IMO it is way too early to handicap the presidential election. In any case national polls
are essentially meaningless when the presidency is decided by a handful of states. I think
2020 presidency will be decided by Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin. Trump won
some of these states by narrow margins in 2016.
I think the one big difference for Trump in 2020 is that Jared is completely running the
campaign, whereas in 2016 Bannon was at the helm during the home stretch while Jared &
Parscale managed the Facebook platform.
While this election should have been a home-run for Trump, his campaign has faltered since
the spring and as voter attention grows in the next couple months does he have the right
people managing the campaign? Especially since 2020 will be unique - probably the first
virtual campaign. Biden will not be doing any debates and will have only fully scripted
moments that will be broadcast. And Trump rallies will likely be curtailed as older people
the main voting demographic will not show up in numbers.
Of course the Senate will be the crucial election with the Democrats only needing a gain
of 4 to get the majority.
B efore it became a political term, "conservative" was the antonym of "destructive." When
the word acquired political significance in the English language beginning in the early 19th
century -- Britain's Conservative Party was founded in 1834 -- this older definition continued
to be part of its meaning in the new context. The political forces that conservatives opposed,
such as liberalism and radicalism, were inclined toward destruction. Those liberals and
radicals who most admired the French Revolution were candid about this: they wished to destroy
the existing legal, religious, social, and economic order so as to build a better, more
rational one in its place.
Conservatism is a counterrevolutionary force: the antithesis of Jacobinism and Bolshevism,
not simply as historical movements but as revolutionary tendencies to which the Left -- and
sometimes the Right -- is susceptible. But conservatism is not simply the negation of
incendiary ideology; it is also affirmation of a principle -- the anti-utopian view that,
despite its flaws, our civilization is worthy of our loyalty, even unto death.
You may have heard that American conservatism is not really conservative at all, it's just
"classical liberalism." America was born in revolution, and as Louis Hartz influentially argued
in the 1950s, Lockean liberalism is virtually our sole tradition. True conservatism arises from
feudalism, which means that in this country it exists only as an exotic import, displaced in
space and time from the lands of Habsburgs or Romanovs.
This is what liberals would like American conservatives to believe, but the opposite is more
nearly the truth: conservatism is not classical liberalism; rather, what is best in classical
liberalism depends on conservatism. To understand this, one must return to the historical
milieu in which "conservative" and "liberal" became political terms. In the 1830s these words
indicated on both sides of the Atlantic opposing attitudes toward the French Revolution and its
legacy. Writing in the North American Review in 1835, Thomas Jefferson's biographer B.L.
Rayner retrospectively applies the labels to the two great factions of American politics in the
first decade of the republic: "If Mr. Jefferson and his friends sympathised, as every one knows
that they did, with the liberal party in Europe, their opponents, the Federalists of that day,
sympathised in like manner with the aristocratic, or as it is now called, legitimate or
conservative party in Europe -- the party which, in order to avoid any epithet in the least
degree offensive or even questionable, we have called the party of Law."
In Britain, the Conservative Party developed out of a longstanding coalition of
anti-revolutionary Whigs and Tories who at one stage had been known as the "Friends of Pitt" --
that is, political allies who carried on the anti-French policies of the "independent Whig"
Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, who had died in 1806. In the U.S., the anti-French
faction of the 1790s was the Federalist Party, and although George Washington's administration,
like Pitt's ministry, was notionally above party, in practice Washington was very much aligned
with the anti-French, pro-British, counterrevolutionary politics of his Treasury secretary
Alexander Hamilton and his vice president and successor John Adams. America's first government
was conservative.
The Federalists did not long survive the election of Thomas Jefferson as president in 1800,
but the extinction of a conserative party did not mean the extinction of conservative,
counterrevolutionary politics, which lived on within Jefferson's own party. Jefferson himself
had cooled in his revolutionary ardor, and conservatism prevailed even under America's first
liberal president.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.396.0_en.html#goog_364165057 00:21 / 00:59
00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker,
Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
The fact that America's war of independence had been a revolution, and that John Locke's
philosophy was at the heart of its Declaration, is not the refutation of American conservatism
that might be imagined. No less a foe of Jacobinism than Edmund Burke cherished another
revolution, after all, one that was conservative rather than destructive -- the "Glorious
Revolution" of 1688 that had established the constitutional order Burke strove to defend.
Locke, for his part, had presented his Second Treatise as a justification of the
Glorious Revolution. That revolution, like America's nearly a century later, was understood by
the revolutionaries themselves as a change in continuity with the nation's historic principles.
When the Americans invoked Lockean ideas, they did so in the full knowledge that George III's
own legitimacy in England rested in the eyes of many of his subjects -- especially those of
parliamentary Whigs who were already skeptical of the war with America -- on the Lockean
interpretation of the Revolution of 1688. The British could not deny the Americans their rights
without at the same time denying part of the foundation of Britain's own constitution: the
Declaration of Independence in effect made a conservative, originalist argument.
There was much historical mythologizing involved in the Glorious Revolution and the American
Revolution. But the impulse to reconcile such alterations in government with the historical
character of the nation was a conservative motive, in sharp contrast to the rationalistic and
radically transformative impulse behind the likes of the Jacobins or the Bolsheviks. As for
Britain's legitimist opponents of the Glorious Revolution -- the Jacobite Tories who believed
Parliament was wrong to depose James II -- their conservatism was real but hopeless.
Conservatism must actually conserve. The ancien regime proved to be unsalvageable
everywhere: in Stuart Britain, Bourbon France, Habsburg Austria, Romanov Russia, even imperial
China. Italy's Catholic faith was not enough to preserve the Papal States, either.
The age of ideological revolution has not ended; the revolutionary spirit has only assumed
new forms. In China, still ruled by a Communist Party, it has become institutionalized, and the
revolution is advanced not in the crude manner of the old Soviet Union but through a strategy
of global economic transformation, coupled with ruthless reeducation programs at home. In the
West, liberalism has cut loose from its civilizational roots, and from all conservative
restraint, and has become an ideology of cultural revolution combined with an acceptance of the
global economic reconfiguration also desired by China.
The conservative's task today, as during the French Revolution and the Cold War, is
counterrevolutionary. But now the revolution is truly global, and though it may not be as
violent as in centuries past -- not yet -- the stakes are hardly lower. America and her
conservatives will need the utmost resolve, and a deep commitment to the sources of our
civilization, if we are to prevail again. Yet until now, at least, Providence seems to have
intended the Anglo-Americans to be the firefighters against the conflagration.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review , and
editor-at-large of The American Conservative.
John, what say you about US/global military spending, which if cut and reallocated in the
low double digits could transform society? Do you think it's just politically untouchable? If
the US cut its military budget by say 25% it would still be formidable, especially given its
nuclear deterrent. For the life of me I can never understand why military budgets are
sacrosanct. Is it just WW2 and Cold War hangover? Couldn't the obvious effects of climate
change and the fragility of the economy subject to natural threats like the pandemic change
attitudes about overfunding the military (like the debacle of the F-35 program)?
Alan White @13 Military spending is about 3.4 per cent of US GDP, compared to 2 per cent
or less most places. So that's a significant and unproductive use of resources that could be
redirected to better effect. But the income of the top 1 per cent is around 20 per cent of
total income. If that was cut in half, there would be little or no reduction in the
productive services supplied by this group. If you want big change, that's where you need to
look.
I think some of the reluctance to cut military spending in the US is the extent to which
it acts as a politically unassailable source of fiscal stimulus and "welfare" in a country
where such things are otherwise anathema. Well, that and all of the grift it represents for
the donor class.
A top government watchdog group obtained 136 pages of never before publicized emails between
former FBI lovers
Peter Strzok and
Lisa Page and one in particular appears to refer to a confidential informant inside the
White House in 2017, according to a press release from
Judicial Watch .
Those emails, some of which are heavily redacted, reveal that "Strzok, Page and top bureau
officials in the days prior to and following
President Donald Trump's inauguration discussing a White House counterintelligence briefing
that could "play into" the
FBI's "investigative strategy."
Majority Say They Want to See Trump's Taxes, Many Think Returns Would Hurt Reelection
Chances
White House Reportedly Moves to Make Coronavirus Cases Private by Cutting Out
CDC
Trump White House Reportedly Conducting 'Loyalty' Interviews of Officials,
Appointees
Majority Don't Trust Trump's Public Messages on COVID-19, Disapproval on Pandemic Response
Hits 60%
Trump's Niece Says She's Heard Him Use the N-Word, Anti-Semitic Slurs
Trump Administration is Reportedly Out to Smear Dr. Anthony Fauci for Early Comments on
Coronavirus
Trump Refuses To Unveil Obama's Portrait At The White House
White House Testing Staff For COVID-19, But Are Results Accurate?
Moreover, another email sent by Strzok to Bill
Priestap, the Former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division, refers to
what appears to be a confidential informant in the White House. The email was sent the day
after Trump's inauguration.
"I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing routed from [redacted]," wrote Strzok. "
I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending investigative matters
there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy, and I would like the ability to
have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing. This is one
of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her
to handle WH detailee interaction."
In April, 2019 this reporter first published information that there was an alleged
confidential informant for the FBI in the White House. In fact, then senior Republican Chairmen
of the Senate Appropriations Committee
Charles Grassley and Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson submitted a
letter to Department of Justice Attorney General William Barr revealing the new texts from
Strzok to Page showing the pair had discussed attempts to recruit sources within the White
House to allegedly spy on the Trump administration.
The Chairmen revealed the information in a three page letter. The texts had been already
been obtained by SaraACarter.com and information regarding the possible attempt to recruit
White House sources had been divulged by several sources to this news site last week.
At the time, texts obtained by this news site and sources stated that Strzok had one
significant contact within the White House – at the time that would have been Vice
President Mike Pence's Chief of Staff Joshua Pitcock,
as reported.
Over the past year, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, along with years
of numerous Congressional investigations, has uncovered a plethora of documentation revealing
the most intimate details of the FBI's now debunked investigation into Trump's campaign and its
alleged conspiracy with Russia.
For example, in a series of emails exchanged by top bureau officials – in the FBI
General Counsel's office, Counterintelligence Division and Washington Field office on Jan. 19,
2017 – reveal that senior leadership, including former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe were
coordinating with each other in their ongoing attempt to target the incoming administration.
Priestap was also included in the email exchanges. The recent discovery in April, of Priestap's
handwritten notes taken in January, 2017 before the Strzok and his FBI partner interviewed
Flynn were a bombshell. In Priestap's notes he states, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to
get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
In one recent email chain obtained by Judicial Watch, FBI assistant general counsel in the
FBI's National Security Law Branch stated in an email to Strzok [which was almost entirely
redacted]
"I'll give Trisha/Baker a heads up too," it stated. Strzok's reply to the assistant
general counsel, however, was redacted by DOJ. The response back to Strzok has also been
redacted.
Then later in the evening at 7:04 p.m., Strzok sends another emails stating, "I briefed
Bill (Priestap) this afternoon and he was trying without success to reach the DD [McCabe]. I
will forward below to him as his [sic] changes the timeline. What's your recommendation?"
The reply, like many of the documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the DOJ, is almost
entirely redacted. The email response to Strzok was from the Counterintelligence
Division.
Here's what was not redacted
"Approved by tomorrow afternoon is the request. [Redacted] – please advise if I am
missing something." An unidentified official replies, "[Redacted], Bill is aware and willing
to jump in when we need him."
Judicial Watch Timeline of Events On Emails Obtained Through FOIA
At 8 p.m., Strzok responds back (copying officials in the Counterintelligence Division,
Washington Field Office and General Counsel's office):
"Just talked with Bill. [Redacted]. Please relay above to WFO and [redacted] tonight, and
keep me updated with plan for meet and results of same. Good luck."
Strzok then forwards the whole email exchange to Lisa Page, saying, "Bill spoke with Andy.
[Redacted.] Here we go again "
The Day After Trump's Inauguration
The day after Trump's inauguration, on Jan. 21, 2017, Strzok forwarded Page and [a redacted
person] an
email he'd sent that day to Priestap. Strzok asked them to "not forward/share."
In the email to Priestap, Strzok said, "I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing
routed from [redacted]. I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending
investigative matters there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy , and I would
like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the
briefing. This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I
did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction."
" Also, on January 21, 2017, Strzok wrote largely the same message
he'd sent to Priestap directly to his counterintelligence colleague Jennifer Boone ," states
Judicial Watch.
The records were produced to Judicial Watch in a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)
lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for all
communications between Strzok and Page ( Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)).
The FBI has only processed emails at a rate of 500 pages per month and has yet to process
text messages. At this rate, the production of these communications, which still number around
8,000 pages, would not be completed until at least late 2021.
In other emails, Strzok comments on reporting on the anti-Trump dossier authored by Hillary
Clinton's paid operative Christopher Steele.
In a January 2017 email ,
Strzok takes issue with a UK Independent report which claimed Steele had suspected there was a
"cabal" within the FBI which put the Clinton email investigation above the Trump-Russia probe.
Strzok, a veteran counterintelligence agent, was at the heart of both the Clinton email and
Trump-Russia investigations.
In April and June of 2017, the FBI would use the dossier as key evidence in obtaining FISA
warrants to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. In a declassified
summary of a Department of Justice assessment of the warrants that was released by the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in January of this year, it was determined that
those two applications to secretly monitor Page lacked probable cause.
The newly released records include a January 11, 2017, email
from Strzok to Lisa Page, Priestap, and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Jon
Moffa, a New York Times report
which refers to the dossier as containing "unsubstantiated accounts" and "unproven claims." In
the email, Strzok comments on the article, calling it "Pretty good reporting."
On January 14, 2017, FBI Assistant Director for Public Affairs Michael Kortan forwards
to Strzok, Page and Priestap a link to a UK
Independent article entitled "Former MI6 Agent Christopher Steele's Frustration as FBI Sat
On Donald Trump Russia File for Months".
The article, citing security sources, notes that "Steele became increasingly frustrated that
the FBI was failing to take action on the intelligence from others as well as him. He came to
believe there was a cover-up: that a cabal within the Bureau blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr
Trump, focusing instead on the investigation into Clinton's emails."
Strzok responds: "Thanks Mike. Of course not accurate [the cover-up/cabal nonsense]. Is that
question gaining traction anywhere else?"
The records also include a February 10, 2017, email
from Strzok to Page mentioning then-national security adviser Michael Flynn (five days before
Flynn resigned) and includes a photo of Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Strzok
also makes a joke about how McCabe had fat shamed Kislyak.
On February 8, 2017, Strzok, under the subject "RE: EO on Economic Espionage," emailed
Lisa Page, saying, "Please let [redacted] know I talked to [redacted]. Tonight, he approached
Flynn's office and got no information." Strzok was responding to a copy of an email Page had
sent him. The email, from a redacted FBI official to Deputy Director McCabe read: "OPS has not
received a draft EO on economic espionage. Instead, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advised OPS
that they received a draft, but they did not send us the draft. I'll follow up with our
detailees about this EO." Flynn resigned
on February 13, 2017.
On January 26, 2017, Nancy McNamara of the FBI's Inspection Division emailed
Strzok and Priestap with the subject line "Leak," saying, "Tried calling you but the phones are
forwarded to SIOC. I got the tel call report, however [redacted]. Feel free to give me a call
if I have it wrong." Strzok forwarded the McNamara email to Lisa Page and an unidentified
person in the General Counsel's office, saying, "Need to talk to you about how to respond to
this."
On January 11, 2017, Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff emailed
Kortan, saying he'd learned that Steele had worked for the Bureau's Eurasian organized crime
section and had turned over the dossier on Trump-Russian "collusion" to the bureau in Rome.
Kortan forwards Isikoff's email to aide Richard Quinn, who forwards to Strzok "just for
visibility". Strzok forwards to his boss, Priestap and Moffa, saying, "FYI, [redacted], you or
I should probably inform [redacted]. How's your relationship with him? Bill unless you object,
I'll let Parmaan [presumably senior FBI official Bryan Paarmann] know." Strzok forwards the
whole exchange onto Lisa Page.
On January 18, 2017, reporter Peter Elkind of ProPublica reached
out to Kortan, asking to interview Strzok, Michael Steinbach, Jim Baker, Priestap, former
FBI Director James Comey and DEA administrator Chuck Rosenberg for a story Elkind was working
on. Kortan replied, "Okay, I will start organizing things." Further along in the thread, an FBI
Press Office official reached out to an FBI colleague for assistance with the interviews,
saying Steinbach had agreed to a "background discussion" with Elkind, who was "writing the
'definitive' account of what happened during the Clinton investigation, specifically, Comey's
handling of the investigation, seeking to reconstruct and explain in much greater detail what
he did and why he did it." In May 2017, Elkind wrote an
article titled "The Problems With the FBI's Email Investigation Went Well Beyond Comey,"
which in light of these documents, strongly suggests many FBI officials leaked to the
publication.
Strzok ended up being scheduled
to meet with Elkind at 9:30 a.m. on January 31, 2017, before an Elkind interview of Comey's
chief of staff Jim Rybicki. Elkind's reporting on the Clinton email investigation was discussed
at length in previous
emails obtained by Judicial Watch.
"These documents suggest that President Trump was targeted by the Comey FBI as soon as he
stepped foot in the Oval Office," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "And now we see how
the Comey FBI was desperate to spin, through high-level leaks, its mishandling of the Clinton
email investigation. And, in a continuing outrage, it should be noted that Wray's FBI and
Barr's DOJ continue slow-walk the release of thousands of Page-Strzok emails – which
means the remaining 8,000 pages of records won't be reviewed and released until 2021-2022!"
In February 2020, Judicial Watch
uncovered an August 2016 email in which Strzok says that Clinton, in her interview with the
FBI about her email controversy, apologized for "the work and effort" it caused the bureau and
she said she chose to use it "out of convenience" and that "it proved to be anything but."
Strzok said Clinton's apology and the "convenience" discussion were "not in" the FBI 302 report
that summarized the interview.
Also in February, Judicial Watch made public Strzok-Page emails showing their direct
involvement in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the bureau's investigation of alleged
collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The records also show additional "confirmed
classified emails" were found on Clinton's unsecure non-state.gov email server "beyond the number presented" in
then-FBI Director James Comey's statements; Strzok and Page questioning the access the DOJ was
granting Clinton's lawyers; and Page revealing that the DOJ was making edits to FBI 302 reports
related to the Clinton Midyear Exam investigation. The emails detail a discussion about
"squashing" an issue related to the Seth Rich controversy.
In January 2020, Judicial Watch
uncovered Strzok-Page emails that detail special accommodations given to the lawyers of
Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the Clinton email controversy.
In November 2019, Judicial Watch
revealed Strzok-Page emails that show the attorney representing three of Clinton's aides
were given meetings with senior FBI officials.
Also in November, Judicial Watch
uncovered emails revealing that after Clinton's statement denying the transmission of
classified information over her unsecure email system, Strzok sent an email to FBI officials
citing "three [Clinton email] chains" containing (C) [classified] portion marks in front of
paragraphs."
In a related case, in May 2020, Judicial Watch received the " electronic
communication " (EC) that officially launched the counterintelligence investigation, termed
"Crossfire Hurricane," of President Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. The document was
written by former FBI official Peter Strzok.
Does Cancel Culture intersect with Woke? The former's not mentioned in
this fascinating essay , but the latter is and appears to deserve some unpacking beyond
what Crooke provides.
As for the letter, it's way overdue by 40+ years. I recall reading Bloom's The Closing
of the American Mind and Christopher Lasch's Culture of Narcissism where they say
much the same.
What's most irksome are the lies that now substitute for discourse--Trump or someone from
his admin lies, then the WaPost, NY Times, MSNBC, Fox, and others fire back with their lies.
And to top everything off--There's ZERO accountability: people who merit "canceling" continue
to lie and commit massive fraud.
The Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministers just jointly agreed in a rare published account
of their phone conversation that the Outlaw US Empire " has lost its sense of reason,
morality and credibility .
Yes, they were specifically referring to the government, but I'd include the Empire's
institutions as well. In the face of that reality, the letter is worse than a joke.
"The reason why we shouldn't believe most of the current or future polling results about
President Trump can be summarized in two words: Social Desirability.
Social desirability is a concept first advanced by psychologist Allen L. Edwards in 1953. It
advances the idea that when asked about an issue in a social setting, people will always answer
in a socially desirable manner whether or not they really believe it . Political polling,
whether by telephone or online, is a social setting. Respondents know that there is an audience
who are posing the questions and monitoring their response. As a result, despite a respondent's
true belief, many will answer polling questions in what may appear to be a more socially
desirable way, or not answer at all.
When it comes to President Trump, the mainstream media and academics have led us to believe
that it is not socially desirable (or politically correct) to support him . When up against
such sizable odds, most conservatives will do one of three things: 1) Say we support someone
else when we really support the president (lie); 2) tell the truth despite the social
undesirability of that response; 3) Not participate in the poll (nonresponse bias).
This situation has several real consequences for Trump polling. First, for those in the
initial voter sample unwilling to participate, the pollster must replace them with people
willing to take the poll. Assuming this segment is made up largely of pro-Trump supporters,
finding representative replacements can be expensive, time-consuming and doing so increases the
sampling error rate (SER) while decreasing the validity of the poll. Sampling error rate is the
gold standard statistic in polling. It means that the results of a particular poll will vary by
no more than + x% than if the entire voter population was surveyed. All else being
equal, a poll with a sampling error rate of + 2% is more believable than one of +
4% because it has a larger sample. Immediate polling on issues like President Trump's
impeachment may provide support to journalists with a point of view to broadcast, but with a
small sample and high sampling error rates, the results aren't worthy of one's time and
consideration."
--------------
I watched today as the crypto lefty Michael Smerconish interviewed Jason Miller from the
Trump campaign. He insisted that Miller "face up to the bad recent poll results" on Trump. What
he wanted was for Miller to concede defeat in the November election. Miller pointed out that
all the polls cited by MS consistently under sample Republicans by more than 10%. The typical
Republican sample size is between 25 and 30% in these polls. MS simply ignored that and went on
making his case for Trump's coming defeat.
MS's weekly on air poll asked the question "Is the election over? " He was visibly
disappointed when his mostly liberal audience replied "no" by 69% of a 16000 vote sample.
pl
I don't believe the polls, neither neutral pollsters, nor anybody else's regardless of
which way they lean politically. With Caller-ID so prevalent today, nobody I know answers the
phone anymore unless they recognize the number. Especially for 800 #s. I have NoMoRobo
installed on my landline that automatically cuts off all computerized autodial calls. I need
to get something similar for my cell phone.
As for on-air polls, they are complete BS, more like fairy tale genre for four year olds.
Doesn't matter whether they are done by MSNBC or Fox or any other TV network or radio
station.
I've long wondered what the numbers would look like if the pollsters cataloged every
response along the lines of "go f*** yourself" as a vote for Trump...
For those of you who don't watch CNN, I'm in that category, I urge you to watch it on
election night, it's pure bliss watching Wolf Blitzer twitch and burn.
"The reason why we shouldn’t believe most of the current or future polling results about President Trump can be summarized in
two words: Social Desirability..."
I've long wondered what the numbers would look like if the pollsters cataloged every
response along the lines of "go f*** yourself" as a vote for Trump...
On the campaign trail, Joe Biden has boasted of his role in transforming Colombia and Central America through ambitious
economic and security programs. Colombians and Hondurans tell The Grayzone about the damage his plans did to their societies.
By Max Blumenthal
While campaigning for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination this year, former Senator and Vice President Joseph Biden
has touted the crucial role he played in designing US mega-development and drug war campaigns that transformed the
socio-political landscape of large swaths of Latin America.
"I was one of the architects of Plan Colombia," Biden boasted in a July 5 interview with CNN, referring to the multi-billion
dollar US effort to end Colombia's civil war with a massive surge of support for the country's military. According to Biden,
the plan was a panacea for Colombia's problems, from "crooked cops" to civil strife.
But Biden's plan for Colombia has contributed directly to the country's transformation into a hyper-militarized bastion of
right-wing rule, enhancing the power and presence of the notoriously brutal armed forces while failing miserably in its
anti-narcotic and reformist objectives.
This year alone, more than 50 human rights defenders
were
killed in Colombia
in the first four months of 2019, while coca production is close to record levels. And as Colombian
peace activists lamented in interviews with The Grayzone, the US is still in complete control of Bogotá's failed anti-drug
policy, thanks largely to Plan Colombia.
Biden has also pumped up his role in an initiative called the Alliance for Prosperity, which was applied to the Northern
Triangle of Central America. The former vice president was so central to the program's genesis that it was informally known as
"Plan Biden."
Marketed as an answer to the crisis of child migration, Biden's brainchild channeled $750 million through a right-wing
government installed by a US-orchestrated military coup to spur mega-development projects and privatize social services.
The Grayzone visited Honduras in July and documented, through interviews with human rights defenders, students, indigenous
activists, and citizens from all walks of life, how the Alliance for Prosperity helped set the stage for a national rebellion.
In recent months, teachers, doctors, students, and rural campesinos have been in the streets protesting the privatization
plans imposed on their country under the watch of Biden and his successors.
The gutting of public health services, teacher layoffs, staggering hikes in electricity prices, and environmentally
destructive mega-development projects are critical factors in mass migration from Honduras. And indeed, they are immediate
byproducts of the so-called "Biden plan."
"Biden is taking credit for doing something constructive to stop the migration crisis and blaming the concentration camps [on
the US-Mexico border] on Trump. But it's Biden's policies that are driving more people out of Central America and making human
rights defenders lives more precarious by defending entities that have no interest in human rights," explained Adrienne Pine,
a professor of anthropology at American University and leading researcher of the social crisis in Honduras, in an interview
with The Grayzone.
"So $750 million US taxpayer dollars that were allocated to supposedly address child migration are actually making things
worse," Pine added. "It started with unaccompanied minors and now you have children in cages. Largely thanks to Biden."
'I was one of the architects of Plan Colombia'
In an
interview
with CNN on July 5
, Biden was asked if he favored decriminalizing the entry of Latin American migrants to the United
States. Responding with a definitive "no," Joe Biden stated that he would be "surging folks to the border to make those
concrete decisions" about who receives asylum.
Biden argued that he had the best record of addressing the root causes of the migration crisis, recalling how he imposed a
solution on Central America's migration crisis. "You do the following things to make your country better so people don't
leave, and we will help you do that, just like we did in Colombia," he said.
"What did we do in Colombia? We went down and said, okay, and I was one of the architects of Plan Colombia," Biden continued.
"I said, here's the deal. If you have all these crooked cops, all these federal police, we're sending our FBI down, you let us
put them through a lie detector test, let us tell you who you should fire and tell you the kind of people you should hire.
They did and began to change. We can do so much if we're committed."
With the arrogance of a pith-helmeted high colonial official meting out instructions on who to hire and fire to his docile
subjects, Biden presided over a plan that failed miserably in its stated goals, while transforming Colombia into a
hyper-militarized bastion of US regional influence.
Plan Colombia: 'They come and ask for bread, and you give them stones'
Plan Colombia was originally conceived by Colombian President Andrés Pastrana in 1999, as an alternative development and
conflict resolution plan for his war-torn country. He considered calling it the "Plan for Colombia's Peace."
The proposal was quickly hijacked by the Bill Clinton administration, with Joe Biden lobbying in the Senate for an iron-fisted
militarization plan. "We have an obligation, in the interests of our children and the interests of the hemisphere, to keep the
oldest democracy in place, to give them a fighting chance to keep from becoming a narcostate," Biden
said
in
a June 2000 floor speech.
When Plan Colombia's first formal draft was published, it was done so in English, not Spanish. The original spirit of
peace-building was completely sapped from the document by Biden, whose vigorous wheeling-and-dealing ensured that almost 80
percent of the $7.5 billion plan went to the Colombian military. 500 US military personnel were promptly dispatched to Bogota
to train the country's military.
"If you read the original Plan Colombia, not the one that was written in Washington but the original Plan Colombia, there's no
mention of military drives against the FARC rebels," Robert White, the former number two at the US embassy in Bogota,
complained
in 2000
. "Quite the contrary. [Pastrana] says the FARC is part of the history of Colombia and a historical phenomenon, he
says, and they must be treated as Colombians."
White lamented how Washington had abused the trust of the Colombians: "They come and ask for bread, and you give them stones."
Plan Colombia was largely implemented under the watch of the hardline right-wing President Álvaro Uribe. In 1991, Uribe was
placed on a US Drug Enforcement Agency list of "
important
Colombian narco-traffickers
," in part due to his role in helping drug kingpin Pablo Escobar's obtain licenses for landing
strips while Uribe was the head of Colombia's Civil Aeronautics Department.
Under Uribe's watch, toxic chemicals were sprayed by military forces across the Colombian countryside, poisoning the crops of
impoverished farmers and displacing millions.
Biden
with former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at the Concordia Summit in June 2017
Six years after Bill Clinton initiated Plan Colombia, however, even US drug czar John Walters was
forced
to quietly admit
in a letter to the Senate that the price of cocaine in the US had declined, the flow of the drug into the
US had risen, and its purity had increased.
Meanwhile, a
UN
Office of Drugs and Crime report
found that coca cultivation reached record levels in Colombia in 2018. In other words,
billions of dollars have been squandered, and a society already in turmoil has been laid to waste.
For the military and right-wing paramilitary forces that have shored up the rule of leaders like Uribe and the current
ultra-conservative Colombian president, Ivan Duque, Plan Colombia offered a sense of near-total impunity.
The depravity of the country's military was put on bold display when the so-called
"false
positives" scandal
was exposed in 2008. The incident began when army officers lured 22 rural laborers to a far-away
location, massacred them, and then dressed them in uniforms of the leftist FARC guerrillas.
Victims
of Colombia's "false positives" scandal, where laborers were massacred to justify Plan Colombia funding
It was an overt attempt to raise the FARC body count and justify the counter-insurgency aid flowing from the US under Plan
Colombia. The officers who oversaw the slaughter were paid bounties and given promotions.
Colombian academics Omar Eduardo Rojas Bolańos and Fabián Leonardo Benavides demonstrated in a
meticulous
study
that the "false positives" killings reflected "a systematic practice that implicates the commanders of brigades,
battalions and tactical units" in the deaths of more than 10,000 civilians. Indeed, under Plan Colombia, the incident was far
from an isolated atrocity.
Colombian
activist Santiago Salinas in Bogotá (Photo: Ben Norton)
Forfeiting Colombia's national sovereignty
In an interview in Bogotá this May, The Grayzone's Ben Norton asked Colombian social leader Santiago Salinas if there was any
hope for progressive political transformation since the ratification of Plan Colombia.
An organizer of the peace group
Congreso
de los Pueblos
, Salinas shrugged and exclaimed, "I wish." He lamented that many of Colombia's most pivotal decisions were
made in Washington.
Salinas pointed to drug policy as an example. "It seems like the drug decisions about what to do with the drugs, it has
nothing to do with Colombia.
"There was no sovereign decision on this issue. Colombia does not have a decision," he continued. It was the Washington
that wrote the script for Bogota. And the drug trade is in fact a key part of the global financial system, Salinas pointed
out.
But Biden was not finished. After 15 years of human misery and billions of wasted dollars in Colombia, he set out on a
personal mission to export his pet program to Central America's crime and corruption-ravaged Northern Triangle.
Biden eyes Central America, selling mass privatization
In his July sit-down with CNN, Joe Biden trumpeted his Plan Colombia as the inspiration for the Alliance for Prosperity he
imposed on Central America. Channeling the spirit of colonial times once again, he bragged of imposing Washington's policies
on the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
"We'll make a deal with you," Biden recalled telling the leaders of these countries. "You do the following things to make your
country better so people don't leave, and we will help you do that."
Biden announced his bold plan on the editorial pages of the New York Times in January 2015. He called it "a joint plan for
economic and political reforms, an
alliance
for prosperity
." Sold by the vice president as a panacea to a worsening migration crisis, the Alliance for Prosperity was
a boon for international financial institutions which promised to deepen the economic grief of the region's poor.
The Alliance for Prosperity "treated the Honduran government as if it were a crystal-clear, pure vessel into which gold could
be poured and prosperity would flow outward," explained Dana Frank, a professor of history at the University of California,
Santa Cruz, and the author of the book,
The
Long Honduran Night
.
"In reality, the Plan would further enrich and strengthen the political power of the very same elites whose green, deliberate
subversion of the rule of law, and destruction of natural resources and of Indigenous and campesino land rights, were
responsible for the dire conditions the proposal ostensibly addressed," Frank added.
In Honduras, the government had no capacity or will to resist Biden's plan. That is because the country's elected president,
Juan
Manuel Zelaya
, had been removed in 2009 in a coup orchestrated by the United States.
As
Zelaya
told The Grayzone's Anya Parampil
, the Obama administration was infuriated by his participation in ALBA, a regional
economic development program put forward by Venezuela's then-President Hugo Chavez that provided an alternative to neoliberal
formulas like the so-called "Biden Plan."
Following the military coup, a corporate-friendly administration was installed to advance the interests of international
financial institutions, and US trainers arrived in town to hone the new regime's mechanisms of repression.
Under the auspices of the Central American Regional Security Initiative, the FBI was dispatched to
oversee
the training
of FUSINA, the main operational arm of the Honduran army and the base of the Military Police for Public Order
(PMOP) that patrols cities like an occupation force.
In an October 2014 cable, the US embassy in Tegucigalpa acknowledged that the PMOP was riven with corruption and prone to
abuse, and attempted to distance itself from the outfit, even though it operated under the umbrella of FUSINA.
The creation by the US embassy in Honduras of a special forces unit known as the Tigres has added an additional layer of
repressive muscle. Besides
arresting
activists,
the Tigres reportedly
helped
a
drug kingpin escape after he was detained during a US investigation.
While violent crime surged across Honduras, unemployment
more
than doubled
. Extreme poverty surged, and so too did the government's security spending.
To beef up his military, President Juan Orlando Hernández dipped into the social programs that kept a mostly poor population
from tumbling into destitution.
Chart
on Honduran budget priorities by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2017
As
Alex
Rubinstein reported for The Grayzone
, the instability of post-coup Honduras has been particularly harsh on LGTTBI
(Lesbian, Gay, Trans, Travesti, Bisexual, and Intersex) Hondurans. More than 300 of them
have
been killed
since 2009, a dramatic spike in hate crimes reinforced by the
homophobic
rhetoric
of the right-wing Evangelical Confraternity that represents the civil-society wing of the ultra-conservative
Hernandez government.
As the
social
chaos enveloped Honduran society
, migration to the US-Mexico border began to surge to
catastrophic
levels
. Unable to make ends meet, some Hondurans sent their children alone to the border, hoping that they would temporary
protective or refugee status.
By 2014, the blowback of the Obama administration's coup had caused a national emergency. Thousands of Hondurans were winding
up in cages in detention camps run by the US Department of Homeland Security, and many of them were not even 16 years old.
That summer, Obama went to Congress for $3.7 billion in emergency funds to ramp up border militarization and deport as many
unaccompanied Central American minors as possible.
Biden used the opportunity to
rustle
up an additional billion dollars
, exploiting the crisis to fund a massive neoliberal project that saw Honduras as a base
for international financial opportunity. His plan was quickly ratified, and the first phase of the Alliance for Prosperity
began.
From
the IADB's sanitized survey of the Alliance for Prosperity
Energy industry rush dooms indigenous communities and human rights defenders
The implementation of the Alliance for Prosperity was overseen by the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), a US-dominated
international financial institution based in Washington, DC that supports corporate investment in Latin America and the
Caribbean.
A
graphic
on
the IADB's website outlined the plan's objectives in anodyne language that concealed its aggressively neoliberal agenda.
For instance, the IADB promised the "fostering [of] regional energy integration." This was a clear reference to Plan Pueblo
Panama, a region-wide neoliberal development
blueprint
that
was conceived as a boon to the energy industry. Under the plan, the IADB would raise money from Latin American taxpayers to
pay for the expansion of power lines that would carry electricity from Mexico all the way to Panama.
Honduras, with its rivers and natural resources, provided the project with a major hub of energy production. In order for the
country's energy to be traded and transmitted to other countries, however, the International Monetary Fund mandated that its
national electricity company be privatized.
Since the implementation of that component of "Plan Biden," energy costs have
begun
to surge
for residential Honduran consumers. In a country with a 66 percent poverty rate, electricity privatization has
turned life from precarious to practically impossible.
Rather than languish in darkness for long hours with unpaid bills piling up, many desperate citizens have journeyed north
towards the US border.
As intended, the Alliance for Prosperity's regional energy integration plan has spurred an influx of multi-national energy
companies to Honduras. Hydro-electric dams and power plants began rising up in the midst of the lush pine forests and winding
rivers that define the Honduran biosphere, pushing many rural indigenous communities into a life-and-death struggle.
This July, The Grayzone traveled to Reitoca, a remote farming community located in the heart of the Honduran "dry sector." The
indigenous Lenca residents of this town depend on their local river for fish, recreation, and most importantly, water to
irrigate the crops that provide them with a livelihood. But the rush on energy investment brought an Italian-Chilean firm
called Progelsa to the area to build a massive hydro-electric dam just upstream.
Reitoca
community leader Wilmer Alonso by the river threatened by a major hydro-electric project (Photo: Ben Norton)
Wilmer Alonso, a member of the Lenca Indigenous Council of Reitoca, spoke with The Grayzone, shaking with emotion as he
described the consequences of the dam for his community.
"The entire village is involved in this struggle," Alonso said. "Everyone knows the catastrophe that the construction of this
hydro-electric plant would create."
He explained that, like so many foreign multi-nationals in Honduras, Progelsa employs an army of private thugs to intimidate
protesters: "The private company uses the army and the police to repress us. They accuse us of being trespassers, but they are
the ones trespassing on our land."
US reinforces 'factors that generate violence the most in our society'
The Alliance for Progress also provided the backdrop for the assassination of the renowned Honduran environmentalist and
feminist organizer Berta Cáceres.
On March 3, 2016, Cáceres was gunned down in her home in rural Honduras. A towering figure in her community with a presence on
the international stage, Cáceres had been leading the fight against a local dam project overseen by DESA, a powerful Honduran
energy company
backed
by the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) and run by powerful former military officers.
The representative that DESA sent to sign its deal with USAID, Sergio Rodríguez, was later
accused
of
masterminding Cáceres' murder, alongside military officials and former company employees.
In March 2018, the Honduran police
arrested
DESA's
executive president, Roberto David Castillo Mejía, accusing him of "providing logistics and other resources to one of the
material authors" of the assassination. Castillo was a
West
Point graduate
who worked in the energy industry while serving as a Honduran intelligence officer.
This July, The Grayzone visited the family of Berta Cáceres in La Esperanza, a town nestled in the verdant mountains of
Intibucá. Cáceres' mother, Dońa Berta, lives there under 24-hour police guard paid for by human rights groups.
The Cáceres household is bristling with security cameras, and family members get around in armored cars. In her living room,
we met Laura Zúńiga Cáceres of the Civic Council of Indigenous and Popular Organizations of Honduras (COPINH), the human
rights group that her mother Berta founded.
Laura
Zuniga Caceres of COPINH in the home where Berta Caceres was raised (Photo: Ben Norton)
"The violence in Honduras generates migrant caravans, which tears apart society, and it all has to do with all of this
extractivism, this violence," Zúńiga Caceres told The Grayzone. "And the response from the US government is to send more
soldiers to our land; it is to reinforce one of the factors that generates violence the most in our society."
"We are receiving reports from our comrades that there is a US military presence in indigenous Lenca territory," she added.
"For what? Humanitarian aid? With weapons. It's violence. It's persecution."
Gutting public healthcare, driving more migration
The Alliance for Prosperity also commissioned the privatization of health services through a deceptively named program called
the Social Protection Framework Law, or la Ley Marco de Protección Social.
Promoted by Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández as a needed reform, the scheme was advanced through a classic shock
doctrine-style episode: In 2015, close associates of Hernández
siphoned
some $300 million from the Honduran Institute for Social Services
(IHSS) into private businesses, starving hospitals of
supplies and causing several thousand excess deaths, mostly among the poor.
With the medical sector in shambles, Hondurans were then forced to seek healthcare from the private companies that were to
provide services under Hernandez's "Social Protection" plan.
"The money that was robbed [in the IHSS scandal] was used to justify the Ley Marco Proteccion Social," Karen Spring, a
researcher and coordinator for the Honduras Solidarity Network, told The Grayzone. "The hospitals were left in horrible
conditions with no human capital and they were left to farm out to private hospitals."
"When Hondurans go to hospitals, they will be told they need to go to a private company, and through the deductions in their
jobs they will have to pay a lot out of pocket," Spring said. "Through the old universal system you would be covered no matter
what you had, from a broken arm to cancer. No more."
In response, Hondurans poured out into the streets, launching the March of Torches – the first major wave of continuous
protests against Hernandez and his corrupt administration.
In March 2015, in the middle of the crisis, Joe Biden rushed down to Guatemala City to embrace Hernández and restore
confidence in the Alliance for Prosperity.
"I come from a state that, in fact, is the corporate capital of America. More corporations are headquartered there than
anyplace else,"
Biden
boasted
, with Hernández and the presidents of Guatemala and El Salvador standing by his side. "They want to come here.
Corporate America wants to come."
Joseph
Biden embraces Juan Orlando Hernandez in Guatemala City, February 2016
Emphasizing the need for more anti-corruption and security measures to attract international financial investment, Biden
pointed to Plan Colombia as a shining model – and to himself as its architect. "Today Colombia is a nation transformed, just
as you hope to be 10 to 15 years from now," the vice president proclaimed.
Following Biden's visit, the privatization of the Honduran economy continued apace -- and so did the corruption, the
repression, and the unflinching support from Washington.
Hondurans take to the streets, wind up in US-style supermax prisons
By 2017, the movement in Honduras that had galvanized against the US-orchestrated 2009 coup saw its most immediate opportunity
for political transformation at the ballot box. President Hernández was running for re-election, violating a constitutional
provision on term limits. His opponent, Salvador Nasrallah, was a popular broadcast personality who provided a centrist
consensus choice for the varied elements that opposed the country's coup regime.
When voting ended on November 26, Nasrallah's victory appeared certain, with exit polls showing him comfortably ahead by
several points. But suddenly, the government announced that a power outage required the suspension of vote counting. Days
later, Hernández was declared the victor by about 1 percent.
The fraud was so transparent that the
Organization
of American States
(OAS), normally an arm of US interests in Latin America, declared in a
preliminary
report
that "errors, irregularities and systemic problems," as well as "extreme statistical improbability," rendered the
election invalid.
But the United States recognized the results anyway, leaving disenfranchised Hondurans with protest as their only recourse.
"Hondurans tried to change what happened in their country through the 2017 elections, not just Hernández but all the
implementation of all these policies that the Biden plan had funded and implemented all these years since the coup," explained
Karen Spring, of the Honduras Solidarity Network.
"They tried to change that reality through votes and when the elections turned out to be a fraud, tons of people had no choice
but to take to the streets."
At the front lines of the protests in 2017 was Spring's longtime partner, the Honduran activist Edwin Espinal. Following a
protest in November of that year where property damage took place, Espinal was arrested at gunpoint at his home and accused of
setting fire to the front door of a hotel. He fervently denied all charges, accusing the government of persecuting him for his
political activism.
In fact, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had placed a protective measure on Espinal in 2010 in response to
previous attempts to legally railroad him.
The government placed Espinal in pre-trial detention in La Tolva, a US-style maximum security prison normally reserved for
violent criminals and narco-traffickers. Last October, Espinal and Spring
were
married
in the jail while surrounded by masked guards.
Karen
Spring and Edwin Espinal marry in La Tolva in October 2018 (Photo: Karen Spring)
"Since the Biden plan, contractors have been coming down to build these US-style maximum security prisons," Spring said.
"That's where my husband Edwin Espinal is being held."
"They say the company is Honduran but there's no way Hondurans could have built that without US architects or US construction
firms giving them the plans," she added. "I've been in the prison and it's like they dumped a US prison in the middle of
Honduras."
Reflecting on her husband's persecution, Spring explained, "Edwin wanted to stay in his country to change the reality that
caused mass migration. He's one of the people who's faced consequences because he went to the streets. And he's faced
persecution for years because he's one of the Hondurans who wanted to change the country by staying and fighting. Berta
Caceres was another."
"Hondurans wanted to use their votes to change the country and now they're voting with their feet," she continued. "So if
Biden's plan really addressed the root causes of the migrant crisis, why aren't people asking why migration is getting worse?
Hondurans are voting on the Biden plan by fleeing and saying your plan didn't work and it made our situation worse by fleeing
to the border."
Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling
Republican
Gomorrah
,
Goliath
,
The
Fifty One Day War
, and
The
Management of Savagery
. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and
several documentaries, including
Killing
Gaza
. Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America's state of perpetual war
and its dangerous domestic repercussions.
thegrayzone.com
"Today the Department of State is updating the public guidance for CAATSA authorities
to include Nord Stream 2 and the second line of TurkStream 2. This action puts investments or
other activities that are related to these Russian energy export pipelines at risk of US
sanctions. It's a clear warning to companies aiding and abetting Russia's malign influence
projects and will not be tolerated. Get out now or risk the consequences".
Pompeo speaking at a press conference today.
CAATSA -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act
So Russia and Turkey are "adversaries" of the USA?
In what way?
Do these states wish to wage war against the USA?
Is it adversarial to United States interest to compete economically with the hegemon?
Who cares? Really, is Pompeo still scary? If he has a functioning brain, he should realize
that all these blatant efforts to reserve markets for America by sanctioning all its
competitors out of the picture is having the opposite effect, and frightening customers away
from becoming dependent on American products which might be withheld on a whim when America
wants political concessions. 'Will not be tolerated' – what a pompous ass. Sanction
away. The consequence is well-known to be seizure of assets held in the United States or an
inability to do business in the United States. That will frighten some into submission
– like the UK, which was threatened with the cessation of intelligence-sharing with the
USA (sure you can spare it?) if it did not drop Huawei from its 5G networks. But others will
take prudent steps to limit their exposure to such threats, in the certain knowledge that if
they work, they will encourage the USA to use the technique again.
Soviet joke: TASS communicated that "Today, being in dangerous state of health and without
regaining consciousness Konstantin Ustonivich Chernenko took up the duties of Secretary General"
(the first part of the sentence is the common beginning of state leaders' obituaries)
Although only medical evaluation can tell the truth, the inability to hold on to his own
train of thought, slurring of his speech, forgetting where he is and who he's with, grossly incorrect use of language,
and inappropriate behavior are typical early symptoms of dementia. Excessive irritability and paranoia is also a symptom.
Over time though, I began to pity Joe as I realized the untenable situation Democrats had
placed him in. What is wrong with his family, allowing him to be humiliated on a daily basis?
Some think he is being "set up"
Elite rotation clearly is not working in the USA. Just look at Pelosi.
On the other hand Reagan was clearly senile, and that was no hindrance to him becoming
President -- so why should it be any different in the case of Biden?
With questions continuing to swirl about his mental health, a new Rasmussen poll has found
that only 54 per cent of Americans believe Joe Biden is capable of debating President
Trump.
The national telephone survey
found that just over half of likely voters thought Biden could take part in a debate with
Trump while 36 per cent disagree and say he is not capable. A further 11 per cent are not sure
either way.
... Polls show that 38 per cent of American voters think Biden has "some form of dementia,"
including one in five Democrats. 61 per cent of voters also think Biden should address the
dementia issue publicly.
Today, NPR has been playing clips from Biden's terrifyingly incoherent St. Louis speech. He
sounds like he's falling down drunk.
Here's my transliteration of 31:10 on C-SPAN:
"You're all
part ma movemen a moob men that has a backbone the backbone of the Democratic Party a mooin's
gun defeat Donald Trump."
Hearing the clip this morning put tears in my eyes because it so
acutely reminded me of the final speech patterns of my grandfather, a brilliant nuclear
physicist who died of Alzheimers at age 78.
I also cried at clip #33 because the pain in Jill
Biden's eyes projected me right back into the helplessness of witnessing Granddad's cognitive
decline.
It's tragically time to take away Biden's car keys, and yet these endorsements are
trying to buy him a Maserati. How can this nightmare be happening. Thank you, Caitlin
Johnstone, for maintaining this much-needed reality check.
By John Ryan, Ph.D . – Retired Professor of Geography and Senior Scholar, University of Winnipeg, Canada
If anyone has proven the adage that "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on it shoes,"
it's Bill Browder. The mega-rich vulture capitalist has been spinning a yarn for years.
Intriguingly, after Germany's leading news magazine kiboshed his fake narrative, Anglo-American media ignored the revelations.
Browder's narrative suits the US/UK establishment as it provides a convenient excuse to sanction Russia, but the story has more
holes than Swiss cheese.
The billionaire vulture capitalist has been a figure of some prominence on the world scene for the past decade. A few months back,
Der Spiegel
published a major exposé on him and the case of Sergei Magnitsky, but the US/UK mainstream media failed to follow it up and so,
aside from Germany, few people are aware of Browder's background.
Browder had gone to Moscow in 1996 to take advantage of the privatization of state companies by then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin.
Browder founded Hermitage Capital Management, a Moscow investment firm registered in offshore Guernsey in the Channel Islands. For
a time, it was the largest foreign investor in Russian securities. Hermitage Capital Management
was rated as extremely successful after
earning almost 3,000 percent in its operations between 1996 and December 2007.
During the corrupt Boris Yeltsin years, with his business partner's US$25 million, Browder
amassed a
fortune. Profiting from the large-scale privatizations in Russia from 1996 to 2006, his Hermitage firm eventually
grew to $4.5 billion.
When Browder encountered financial difficulties with Russian authorities, he portrayed himself as an anti-corruption activist
and became the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act, which resulted in economic sanctions aimed at Russian officials. However,
an examination of Browder's record in Russia and his testimony in court cases reveal contradictions with his statements to the public
and Congress, and raises questions about his motives in attacking corruption in Russia.
Although he has claimed that he was an 'activist shareholder' and campaigned for Russian companies to adopt Western-style governance,
it has been reported that he cleverly destabilized companies he was targeting for takeover. Canadian blogger Mark Chapman has
revealed that after Browder would buy a minority share in a company, he would resort to lawsuits against this company through
shell companies he controlled. This would destabilize the company with charges of corruption and insolvency. To prevent its collapse,
the Russian government would intervene by injecting capital into it, causing its stock to rise -- with the result that Browder's
profits would rise exponentially.
Later, through Browder's Russian-registered subsidiaries, his accountant Magnitsky
acquired extra shares in Russian gas companies such as Surgutneftegaz, Rosneft and Gazprom. This procedure enabled Browder's
companies to pay the residential tax rate of 5.5 percent instead of the 35 percent that foreigners would have to pay.
However, the procedure to bypass the Russian presidential decree that banned foreign companies and citizens from purchasing equities
in Gazprom was an illegal act. Because of this and other suspected transgressions, Magnitsky was interrogated in 2006 and later in
2008. Initially he was interviewed as a suspect and then as an accused. He was then arrested and charged by Russian prosecutors with
two counts of aggravated tax evasion committed in conspiracy with Bill Browder in respect of Dalnyaya Step and Saturn, two of Browder's
shell companies to hold shares that he bought. Unfortunately, in 2009, Magnitsky died in pre-trial detention because of a
failure by
prison officials to provide prompt medical assistance.
Browder has challenged this account and for years he has maintained that Magnitsky's arrest and death were a targeted act of revenge
by Russian authorities against a heroic anti-corruption activist.
It's only recently that Browder's position was challenged by the European Court of Human Rights, which in its ruling on August
27, 2019 concluded that Magnitsky's "arrest was not arbitrary, and that it was based on reasonable suspicion of his having committed
a criminal offence." And as such, "The Russians had good reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion."
"The Court observes that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal proceedings against Mr Magnitskiy,
started in 2004, long before he complained that prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent acts."
Prior to Magnitsky's arrest, because of what Russia considered to be questionable activities, Browder had been refused entry to
Russia in 2005. However, he did not take lightly his rebuff by the post-Yeltsin Russian government under Vladimir Putin. As succinctly
expressed
by Professor Halyna Mokrushyna at the University of Ottawa:
[Browder] began to engage in a worldwide campaign against the Russian authorities, accusing them of corruption and violation
of human rights. The death of his accountant and auditor Sergei Magnitsky while in prison became the occasion for Browder to launch
an international campaign presenting the death as a ruthless silencing of an anti-corruption whistleblower. But the case of Magnitsky
is anything but.
Despite Browder's claims that Magnitsky died as a result of torture and beatings, authentic documents and testimonies show that
Magnitsky died because of medical neglect – he was not provided adequate treatment for a gallstone condition. It was negligence typical
at that time of prison bureaucracy, not a premeditated killing. Because of the resulting investigation, many high-level functionaries
in the prison system were fired or demoted.
For the past 10 years, Browder has maintained that Magnitsky was tortured and murdered by prison guards. Without any verifiable
evidence he has asserted that Magnitsky was beaten to death by eight riot guards over 1 hour and 18 minutes. This was never corroborated
by anybody, including by autopsy reports. It was even denied by Magnitsky's mother in a video interview.
Nevertheless, on the basis of his questionable beliefs, he has carried on a campaign to discredit and vilify Russia and its government
and leaders.
In addition to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, Browder's basic underlying beliefs and assumptions are being
seriously challenged. Very recently, on May 5, 2020, an American investigative journalist, Lucy Komisar, published an article with
the heading
Forensic photos of Magnitsky show no marks on torso :
On Fault Lines today I revealed that I have obtained never published forensic photos of the body of Sergei Magnitsky, William
Browder's accountant, that show not a mark on his torso. Browder claims he was beaten to death by prison guards. Magnitsky died
at 9:30pm Nov 16, 2009, and the photos were taken the next day.
I noted on the broadcast that though the photos and documents are solid, several dozen U.S. media – both allegedly progressive
and mainstream -- have refused to publish this information. And if that McCarthyite censorship continues, the result of rampant
fear-inducing Russophobia, I will publish it and the evidence on this website.
Despite evidence such as this, till this day Browder maintains that Sergei Magnitsky was beaten to death with rubber batons. It's
this narrative that has attracted the attention of the US Congress, members of parliament, diplomats and human rights activists.
To further refute his account, a 2011
analysis by the Physicians for Human Rights International Forensics Program of documents provided by Browder found no evidence
he was beaten to death.
In his writings, as supposed evidence, Browder provides links to two untranslated Russian documents. They were compiled immediately
after Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009. Recent investigative research has
revealed that one of these appears to be a forgery. The first document, D309, states that shortly before Magnitsky's death:
"Handcuffs were used in connection with the threat of committing an act of self-mutilation and suicide, and that the handcuffs
were removed after thirty minutes." To further support this, a forensic review states that while in the prison hospital, "Magnitsky
exhibited behavior diagnosed as 'acute psychosis' by Dr. A. V. Gaus at which point the doctor ordered Mr. Magnitsky to be restrained
with handcuffs."
The second document, D310, is identically worded to D309 except for a change in part of the preceding sentence. The sentence in
D309 has the phrase "special means were" is changed in D310 to "a rubber baton was."
As such, while D309 is perfectly coherent, in D310 the reference to a rubber baton makes no sense whatsoever, given the title
and text it shares with D309. This and other inconsistencies, including signatures on these documents, make it apparent that D310
was copied from D309 and that D310 is a forgery. Furthermore, there is no logical reason for two almost identical reports to have
been created, with only a slight difference in one sentence. There is no way of knowing who forged it and when, but this forged document
forms a major basis for Browder's claim that Magnitsky was clubbed to death.
The fact that there is no credible evidence to indicate that Magnitsky was subjected to a baton attack, combined with forensic
photos of Magnitsky's body shortly after death that show no marks on it, provides evidence that appears to repudiate Browder's decade-long
assertions that Magnitsky was viciously murdered while in jail.
With evidence such as this, it repeatedly becomes clear that Browder's narrative contains mistakes and inconsistencies that distort
the overall view of the events leading to Magnitsky's death.
Despite Magnitsky's death, the case against him continued in Russia and he was found guilty of corruption in a posthumous trial.
Actually, the trial's main purpose was to investigate alleged fraud by Bill Browder, but to proceed with this they had to include
the accountant Magnitsky as well. The Russian court found both of them guilty of fraud. Afterwards, the case against Magnitsky was
closed because of his death.
After Browder was refused entry to Russia in November of 2005, he launched a campaign insisting that his departure from Russia
resulted from his anti-corruption activities. However, the real reason for the cancellation of his visa that he never mentions is
that in 2003, a Russian provincial court had convicted Browder of evading $40 million in taxes. In addition, his illegal
purchases of shares in Gazprom through the use of offshore shell companies
were reportedly valued at another $30 million, bringing the total figure of tax evasion to $70 million.
It's after this that the Russian federal government next took up the case and initially went after Magnitsky, the accountant who
carried out Browder's schemes.
But back in the US, Browder portrayed himself as the ultimate truth-teller, and embellished his tale by asserting that Sergei
Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in tax fraud. As his case
got more involved, he presented a convoluted explanation that he was not responsible for bogus claims made by his companies. This
is indeed an extremely complicated matter and as such only a summary of some of this will be presented.
The essence of the case is that in 2007, three shell companies that had once been owned by Browder were used to claim a $232 million
tax refund based on trumped-up financial loses. Browder has stated that the companies were stolen from him, and that in a murky operation
organized by a convicted fraudster, they were re-registered in the names of others. There is evidence, however, that Magnitsky and
Browder may have been part of this convoluted scheme.
Browder's main company in Russia was Hermitage Capital Management, and associated with this firm were a large number of shell
companies, some in the Russian republic of Kalmykia and some in the British Virgin Islands. A law firm in Moscow, Firestone Duncan,
owned by Americans, did the legal work for Browder's Hermitage. Sergei Magnitsky was one of the accountants for Firestone Duncan
and was assigned to work for Hermitage.
An accountant colleague of Magnitsky's at Firestone Duncan, Konstantin Ponomarev, was interviewed in 2017 by Komisar, who said:
According to Ponomarev, the firm – and Magnitsky -- set up an offshore structure that Russian investigators would later
say was used for tax evasion and illegal share purchases by Hermitage the structure helped Browder execute tax-evasion and illegal
share purchase schemes.
He said the holdings were layered to conceal ownership: The companies were 'owned' by Cyprus shells Glendora and Kone, which,
in turn, were 'owned' by an HSBC Private Bank Guernsey Ltd trust. Ponomarev said the real owner was Browder's Hermitage Fund.
He said the structure allowed money to move through Cyprus to Guernsey with little or no taxes paid along the way. Profits could
get cashed out in Guernsey by investors of the Hermitage Fund and HSBC.
Ponomarev said that in 1996, the firm developed for Browder 'a strategy of how to buy Gazprom shares in the local market,
which was restricted for foreign investors.'
In the course of their investigation, on June 2, 2007, Russian tax investigators raided the offices of Hermitage and Firestone
Duncan. They seized Hermitage company documents, computers and corporate stamps and seals. They were looking for evidence to support
Russian charges of tax evasion and illegal purchase of shares of Gazprom.
In a statement to US senators on July 27, 2017, Browder
stated that Russian Interior Ministry officials "seized all the corporate documents connected to the investment holding companies
of the funds that I advised. I didn't know the purpose of these raids so I hired the smartest Russian lawyer I knew, a 35-year-old
named Sergei Magnitsky. I asked Sergei to investigate the purpose of the raids and try to stop whatever illegal plans these officials
had."
Contrary to what Browder claims, Magnitsky had been his accountant for a decade. He had never acted as a lawyer, nor did he have
the qualifications to do so. In fact, in 2006, when questioned by Russian investigators, Magnitsky
said he was an
auditor on contract with Firestone Duncan. In Browder's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017, he claimed Magnitsky
was his lawyer, but in 2015, in his testimony under oath in the US government's Prevezon case, Browder told a different story, as
will now be related.
On Browder's initiative, in December 2012, he presented documents to the New York District Attorney alleging that a Russian company,
Prevezon, had "benefitted from part of the $230 million dollar theft uncovered by Magnitsky and used those funds to buy a number
of luxury apartments in Manhattan." In September 2013, the New York District Attorney's office filed money-laundering charges
against Prevezon. The company hired high-profile New York-based lawyers to defend themselves against the accusations.
As reported by Der Spiegel, Browder would not voluntarily agree to testify in court, so Prevezon's lawyers sent process servers
to present him with a subpoena, which he refused to accept and was caught on video literally running away. In March 2015, the judge
in the Prevezon case ruled that Browder would have to give testimony as part of pre-trial discovery. Later, while in court and under
oath and confronted with numerous documents, Browder was totally evasive. Lawyer Mark Cymrot spent six hours examining him, beginning
with the following exchange:
Cymrot asked: Was Magnitsky a lawyer or a tax expert?
He was "acting in court representing me," Browder replied.
And he had a law degree in Russia?
"I'm not aware he did."
Did he go to law school?
"No."
How many times have you said Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer? Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred?
"I don't know."
Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree?
"No."
Critically important, during the court case, the responsible US investigator admitted during questioning that his findings were
based exclusively on statements and documents from Browder and his team. Under oath, Browder was unable to explain how he and his
people managed to track the flow of money and make the accusation against Prevezon. In his 2012 letter that launched the court case,
Browder referred to "corrupt schemes" used by Prevezon, but when questioned under oath, he admitted he didn't know of any. In fact,
to almost every question put forth by Mark Cymrot, Browder replied that he didn't know or didn't remember.
(Read the next part of The Real Bill Browder story on Thursday, here on RT)
Who knew that part of Ray Dalio's "radical transparency" fetish was accusing potential
competitors of stealing trade secrets, and when there is no theft, to radically fabricate
"evidence" to shut them down?
While it has long been known that in the annals of active management lore, not one hedge
fund comes even close to pursuing non-compete clauses and trade secrets lawsuits against its
former employees with the same ferocity, tenacity and unbridled glee as the world's biggest
hedge fund Bridgewater (despite valiant attempts by RenTec and Citadel they are at best runners
up), what nobody knew until now, is that when Bridgewater was lacking enough legal facts on its
side, it would resort to simply fabricating them.
That's what the world's biggest hedge fund did on at least one occasion according to a panel
of three arbitrators, who according to the FT ,
found that Bridgewater "manufactured false evidence" in its attempt to prove that former
employees had stolen its trade secrets.
According to humiliating - to Ray Dalio - court documents which were made public on Monday,
and which quote findings from a panel of three arbitrators, Bridgewater - which manages $138BN
in assets, and whose billionaire founder prides in the way "radical transparency" is shoved
down all employees' throats - was found to have "filed its claims in reckless disregard of its
own internal records, and in order to support its allegations of access to trade secrets,
manufactured false evidence".
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.394.0_en.html#goog_122824125
NOW PLAYING
Wall Street Bounces, After Selloff Fed Boosts Liquidity
SoftBank Said to Plan $14 Billion Sale of Alibaba Shares
China's Companies Have Worst Quarter on Record, Beige Book Says
U.S.-Saudi Oil Alliance Under Consideration, Brouillette Says
ETF Volumes Surge in Current Market Environment
Investors Have Given Up on a V-Shaped Recovery, BNY's Young Cautions
The dramatic discovery emerged as a result of a dispute launched by Bridgewater against
former employees, Lawrence Minicone and Zachary Squire, in November 2017, in which the fund
claimed the duo had misappropriated trade secrets and breached their contracts. However,
Bridgewater's attempt to bully not only its former employees from launching a new fund, but
also the legal system, promptly suffered a spectacular breakdown, when a panel of three
arbitrators found that Bridgewater had "failed to identify the alleged trade secrets with
specificity", knowing Minicone and Squire would have to fight an expensive case in order to
defend against the allegations, the court filing states.
In other words, even though its former employees - who quit years prior in mid-2013 - did
nothing wrong, Bridgewater knew that simply by throwing armies of lawyers after them, it could
bankrupt them into submission. And while this strategy has worked over and over, this time it
failed.
"The trade secrets as described constituted publicly available information or information
generally known to professionals in the industry, and . . . Claimant [Bridgewater], a highly
sophisticated entity, knew that the trade secrets as described did not constitute trade
secrets," the tribunal ruled, according to material quoted in the court filing.
There was more. Just to cover its bases, in addition to the trade secrets claim, Bridgewater
also accused its two former employees of unfair competition after they co-founded Tekmerion
Capital Management, a systematic macro hedge fund with about $60MM in assets under management,
which received backing from billionaire Alan Howard and Michael Novogratz.
But here too, Bridgewater hit a brick wall, when the arbitrators found that Bridgewater's
claims had been brought in "bad faith".
"Claimant's actions in continuing to press its claims constitute further evidence that its
intentions were not to prove misappropriation, but rather, were to adversely affect
respondents' ability to conduct a competitive business," the arbitrators ruling stated,
according to the new court filing.
So how did all of this leak? Simple: Bridgewater was too stingy to pay the falsely accused
duo $2 million in lawyer fees, forcing Minicone and Squire to file a court petition against
Bridgewater on July 1 to confirm the $2 million in lawyers fees awarded by the arbitration
panel in January and, in a move that is set to terminally humiliate and expose Dalio as a
consummate hypocrite, to have the full decision by the arbitrators made public.
And while it is hardly news to those in the industry just how despicable Bridgewater's
tactics have been in the past when faced with a potential competition emerging from its own
ranks who may - gasp - steal the fund's "trading secrets" such as momentum and inverse
variance, which incidentally are perfectly public "strategies", or at least expose to the world
just how Bridgewater ended up being a $160BN $138BN hedge fund, what we are far more
interested in is whether Bridgewater's former general counsel was instrumental in creating the
strategy used by the fund against its former employees.
We are, of course, talking about one James Comey.
Here are the specifics: Squire joined Bridgewater in 2010 as an investment associate and
spent three years at the group working with its research and trading teams before quitting in
mid-2013. Minicone, also an investment associate at Bridgewater, joined in 2008 and remained
there for almost five years. He too quit in 2013.
What does that have to do with James Comes? Well, before joining the FBI, readers may or may
not know that the man who singlehandedly tried to take down the standing US president on what
he knew well were false charges, was general counsel of Bridgewater from 2010 to 2013 - the
very years that overlapped with Squire and Minicone's tenure at Bridgewater too. y_arrow
Blankenstein , 52 minutes ago
This isn't the first time Dalio has used fear and intimidation.
"Ray Dalio, the billionaire founder of the world's largest hedge fund, Bridgewater
Associates, likes to say that one of his firm's core operating principles is "radical
transparency" when it comes to airing employee grievances and concerns.
But one employee said in a complaint earlier this year that the hedge fund was like
a"cauldron of fear and intimidation."
The employee's complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and
Opportunities, which has not been previously reported, describesan atmosphere of
constant surveillance by video and recordings of all meetings -- and the presence of
patrolling security guards-- that silence employees who do not fit the
Bridgewater mold.""
This isn't the first time Dalio has used fear and intimidation.
"Ray Dalio, the billionaire founder of the world's largest hedge fund, Bridgewater
Associates, likes to say that one of his firm's core operating principles is "radical
transparency" when it comes to airing employee grievances and concerns.
But one employee said in a complaint earlier this year that the hedge fund was like
a"cauldron of fear and intimidation."
The employee's complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and
Opportunities, which has not been previously reported, describesan atmosphere of
constant surveillance by video and recordings of all meetings -- and the presence of
patrolling security guards-- that silence employees who do not fit the
Bridgewater mold.""
its ingrained into American culture to accuse then find evidence. Just like WMD in Iraq it
happens in corporate America as well.
slightlyskeptical , 1 hour ago
Who writes this rubbish? The author is actually using Bridgewater tactics to try to smear
Comey with something that happened 4 years after he left.
The dramatic discovery emerged as a result of a dispute launched by Bridgewater against
former employees, Lawrence Minicone and Zachary Squire, in November 2017, in which the fund
claimed the duo had misappropriated trade secrets and breached their contracts.
and then
Comey was general counsel of Bridgewater from 2010 to 2013.
Blankenstein , 56 minutes ago
Maybe read the article next time. The suggestion was that Comey developed the strategy for
Bridgewater while employed there, as he was involved when the same tactics were used against
Trump.
Entertaining1 , 2 hours ago
Even before the Comey angle, a brilliant article.
More of this author, please.
On a hot summer day like this, please remember Google sucks cocksicles by the dozen.
The_American , 2 hours ago
Every FBI "law" ENFORCEMENT act of the last 20 years needs to undergo FULL REVIEW.
"... Biden was the guy who convinced Obama to ramp up Bush's drone assassination program, which kills 50 innocent bystanders for every 1 targeted "militant" -- who often gets away and is rarely a threat to the United States, just to our authoritarian allies. Someday soon, Biden's drone killings abroad will be used to justify killing Americans here at home. ..."
"... Elsewhere, Marcetic writes: "When Reagan invaded Grenada in 1983, bombing a hospital in the process, Biden said he 'did the right thing.' When he bombed Libya three years later, killing 36 civilians and dictator Muammar Gaddafi's 15-month-old daughter, Biden said, 'There can be no question that Gaddafi has asked for and deserves a strong response like this.' And when George H. W. Bush invaded Panama three years after that, an outrageous war to depose a leader who had been a CIA asset and that saw dead civilians 'buried like dogs,' as one witness put it, Biden called it 'appropriate and necessary.'" ..."
"... Another problem with Biden - one of them at least - that all of the stupid talking heads ignore is that he has been in govt so long and is running on a campaign of fixing alleged problems that have allegedly existed for years. Why didn't he just tell Obama how to fix things? Trump will ask him that if given a chance. If not given a chance, Trump will simply state it in campaign ads and viewers will say, "Hmmm. Yeah really!". ..."
"... Think of NGOs, Civil Societies, non-state actors and of course the silicon valley and social media. the future foreign policy of the U.S. lies right here and Silicon Valley is a big part of it. No Direct military intervention, but mobilization of young naive people in targeted countries through social media and other methods to topple the incumbent government's institutions and the culture without firing a bullet ..."
"... I consider Biden as part of the 1st group that still peddle the joint neoconservative+liberal democratic template of the new world order, NATO, maintaining and spreading liberal int'l institutions, keeping troops in Afgh. and Iraq to do social engineering with the help of EU which is not going anywhere btw. So anything other than their views are not allowed at all as F.P. ..."
"... Strangely the 1st group are rather soft on China and were the faction responsible for making China a godzilla by opening up western markets to China (1990s and early 2000s) with the hope that once it is economically liberal somehow magically it would automatically transform into a liberal democracy of Washington's desire. ..."
"... While the 1st are extremely hawkish on Russia and Iran (anti-authoritarianism) and economical with their condemnation of China, the 2nd camp is quite hawkish on China and Iran and moderately hawkish on Russia (Anti-totaliratianism). ..."
"... As Jim Kunstler wrote today, "Joe Biden is an obvious stalking horse for something more sinister." ..."
"Biden, notes Marcetic, pushed for "the 1999 bombing of Serbia, which actually dissolved the
local pro-democracy movement and rallied popular support around the country's dictator." Biden
voted for the U.S. wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. "I voted to go into Iraq, and I'd vote to
do it again," Biden said in August 2003. Now he defends himself by saying he was so stupid that
he fell for Bush's lies about WMDs.
Biden was the guy who convinced Obama to ramp up Bush's drone assassination program, which
kills 50 innocent bystanders for every 1 targeted "militant" -- who often gets away and is
rarely a threat to the United States, just to our authoritarian allies. Someday soon, Biden's
drone killings abroad will be used to justify killing Americans here at home.
Elsewhere, Marcetic writes: "When Reagan invaded Grenada in 1983, bombing a hospital in the
process, Biden said he 'did the right thing.' When he bombed Libya three years later, killing
36 civilians and dictator Muammar Gaddafi's 15-month-old daughter, Biden said, 'There can be no
question that Gaddafi has asked for and deserves a strong response like this.' And when George
H. W. Bush invaded Panama three years after that, an outrageous war to depose a leader who had
been a CIA asset and that saw dead civilians 'buried like dogs,' as one witness put it, Biden
called it 'appropriate and necessary.'"
A vote for Biden isn't just a vote against Trump. It's a vote in favor of Biden's vote to
kill 1 million Iraqis. If we elect Joe Biden, we will send a message to the world: America
hates you; we're glad we killed all those people, and we plan to kill more." Ted Rall
---------------
Rall isn't someone I am likely to cite extensively but in this case I can only agree with
much of what he says about these two men in the foreign policy area.
I do not know Trump, have never met him, and wouldn't cross the street to do so. Actually,
that takes some effort these days.
Biden is one of the most belligerent and nastily "pushy" people I have known in the Borg
(foreign policy establishment). He is a screamer who will get right up in your face to see if
you will back away from him. He will stab in the chest with a forefinger for the same purpose.
He will insult you or threaten to fight you in an attempt to intimidate. He has a bully's
personality, and he is not too bright. Let us not forget his history of plagiarism.
He and Obama seemed to have enjoyed killing "inferiors" around the world and they
participated directly in the process of selection of targets for Death by Drone. LBJ, another
loathsome critter, picked individual bombing targets in VN, but I don't think he targeted
individuals.
As Rall says, if Biden wins you will see a lot more patriotic Americans condemned to
participate in Death by Biden. pl
our personally observed description of Biden is so far apart from the image the general
public sees, and is not intentionally created for him in his campaign videos.
The reassuring, calm, magnanimous friendly uncle, not the crazy lady in the attic. I worry
how this carefully scripted Biden imagery will play out in November, since everyone now has
vivid impressions of media-filtered Trump in the raw.
Biden will never come out of his bunker - his handlers will not allow this. The medium is
the massage. From the Selling of the President to Sequestering the President - our political
journey into mass media comes full circle since TV's first Nixon vs Kennedy race in the
1960's.
Since former VP Cheney is now among the Anti-Trump Lincoln Project, I imagine that Rep.
Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) is most probably now an associate member in it's backdrop. Liz has been
working fervently with Dem. (former Army Ranger with tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan) Rep.
Jason Crow (D-Colo.) to keep U.S. bogged down in Afghanistan, and continue the Germany
boondoggle. Although the Germany boondoggle had it's perks I have to admit, their beer, wine,
food, and fests.
Crow/Cheney Amendment to the NDAA, appears that Crow and Cheney bought into the bogus GRU
bounty crap.
One would think that since Rep. Crow ate sand in both sandboxes, he'd want everybody out
of there, but I guess since his arse isn't on the firing line anymore he could give a crap
about other people's children.
Interesting and useful information. Trump will be wise to use it. Americans are not eager for
more senseless war. And there is the whole "racism" facet to the wars and killings that could
be played up in this weird over-sensitive climate.
Another problem with Biden - one of them at least - that all of the stupid talking heads
ignore is that he has been in govt so long and is running on a campaign of fixing alleged
problems that have allegedly existed for years. Why didn't he just tell Obama how to fix
things? Trump will ask him that if given a chance. If not given a chance, Trump will simply
state it in campaign ads and viewers will say, "Hmmm. Yeah really!".
The way I see the foreign policy establishment is based on how best and most efficient the
dual goal of 1. spread of democracy and 2. the building a military forts in the targeted
country can be achieved. There are 3 camps which formulate their own ideas of how this goal
can be achieved and that they operate basically like cartels (call it foreign policy cartels
if you will). Each have their competing templates based on which they conceptualize their
doctrines and depending on which administration is in power their doctrines will ultimately
find their ways to the W.H.; for the purpose of simplification allow me define these camps by
their template doctrines:
Wilson Doctrine (as the main template) with variations derived from it as the
following: Truman Doctrine, Kennedy Doctrine, Carter Doctrine (Brzezinski Doctrine is a
derivation), Clinton/Albright Doctrine, Bush Doctrine (Both Sr. and Jr.). This is the most
powerful and bipartisan camp with regards to f.p.
Reagan Doctrine (Main template) with variations as the following: Kirkpatrick Doctrine
(Bolton and Pompeo Doctrine is modern day variation of Kirkpatrick's), Powell Doctrine, Trump
Doctrine (if there's any...)
Obama and Power Doctrine (as one main template), try to sell themselves as realist but
they are quite interventionist and not conventionally but unconventionally. Think of NGOs,
Civil Societies, non-state actors and of course the silicon valley and social media. the
future foreign policy of the U.S. lies right here and Silicon Valley is a big part of it. No
Direct military intervention, but mobilization of young naive people in targeted countries
through social media and other methods to topple the incumbent government's institutions and
the culture without firing a bullet. Basically they will do it for the u.s. policy makers, so
no need for boots on the ground.
Think of the Arab Spring wave in the M.E. Jared Cohen, a
former State Dep. official is an architect. So is Susan Rice and Sam Power.
Their model is S.Africa post apartheid. Their people in congress are the progressives and the so-called
"Squad" quartet with more coming, think of jamal Malik. Watch them carefully. IMH when the
times comes these will also become frenzied and as interventionist as neocons during W's
tenure, but very cunningly. During the Floyd riots, america experienced some of this F.P.
domestically, and it is very chaotic and anti-institutional in their methods.
Notable mention: Realist Doctrine (Kissinger, Scowcroft, Nixon and Powell Doctrines) is no
longer represented in the new F.P. oracle.
Which brings us to Joe Biden: I consider Biden as part of the 1st group that still peddle
the joint neoconservative+liberal democratic template of the new world order, NATO,
maintaining and spreading liberal int'l institutions, keeping troops in Afgh. and Iraq to do
social engineering with the help of EU which is not going anywhere btw. So anything other
than their views are not allowed at all as F.P.
Strangely the 1st group are rather soft on China and were the faction responsible for
making China a godzilla by opening up western markets to China (1990s and early 2000s) with
the hope that once it is economically liberal somehow magically it would automatically
transform into a liberal democracy of Washington's desire.
Compared to the 2nd group, the 1st group except for condemning China's human rights record
and related issues, are concerned mostly with transforming China politically and do not share
the holistic view of the 2nd camp that view China as America's new strategic foe in the long
term. While the 1st are extremely hawkish on Russia and Iran (anti-authoritarianism) and
economical with their condemnation of China, the 2nd camp is quite hawkish on China and Iran
and moderately hawkish on Russia (Anti-totaliratianism).
Interestingly, the 3rd camp are modestly pro-China and again for obvious reasons which do
not need further elaboration.
The biggest thing IMO on the horizon for the U.S. policy makers is the China question and
more specifically, how will Biden define the China policy? Will his pick for the VP (assuming
"SHE" will be mostly belonging to the 3rd camp) define China policy, or the good 'ol liberal
democratic+ neocons define it for him as they have been doing so far? or the new formula of
the convergence of 1st and 3rd camp for a new foreign policy globally?
P.S.
I remember reading one of your past posts about your memory of a meeting with Biden and how
rude and crude Joe Biden's F.P. views were and how one of his aides (whisperers?) would
literally dictate his talking points to him...
300 odd million people and those two are the best you can come up with..truely
incredible.
That said, as a Brit, I would still back Trump over Biden. How Trump handles the incoming bad
news (for him) will be key.
Other than cutting off all aid to parasite clients, dronestriking cartel leaders, and
possibly invading Canada to depose Trudeau and liberate Alberta, I support a less aggressive
approach to our foreign policy.
Biden's America: a black man reports on a BLM protest in Dallas, while he is trying to
dine with family and friends - very candid and very worth watching. BLM infected with white
Berniecrats - goal is to create chaos and then scream police brutality - all in one easy to
follow video with an excellent ongoing commentary: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CChuSeWJxm5/?utm_source=ig_embed
But he is weakened right now after 3.5 years of utter partisan garbage thrown at him. He
will get his second wind. He deserves some down time right now before the big push to
November. The zone will come.
The Silent Majority is not leaving him. But he does need some down time. True colors will
be displayed to anyone who cannot grant him that.
I suspect one big reason - and maybe the MAIN reason - for prolonging the irrational
COVID-19 fear mongering is:
to rationalize keeping Biden hidden away in his basement most of the time, thus allowing
for much less scrutiny (out of sight out of mind)
to justify preventing him from participating in live one-on-one debates with Trump,
debates that always draw large viewership, thus revealing to lower-info voters the degree of
Biden's diminished mental state
to encourage the proscription of Trump rallies, with their relatively huge numbers of
attendees
I'm not surprised to read the colonel's real-life personal impression of Biden. To me,
he's let his mask slip enough times over the decades to reveal a bullying, high-handed and
narrow-minded nature. Trump's a goy real estate developer based in NYC, a challenging
occupation that probably accounts for much of his pugilistic demeanor.
"It is unusual for countries to publicly talk about cyberwarfare tactics" Is not the USA
position itself to consider such an attack to be a declaration fo war?
President Trump confirmed in an interview with the Washington Post that the US launched a
cyberattack against infamous Russian troll farm the Internet Research Agency (IRA) during the
2018 midterms.
The Post reported the attack in February 2019, but this is the first time Trump has
confirmed it took place. It is unusual for countries to publicly talk about cyberwarfare
tactics.
The IRA was indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller in 2018 for conspiracy to interfere
with the 2016 presidential election. Russian influence campaigns were also
detected during the 2018 midterms .
President Trump has confirmed that the US launched a cyberattack on the Internet Research
Agency (IRA), an infamous Russian troll farm, during the 2018 midterm elections.
The Washington Post first reported on the attack, which blocked the IRA's internet access,
in February 2019. The administration did not comment on the report at the time, but Trump
confirmed the attack in an
interview with Post columnist Marc Thiessen published Friday.
Thiessen asked whether Trump had launched the attack, to which the president replied
"correct." This is the first time Trump or the White House has confirmed the attack, and it is
unusual for countries to publicly talk about cyberwarfare tactics.
According to The Post's 2019 report, US Cyber Command's attack started on the first day of
voting for the November 2018 midterm elections, and continued for a few days while votes were
tallied. "They basically took the IRA offline," one source familiar with the matter told The
Post.
"Look, we stopped it," Trump told Thiessen. The Internet Research Agency was indicted by
special counsel Robert Mueller in 2018 for conspiracy to interfere with the 2016 presidential
election. Russian influence campaigns were also
detected during the 2018 midterms .
Trump also claimed that Obama had remained silent on the issue of Russian disinformation
campaigns ahead of the 2016 election.
"[Obama] knew before the election that Russia was playing around. Or, he was told. Whether
or not it was so or not, who knows? And he said nothing. And the reason he said nothing was
that he didn't want to touch it because he thought [Hillary Clinton] was winning because he
read phony polls. So, he thought she was going to win. And we had the silent majority that
said, 'No, we like Trump,'" Trump said.
"... If Skripal is involved with all the Clinton stuff, then he would want an insurance policy for example on an USB drive that he could leave for someone to pick up, and leak if something foreshortened his life ..."
"The judge also concluded that Steele's notes of his first interaction with the FBI
about the dossier on July 5, 2016 made clear that his ultimate client for his research
project was Hillary Clinton's campaign as directed by her campaign law firm Perkins Coie. The
FBI did not disclose that information to the court."
Finally we are getting down to where the cheese binds. Hillary Clinton's campaign, with
Mrs. Clinton's knowledge, commissioned the Steele dossier to try to torpedo Trump's election
prospects. She never thought he could win, but the Dems wanted to make sure.
I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut Skripal was the source of the Russian 'intelligence', and
that he was bumped off afterward to make sure he stayed quiet.
The whole Russiagate scandal was just Democrat bullshit, and they kept up with it long
after they all knew they were lying. And Biden thinks he's going to get elected, after that
revelation? The Democrats deserve to be expelled from politics en masse. Leading with that
wretched prick Schiff.
It would seem likely that had the Klintonator won the 2016 Presidential election, Sergei
Skripal might have been left alone mouldering with his guinea pigs and cats in his Salsibury
home. Perhaps he had to take the fall for HRC's loss in the election, for whatever reason
(not shovelling enough shit into the dossier to bring down Trump perhaps); someone had to
take the blame and of course HRC will never admit responsibility for her own failure.
Well, you never know – Russians are kind of an endangered species in the UK. They
turn up dead whenever a public accusation of another Putin 'state hit' would be a useful
feature in the papers.
What I want to know is if the paths of the Skripals passed with those of the supposed
Russian assassins (which I assume to be possible decoys) or anyone else in space, but not
necessarily time. If Skripal is involved with all the Clinton stuff, then he would want
an insurance policy for example on an USB drive that he could leave for someone to pick up,
and leak if something foreshortened his life
It could well have been a simple dead-drop and when alerted by their phones being turned
off and batteries removed, the priority was to immobilize/incapacitate them. A bit tricky in
public, but not at all impossible by a near/passer by to their bench with an aerosol, say a
cyclist walking with his bike After all, they did also have the Chief nurse of the BA on hand
just in case it went wrong as things sometimes do. Which leads to the question, was it just
the Brits alone, together with the Americans, or watching the Americans and then cleaning up
their mess? 2 or more likely 3 seem most likely if we look at sheer brazeness.
That concludes my speculation for the day! Maybe I should be a journalist. I could be paid
for this!
Yes, you never know, but it's certainly hard to believe Occam was English. It seems pretty
clear the simplest explanation is "MI6 bumped him off and blamed it on Russia". When you are
trying to arrange a death which is bound to be suspicious, you want to do it in a way that
when it becomes public knowledge, the first people the public thinks of is not you. means,
motive and opportunity all strongly favour the English side. It seems to be be fairly common
knowledge that Skripal wanted to return to Russia; we have no way of knowing if he planned to
live there or just visit, more likely the latter. But Putin decides to send an assassination
team to England to rub him out. Instead of welcoming him home to Russia, where he could
prevent the British from investigating, and then killing him. Presumably in a much more
prosaic fashion – say, running him down with a car – rather than employing some
exotic poison or isotope which will scream 'Russia!!' How long would the British have been
investigating the Skripals' deaths (if they had died) had they been run down with a 7.5 ton
lorry which was subsequently found burned to a shell several counties away? Would the British
papers have been shrieking "Putin's Truck!!!" next morning? But no – Russian assassins
always have to 'send a message', which must inspire Britain to 'send a message' of its own by
punishing the entire country. Maybe it's just me, but flash-cooking Skripal in the High
Street with a flamethrower in broad daylight would send a message. And then say to the
police, "Keep your hands where I can see 'em, unless you want a couple of shashliks,
comrade", before speeding away in an Aurus Senat limousine. That would send a message,
too.
Newt Gingrich has an informative article on FOX this weekend about the threat Trump has
posed to traditional Republican court hangers-on. He illustrates how this presidency has
destroyed the careers that many of these very wealthy and powerful members of the Deep State
saw as their dynastic inheritance. I point it out because Gingrich would know intimately how
those people feel.
Couple that with the clumsy approach Trump made to the china shop throughout his campaign,
is it any wonder that the FBI, a fundamentally stupid operation now and at all times in the
past, has been busting a gut? I came of age in the sixties and went to university at a center
of opposition to the Deep State that was then concerned with killing poor yellow peasants in
the rice fields of Southeast Asia. We all assumed they had us in dossiers they built and
studied carefully as they closed in on our coffee house discussions. Never happened.
Please keep in mind that these bureaucrats would never do anything that might krinkle the
crease in their trousers. Also bear in mind that the reports we read are written by English
Majors, probably affirmative action hires, in the lower bowels of unhealthy Washington office
buildings. The only people who read them are people who manage to pry them out of the sweaty
little fingers of desperately single women.
All of the Washington bureaucratic swamp is a manifestation of White Welfare, people hired
because they are related to somebody who wants to keep them from turning to prostitution.
"... Speaking as an outside observer, it does seem to me that there is little difference between the FBI investigators and those methods used by the KGB in preparing people to appear at Stalin;s show trials. ..."
"... Mueller is not senile. That was an act. He knows he did terrible things. He does not want to testify as some ambitious prosecutors may wish to do to him,What he did to others ..."
"... An investigation that comes up with zero evidence to back up an accusation, is usually known as a wild goose chase.. ..."
The former FBI chief broke his silence last night, when
the Washington Post published a Mueller-penned op-ed hitting all the expected notes.
Reminding the public - well, more like implying - that Stone knows all the secrets of the
Russia-Wikileaks-Trump connection. The DNC hack, Hillary's missing emails, all those twitter
bots - all of these victories surely helped sway voters in Trump's favor, Mueller argues.
And without Russia's tacit support, Mueller argues, they would never have happened. But was
Stone really so integral to these operations? His reputation as a fabricator and an exaggerator
were well covered during the case.
We now have a detailed picture of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election.
The special counsel's office identified two principal operations directed at our election:
hacking and dumping Clinton campaign emails, and an online social media campaign to disparage
the Democratic candidate. We also identified numerous links between the Russian government
and Trump campaign personnel -- Stone among them. We did not establish that members of the
Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its activities. The investigation
did, however, establish that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump
presidency and worked to secure that outcome. It also established that the campaign expected
it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian
efforts.
Uncovering and tracing Russian outreach and interference activities was a complex task.
The investigation to understand these activities took two years and substantial effort. Based
on our work, eight individuals pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial, and more than two
dozen Russian individuals and entities, including senior Russian intelligence officers, were
charged with federal crimes.
Congress also investigated and sought information from Stone. A jury later determined he
lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to
WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He
lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks'
releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he
tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress.
Stone was found guilty by a jury back in November of all seven charges that he faced. He was
charged with lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction. At the time, the press
reported that Stone could face up to 50 years in prison. He was eventually sentenced to between
3 and four years after being convicted on all 7 counts he faced, including the witness
tampering charge, which carried a maximum penalty of 20 years, while the maximum for each of
the other six charges is five years. Stones convictions will stand, and he will remain a
felon.
Mueller also insisted he made every decision based "solely on the facts", though we wonder
how tipping off CNN to the military-style raid that brought Stone into federal custody relates
to Mueller's "by the book" credo.
Russian efforts to interfere in our political system, and the essential question of
whether those efforts involved the Trump campaign, required investigation. In that
investigation, it was critical for us (and, before us, the FBI) to obtain full and accurate
information. Likewise, it was critical for Congress to obtain accurate information from its
witnesses. When a subject lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's
efforts to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. It may ultimately impede those
efforts.
We made every decision in Stone's case, as in all our cases, based solely on the facts and
the law and in accordance with the rule of law. T he women and men who conducted these
investigations and prosecutions acted with the highest integrity. Claims to the contrary are
false.
Unsurprisingly, Mueller's latest communique (expect the WaPo op-ed, like the Mueller report
before it, to be transformed into its own book - then who knows? Maybe a maybe motion picture
based on the limited communications of Robert Swan Mueller III?) triggered a wave of
hand-wringing in Washington, including among some Republicans, who have groused about Trump's
decision to intercede on behalf of his one-time advisor (and, reportedly, friend). Despite
being a firm Trump backer and friend, Graham has made noises about joining with Democrats and
granting permission to bring Mueller in to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee
(nearly a year ago, Mueller
participated in a marathon series of hearings before the House Intelligence Committee and House
Judiciary).
Most Republicans have generally opposed another round of Mueller testimony, But Graham is
facing a competitive election bid, and grandstanding on this topic allows him to both feign
bipartisan cooperation while upping the pressure for a Congressional investigation into the
origins of the 'Witch Hunt' which would presumably target Mueller, Comey and the rest of the
FBI/DoJ leadership who were caught up in it.
Arctic_Fox , 47 minutes ago
Mueller seems about as senile as Biden. They both come across as pretty much over the
hill. Get them off the scripted notes and it'll be quite a fiasco.
William Dorritt , 43 minutes ago
Mueller is an act
As soon as it became apparent that the Hoax was falling apart,
Mueller began acting senile
Shouldn't stop him from hanging.
Cardinal Fang , 55 minutes ago
The irony is that the FBI, then Mueller and then Congress were played in a Hillary
Campaign oppo research disinfo campaign.
orangedrinkandchips , 1 hour ago
I'm confused. Russia did it all but 4 years and billions later he came up with nothing? That a sore loser
d_7878 , 1 hour ago
There is nothing better Senators on both sides of the aisle love to do more than call
people to testify in from of them. A real spectacle where they can pontificate forever with
no real substance.That is other than flying around in first class with their entire entourage
and spending on lavish outings and much deserved retreats on our dime.
Trump could be re-elected if he would implement term limits as he promised.
Bay of Pigs , 47 minutes ago
He doesn't have the power to institute term limits. Congress has to pass legislation.
Welsh Bard , 1 hour ago
Speaking as an outside observer, it does seem to me that there is little difference
between the FBI investigators and those methods used by the KGB in preparing people to appear
at Stalin;s show trials.
The only difference in the US is that if you plead guilty under a plea bargain , you will
receive a lesser sentence otherwise it is life.
MCDirtMigger , 1 hour ago
Grahmnesty is part of the deep state, just like Sleepy Sesssions . He will do nothing
while clucking like the c0ckrobbin that he is.
Amanita Virosa , 2 hours ago
It's time for a multimillion march on Washington. Now
Ron_Mexico , 10 minutes ago
and let's all hold up pictures of whites killed by black criminals . . .
d_7878 , 2 hours ago
Can't wait until January. It will be good to get back to normal with old Lindsey, any way
the wind blows, Graham calling Trump an idiot again. Just like the good old days. Make
America Normal Again.
emdrive , 2 hours ago
Google, Twitter and FB are trying so hard to influence the upcoming election, along with
the Marxist News Networks that it dwarfs any tiny efforts by Russia to do same. Youtube came
out and said they found $50,000 in spending by Russians to influence the 2016 election.
That's less 'influence' than one suspended comment by Twitter.
This is all right in front of us - they aren't hiding their bias yet the 'news' never
mentions it outside of a couple of people on Fox.
spam filter , 2 hours ago
The former FBI chief broke his silence last night, when
the Washington Post published a Mueller-penned op-ed hitting all the expected notes
Which we all know someone else wrote it for him going by how clueless he was before
congress last time about his supposedly own investigation with his name on it.(blank stares,
looks to his handlers)
Would like to see him, and Biden go head to head on Jeopardy.
William Dorritt , 2 hours ago
TREASON IN PLAIN SIGHT
UK Intelligence planned, organized, and implemented the overthrow of the US elected
Govt
The Leaders of both parties in the Congress, The Chief Justice, Big Media & Big Tech
Oligarchs, and various members of Congress participated in the Treason every step of the
way.
The Leadership of the totally corrupt FBI, CIA, DOJ and the Federal Judges implemented the
ongoing attempted overthrow of the Elected Govt. supported by an unparalleled Propaganda
Offensive on all communications and media platforms.
Most recently Pentagon Leadership outed themselves as Coup Participants when they mutinied
under fire.
tangent , 2 hours ago
I would like to see Stone's jury and judge face the death penalty because they all know
they were a kangaroo court operation. They literally tried to destroy someone's life for
being associated with Trump.
Goodsport 1945 , 2 hours ago
More theater on tap. The questions and performances will be terrific, truths will emerge
and nothing meaningful will be done about it. Jail time for the guilty please.
givenoquarter , 3 hours ago
Raise your hand if you think Mueller actually wrote that editorial...
I need to know who the gullible people are so I can fleece them at my convenience...
107cicero , 2 hours ago
At this point I don't think Mueller can defecate by himself let alone write prose.
Whodathunkit , 3 hours ago
and the rest of the FBI/DoJ leadership who were caught up in it.
its obvious by now that they planned AND executed it. Far from "caught up in it". Who
wrote this trash?
pparalegal , 3 hours ago
Obama used clemency power more often than any president since Truman. Overall, Obama granted clemency to 1,927 individuals, a figure that includes 1,715
commutations and 212 pardons.
Nothing will happen, it's just the sequel to the last 3 years of a political circus with
another sequel coming, as they always do.. because orange man bad.
zeropjbaggot , 7 hours ago
The two 302s from flynns intrrview disappeared- why
Supposed flynn testified honestly
As both agents said
The agents reports should be compared with wiretap trsnscript.
If wiretap transcript dishonestly altered
It devices. From 302s
zeropjbaggot , 7 hours ago
Comey did same thing as it dawned him that he might pay for his crimes. He testified he could not remember anything. Just like mueller
It means he is aware he could be a target of Durham. As well he should be
zeropjbaggot , 7 hours ago
Mueller is not senile. That was an act. He knows he did terrible things. He does not want to testify as some ambitious prosecutors may wish to do to him,What he did to others
Scipio Africanuz , 7 hours ago
An investigation that comes up with zero evidence to back up an accusation, is usually
known as a wild goose chase..
Try chasing a wild goose, and while you'll probably burn energy while doing so (good
cardio exercise..), catching the goose however, is next to impossible and why?
While it's possible to have "free range" geese, there's no such animal as a "wild"
goose!
And thus, the accusation without backing evidence, though thoroughly investigated, is what
investigators with integrity know as a nothing burger or if you prefer plain speak,
********!
And that's that..
And as appropriate, here's the Commanding Comforter..
Jonathan Guyer, managing editor of The American Prospect, has an unbelievably
well-reported piece on
the making of a Washington national security consultancy, starring two high placed Obama-era
officials and one of the Imperial City's more successful denizens -- Michele Flournoy.
Flournoy may not be a household name anywhere but the Beltway, but when she met Sergio
Aguirre and Nitin Chadda (Chiefs of staff to UN Ambassador Samantha Power and Secretary of
Defense Ash Carter respectively) she was already trading lucratively on her stints in two
Democratic administrations. In fact, according to Guyer, by 2017 she was pulling nearly a half
a million dollars a year a year wearing a number of hats: senior advisor for Boston Consulting
Group (where she helped increase their defense contracts to $32 million by 2016), founder and
CEO of the Democratic leaning Center for a New American Security, senior fellow at Harvard's
Belfer Center, and a member of various corporate boards.
Hungry to get their own consulting business going after Hillary Clinton's stunning loss in
2016, according to Guyer, Aguirre and Chadda approached Flournoy for her starpower inside the
Blob. Flournoy did not want "to have a firm with her name on it alone," so they sought and
added Tony Blinken, former Under Secretary of State and "right hand man" to Joe Biden for 20
years. WestExec Advisors, named after the street alongside the West Wing of the White House,
was born. "The name WestExec Advisors trades on its founders' recent knowledge of the highest
echelons of decision-making," writes Guyer. "It also suggests they'll be walking down WestExec
toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue someday soon."
Soon the firm was raking in corporate contracts and the high sums that go with it. They
weren't lobbying per se (wink, wink) but their names and connections provided the grease on the
skids their clients needed to make things happen in Washington. They shrewdly partnered with a
private equity group and a Google affiliate. Before long, Guyer says, they did not need to
market: CEO's were telling other CEO's to give them a call. More:
The founders told executives they would share their "passion" for helping new companies
navigate the complex bureaucracy of winning Pentagon contracts. They told giant defense
contractors how to explain cutting-edge technologies to visitors from Congress. Their
approach worked, and clients began to sign up.
One was an airline, another a global transportation company, a third a company that
makes drones that can almost instantly scan an entire building's interior. WestExec would
only divulge that it began working with "Fortune 100 types," including large U.S. tech;
financial services, including global-asset managers; aerospace and defense; emerging U.S.
tech; and nonprofits.
The Prospect can confirm that one of those clients is the Israeli
artificial-intelligence company Windward.
To say that the Flournoy helped WestExec establish itself as one of the most successful of
the Beltway's defense and national security consultancies is an understatement. For sure,
Flournoy has often been underestimated -- she is not flamboyant, nor glamorous, and is
absolutely unrecognizable outside of the Washington market because she doesn't do media (though
she is popular on
the think tank conference circuit ). She's a technocrat -- smart and efficient and highly
bred for Washington's finely tuned managerial class. She is a courtier for sure, but she is no
sop. She has staying power, quietly forging relationships with the right people and not trying
too hard to make a name or express ideas that might conflict with doctrine. She no doubt
learned much in two stints in the Pentagon, which typically chews up the less capable,
greedier, more narcissistic neophytes (not to mention idealists). She's not exactly known as a
visionary, however, and one has to wonder which hat she is wearing when she expounds on current
defense threats, like
this piece about beefing up the Pentagon budget to confront China .
But what does it all mean? Flournoy has been at the forefront of strategy and policy in two
administrations marked by overseas interventions (Clinton from 1993 to 2000) and Obama (2009 to
2012). All of her aforementioned qualities have helped her to personally succeed and profit --
especially now, no doubt helping weapons contractors get deals on the Hill, as Guyer susses out
in his piece, not to mention how well-placed she would be for an incoming Biden Administration.
But has it been in the best interest of the country? I think not. For this, she is queen of the
Blob.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.394.0_en.html#goog_87831358 00:12 / 00:59
00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker,
Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
But elite is as elite does. She went from Beverly Hills High School to Harvard to Oxford,
and then back to Harvard, before landing a political appointment in the Clinton Administration.
In between government perches, she did consulting and started CNAS in hopes of creating a
shadow national security council for Hillary Clinton. When Clinton didn't get the nomination,
Flournoy and her colleagues supported Obama and helped populate his administration,
supporting the military surge in Afghanistan and prolonging the war. She was called the
"mastermind"
behind Obama's Afghan strategy, which we now know was a failure, an effort at futility and
prolonging the inevitable. In fact, we know now that most of the war establishment was
lying through its teeth . But that hasn't stopped her from getting clients. They pay for
her influence, not her ability to win wars.
Queen of the Blob, Queen of Business as Usual -- a business, as we well know from Guyer's
excellent reporting, that pays off bigtime. But it has never paid off for the rest of America.
But really, why should she care? She was never really with "us" to begin with.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, executive editor, has been writing for TAC since 2007, focusing on
national security, foreign policy, civil liberties and domestic politics. She served for 15
years as a Washington bureau reporter for FoxNews.com, and at WTOP News in Washington from
2013-2017 as a writer, digital editor and social media strategist. She has also worked as a
beat reporter at Bridge News financial wire (now part of Reuters) and Homeland Security
Today, and as a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. A native Nutmegger, she got her start
in Connecticut newspapers, but now resides with her family in Arlington, Va.
I wish that you would cover this equally in both parties; the near entire senior level of
the political apparatus (apart from the few individuals truly invested in the best for all
Americans) has become corrupted informing the policies, or lack thereof; whether implemented,
ignored, or written into law.
We really need to get these "Blob" people out of our government. Electing Trump didn't fix
the problem, and judging by this article, electing Biden won't either. Half of them people
aren't even recognizably American. They're global elites, and they'll continue to use
Americans and what's left of America to further their globalist agenda. With someone like
Flournoy, selling powerful US technology to known spies and thieves like the Israelis, who
take our tech, copy it, and sell it to enemies like China, only scratches the surface of
what's going on. She should be in prison after all the damage she's done to America, not
looking forward to yet another national security role in which she can get more Americans
killed, wreck more foreign countries, and waste and steal more billions of taxpayer
money.
Ms. Flournoy is an example of the type of competent high level staffer of which the Trump
Administration is devoid. Do you think that Mr. Fluornoy that those who work for her would
have had anything overturned at the Supreme Court because they were too lazy to complete the
paperwork?
"Ms. Flournoy is an example of the type of competent high level staffer of which the Trump
Administration is devoid."
I have to agree that Trump's administration is devoid of competent people, but don't
forget that it was incompetents like Flournoy that got Trump elected.
If you want to ID the individual most likely for President Trump winning, look up Joel
Benenson. He was Hilary Clinton's chief of strategy and was convinced that Trump could not
win any of the blue wall states. Ms. Fluornoy had nothing to do with that. Mr. Fluornoy would
have been the Secretary of Defense in a Hillary Clinton Administration and probably would
have been more competent that the current Secretary of Defense.
You would have done better just to critique her article in Foreign Affairs. As it is, you
sound like you're mad at Michele because she makes more money than you do (presumably).
I think that it is a bit unfair, given the fact that the odds are stack the way they are.
Ms. Vlahos has dedicated many years (they are so many she only whispers the number) on issues
related with foreign policy. The path she has chosen is the harder path, the ethical, and
moral one, which was never going to pay. If Ms. Vlahos is incensed, I bet that it is not
because of the money, but because she sees that in Washington DC, only crime and wanton
murder pays. She is accusing Ms Flournoy that she is a sellout to the crime syndicate, like a
cop that has started herself supporting the drug trafficking.
You should know that people believe in more things than only making money. Ms. Flournoy it
seems, has decided that she wants a piece of the cake and to hell with this absurd idea of
"arms to plowshares"....
Ms. Valhos can speak for herself. No one should project onto others their values. But it
does seem that Valhos does make a point that Flournoy does not have any guiding philosophy .
Except to be in a position to make a fine living from her contacts.
Could be that Flournoy is more greedy than not. She sure has the resume that would get her
into any job which she wanted to interview for. And she paid her dues also.
When one looks at Valhos's resume it likewise is impressive. She too it seems to be proud
of her connection to the elites. We should not condem either. We all want our children to
excell. Unless Flournoy is an unindicted co conspirator, this article is just a piece of
fluff. Too much time on Valhos's hands perhaps?
While I don't have anything else to do, I had hoped to read some good dirt. Alas all I got
was one high achieving person carping bout another person of similar achievement. Bless them
both.
The dirt presented is facilitating arms contracts. By peddling the need of strong military
and war. Being a merchant of death, which Ms. Vlahos doesn't seem to be, disqualifies Ms.
Flournoy entirely. of anything.
Not sure what you mean " poorly for it". I tend not to get wrapped around the axle . But
like it when someone comments on me personally. Lost perspective in old age. Would like to
know more what you mean. Unless you just want to be mean
But really, why should she care? She was never really with "us" to begin with.
That's a bit harsh don't you think? I remember that time on September 11, 2001, I was in
the New York area when it happened, I even had a close acquaintance who died in the Twin
Towers. I remember when America was united in its blood lust, it its ravenous quest for
revenge, ... revenge on anything and anyone. When America's vengeful eye was set on the
Taliban government of Afghanistan, it was off to the races. Left and Right, liberal and
conservative, Democrat and Republican, ... all were united in avenging 9/11 on the evil
Taliban and Afghan tribal peoples for harboring OBL. And I'm sure both you Miss Vlahos and
Miss Flournoy were united as well in wanting someone to pay ... am I right? So don't give me
this BS about 'us' and 'them' okay? America is a democracy, the American people get the
government they vote for, they get the President, Senators and Members of Congress they vote
for, that means they also get the flunkies, hangers on and entourages of think tankers and
careerists they vote for. Understand? You get what you deserve, you don't get to whine and
complain when you're leaders are incompetent and corrupt okay? So don't give me this 'us and
them' nonsense and absolve yourself of the blood lust you once had all those years ago on
September 11, 2001.
No, liberals were not for taking it out on the Afghan tribal peoples. We were for getting
those responsible, and sorry no, we didn't include the Afghan tribal people in on that too,
despite any sympathies some of them may have had for AQ.
We had no 'blood lust' and we don't believe in collective punishment.
Did you just say liberals "don't believe in collective punishment"? I'm gonna give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume you're not lock-step in support of the #BLM and Critical Race
Theory...
But your other point about liberals being anti-war is also flawed. Just connect the
foreign intervention (not just wars, but also funding to foreign opposition groups) with some
humanitarian urgency (think of those Afghan women!) and liberals have always advocated for
the same foreign policies than neoconservatives.
"...I'm sure both you Miss Vlahos and Miss Flournoy..."
It's been decades since I've seen the word "Miss" used in print - except when I write to
my granddaughter. In my profession, I write to women all the time, and although it used to be
that unmarried ones were quite accepting of - and indeed expecting to receive - missives from
me addressing them as such, I would be embarrassed to use that appellation when addressing
adult women today in a professional or unacquainted capacity. Now, I only use it for women
who wish it - old women, unmarried Catholic women and irascible old-school lesbians.
Ah, yes. Highly educated, multiple degrees, cultivated....and extremely dangerous. All of
that wonderful education dedicated to wanton killing and influence peddling. These people,
the hidden professionals of pull, are the most difficult to fight because unlike a politician
or a bureaucrat they are nearly invisible. She can only be effective if she is not seen. To
her, public exposure is toxic. So expose away! Make her name known to everyone.
"... The example of China, which operates under Confucian values and regards stable society as the highest good, is causing many in the world to rethink the idea of "democracy" and what that concept actually entails. As Chinese political scientist Zhang Weiwe has pointed out, in the US, the parties are "parties of interest" - whoever wins the vote gets to push the values of that interest, and the people represented by the losing party are simply outcast from the "democracy" until the next vote. He has a 5-minute clip in great English for those interested: The CPC is not a "party" ..."
Referring to China, you say "the 'people' have absolutely zero say in regard to what
the government/system actually does do."
This is absolutely not the case. The exact opposite is the true picture, ironically so,
since the Chinese government conducts more polls than any other entity on the planet. When
one studies China's system of government one learns how all that input from the people is
actually put to use, being scientifically (i.e. not politically) fed into the decision-making
process.
China's way of governing actually presents a measure of democracy, in terms of the voice
of the people being heard and acted upon, that is vastly greater than the so-called
democracies.
Godfree Roberts over at Unz Review is probably your simplest path to knowing this.
Searching his archive there will yield data-driven reports on how the Communist Party
actually works, how the President exercises power, what the Constitution dictates (and the
penalties for not following it), and how satisfied with their current government are the
Chinese people - who are not easy to please when it comes to governance, and who have a
history that shows they will rebel when they're not happy.
Today, Chinese democracy resembles Proctor and Gamble more than Pericles. There are more
than a thousand polling firms in China and its government spends prolifically on surveys,
as author Jeff J. Brown says, "My Beijing neighborhood committee and town hall are
constantly putting up announcements, inviting groups of people–renters, homeowners,
over seventies, women under forty, those with or without medical insurance,
retirees–to answer surveys. The CPC is the world's biggest pollster for a reason:
China's democratic 'dictatorship of the people' is highly engaged at the day-to-day,
citizen-on-the-street level. I know, because I live in a middle class Chinese community and
I question them all the time. I find their government much more responsive and democratic
than the dog-and-pony shows back home, and I mean that seriously".
Even the imperious Mao would remind colleagues, "If we don't investigate public
opinion we have no right to voice our own opinion. Public opinion is our guideline for
action," which is why Five Year Plans are the results of intensive polling. Citizens'
sixty-two percent voter participation suggests that they think their votes count.
It may be that this one article answers the question of democracy for the interested
reader, but likely one should read a few more to become convinced.
~~
The example of China, which operates under Confucian values and regards stable society as
the highest good, is causing many in the world to rethink the idea of "democracy" and what
that concept actually entails. As Chinese political scientist Zhang Weiwe has pointed out, in
the US, the parties are "parties of interest" - whoever wins the vote gets to push the values
of that interest, and the people represented by the losing party are simply outcast from the
"democracy" until the next vote. He has a 5-minute clip in great English for those
interested: The CPC is
not a "party"
China's government by contrast is a "party of all" and acts on behalf of no vested
interest but instead for the greatest benefit for the many.
To get a glimpse of how this works, read the March 2019 commentary on the two annual
governance sessions that decide ongoing policy for China, which supplies this acute
understanding of the true heart of representative governance:
"... The most interesting document of all is an intelligence assessment by DHS in the run up to the now famous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, which starkly contradicts the mainstream media and FBI's narrative. ..."
"... In a document dated August 9th, 2017, DHS wrote "We assess that anarchist extremists' use of violence as a means to oppose racism and white supremacist extremists' preparations to counterattack anarchist extremists are the principal drivers of violence at recent white supremacist rallies." ..."
"... Ideological uniformity is important in the FBI's relationship with local law enforcement, a flyer sent to law enforcement personnel in Texas shows. ..."
"... As Douglas Valentine points out, these fusion centers are Phoenix centers, which CIA developed in Vietnam to eradicate independent civil society. You can see the CIA mannerisms they teach the Junior Spy Cadets at the fusion center: pretend classmarks: (U//LES), Roger, Wilco, Over and Out! Breathless dumbshit cops get to use U just like real spies, but they don't get get collateral access and they have to make up little codes to try and blow off public records law. ..."
The Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC) reported
similar information in its investigation of the Boston Free Speech Rally on August 19th, 2017.
BRIC noted that the nationalist and free speech demonstrators, about 60 of them in total, had a
permit for the event, while the anarchist groups that showed up to heckle-veto them were there
illegally.
The leftist rioters began attacking the protesters, and later, began engaging in gratuitous
yet apparently coordinated violence against police officers attempting to intervene, causing
multiple injuries.
The most interesting document of all is an intelligence assessment by DHS in the run up to
the now famous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, which starkly contradicts the
mainstream media and FBI's narrative.
In a document
dated August 9th, 2017, DHS wrote "We
assess that anarchist extremists' use of violence as a means to oppose racism and white
supremacist extremists' preparations to counterattack anarchist extremists are the principal
drivers of violence at recent white supremacist rallies."
... ... ...
The close working relationship between mainstream social media companies, the FBI and "NGOs"
(the ADL and SPLC) is clear and assumed, adding a new layer of understanding when it comes to
tech censorship and the power of privately run organizations that are not subject general
ethics or government accountability.
Ideological uniformity is important in the FBI's relationship with local law enforcement, a
flyer sent to
law enforcement personnel in Texas shows.
The event, hosted by the FBI for local cops, featured lectures on "hate" (which is not a
crime) from a former member of the Westboro Baptist Church and the ex-lead singer of a skinhead
rock band. The conference was hosted in December 2017, so one can only imagine this
indoctrination has gotten more intense since then.
Ultimately, we can gather from these documents a climate of incompetence, rejection of facts
for political reasons, and a culture of selective prosecution. Those who post memes making fun
of the election are treated as conspirators against the Constitutional rights of others, while
anarchists who actively conspire in the open to do the same are rarely prosecuted by the
FBI.
The most disturbing aspect of all this is how groups like the Anti-Defamation League appear
to have more sway over the FBI's investigative priorities than intelligence provided to them by
local fusion centers.
It appears that in defense of their power, our elites are willing to do away with all
liberal pretenses and take on "emergency orders" that ultimately punishes peaceful dissent
while allowing real criminals to go free.
Law enforcement is fully aware of who provokes the fighting and rioting at riots: the
left. The documents from fusion centers across the country (intelligence provided by local
police departments) repeatedly report this.
But
Both the FBI and to a lesser extent the Department of Homeland Security are far more
concerned with political ideology and creating propaganda than upholding the law.
As Douglas Valentine points out, these fusion centers are Phoenix centers, which CIA
developed in Vietnam to eradicate independent civil society. You can see the CIA mannerisms
they teach the Junior Spy Cadets at the fusion center: pretend classmarks: (U//LES), Roger,
Wilco, Over and Out! Breathless dumbshit cops get to use U just like real spies, but they don't
get get collateral access and they have to make up little codes to try and blow off public
records law.
This is why when asshole cops strangle you, you can't complain to the city. CIA controls the
cops, not the city. This is most obvious in NYPD, with actual CIA secret police like Sanchez
and Cohen, arresting you like cops to facilitate illegal CIA domestic spying. DHS and FBI are
in there too, of course, fishing for dissent to repress but they're controlled by CIA focal
points.
So next time a pig kneels on your head you can't just burn down the precinct, you have to
burn down the CIA fusion center, and Langley too.
Aside from siccing cops on the latest internal enemies, CIA also uses fusion centers to
propagate the party line to cops, who will credulously swallow it and pass it on to show off
their double-secret spy connections. For instance, they circulated alt media disinfo claiming
KGB killed JFK. This happened to coincide with Unz and other bravura JFK coup exposes, and with
CIA's Russiagate fiasco.
"We assess that anarchist extremists' use of violence as a means to oppose racism and
white supremacist extremists' preparations to counterattack anarchist extremists are the
principal drivers of violence at recent white supremacist rallies."
Is there a bigger political statement than this? The anarchist extremists aren't opposing
racism, they are opposing the government(s). "White supremacist" is a pejorative label used to
discredit people's right to free assembly. Clearly, the only investigating the FBI does is on
whom it decides are political opponents.
I find it incredibly frustrating that all of this scandalous information is out there
confirming what we already knew to be true and yet these organizations, the media, and
especially elected officials continue on as if this isn't the case. It's vexing. Frustrating.
Enraging.
If this was a dictatorship, at least we could rage against that, but because it has the
words "democracy" slapped onto it, we are supposedly able to change things. And yet,
representative democracy has proven that nothing changes if the elites do not will it. It's
just a vile scheme by plutocrats to keep us in chains of our own imagination: "well, we voted
for this so I have to live with the results," no we didn't, and do we truly?
I think Solzhenitsyn would respectfully disagree on behalf of the 66 million Russian
Christians who were tortured, raped and slaughtered during 1917-1989, not to mention the
fourteen years he spent locked up in the gulags run by Jewish Communists.
Might also be a few Ukrainians who disagree with your assessment given the 11-17 million
murdered by Jewish Bolsheviks in the 1932 Holodomor, which to my knowledge is still the single
biggest genocide in human history.
Then we'd have a position of strength from which to force the end to Jewish occupation of
America – which is necessary before the rest of the world's gentile populations,
particularly Europe, can take similar action.
America freeing herself will be good for America, but not necessary for other nations. For
instance, Putin freed Russia from her oligarchs, the overwhelming majority of them Jewish, well
before America had shown any progress on this matter. Actually, Russia freed herself in
spite of America!
White man's welfare, they call it. They hold pigs in contempt just like everybody else. But
this is how CIA finds the eager beaver cops who'll break the law to suck up and play James Bond
with them.
That beaner psycho Sanchez blabbed CIA's real intention while he was illegally spying
undercover as a NYPD pig: they don't just want to solve crimes, they want to keep you from
committing crimes in the first place. They think it's their job to to keep you under control.
These drug-dealing, gun-running, money-laundering, kiddy-pimping criminal scumbags rule your
country because they can kill you and torture you and get away with it. Even if you're the
president. Your government is CIA, and CIA is a totalitarian state. Until you storm Langley
like the Germans stormed the Stasi, all your reforms and revolutions are worth shit.
Antifa members routinely cross state lines to violate the civil rights of those they
perceive as "fascists" yet the FBI does nothing. Since it's obvious the FBI is dominated by
partisan leftists who are either sympathetic with antifa (and BLM) or actively colluding them
them against pro-white and right of center groups engaged in lawful but politically incorrect
activity.
The FBI is clearly taking their marching orders from the ADL who's lobbied them for years to
take a more active and hostile stance towards the pro-white and anti-semitic right. But given
the leftist ideological proclivities of the average special agent and their superiors this
wasn't that hard of a sell.
The FBI declared that it would begin investigating memes posted on Twitter intended to
satirize low civic education by telling people to vote for Hillary Clinton via text message
as a "Conspiracy Against Rights Provided by the Constitution and Laws of the United
States"
Yet the FBI did absolutely nothing about the black panthers intimidating voters at a Philly
precinct in 2008. Their illegal actions were witnessed by several poll watchers yet the
Obama/Holder DOJ promptly dropped the charges upon taking office.
The FBI is awash in naked partisanship and corruption and should have at least 25% of its
funding cut and be barred from surveilling or infiltrating groups engaged in politically
incorrect but lawful activity. It's become an appendage of the Democrat party and radical left
wing establishment and should be treated as such.
You are both right. Soviet Communism was far more murderous and brutal, BUT the West faces a
greater crisis. After all, communism didn't wipe Russia off the map, and indeed, Russians began
to regain control and power after Stalin's death. Also, Stalin had done much to check Jewish
Power, and there was a kind of cultural conservatism in many walks of life.
@Levtraro to HIM and had City of London-Israeli financing. So what actually happened is
that the Jews, who had been ousted from power by Krushchev and Brezhnev in the post-ww2 era,
got back into positions of economic power in Russia. A position that, as I noted, they had
lost. This idea that Putin is a nationalist is simply not true. He is a Jew-boy lapdog who
takes his orders from Tel Aviv and London..
The Soviet economy has significant State ownership. Part of what Putin did was to put the oil
industry back into the hands of the State so the State would have the Revenues. Most countries
do this with Oil and Gas revenue. It is very popular and provides employment and desperately
needed money to pay the paltry pensions many Russians subside on.
Russia hasn't been free since 1917 and is still not free. To believe otherwise is to be blinded
by Eastern Jewish smoke and mirrors.
Chabbad is not having the time of its life in Russia. Neither are Zion uber alles like in
our Congress. It quite different in Russia. Russia has a bit more freedom that we do from Zion
uber alles.
For the eighth time this past decade, Russian authorities told a foreign Chabad rabbi
living in Russia to leave the country.
Josef Marozof, a New York-born rabbi who began working 12 years ago for Chabad in the city
of Ulyanovsk 400 miles east of Moscow, was ordered earlier this week to leave because the FSB
security service said he had been involved in unspecified "extremist behavior."
Danny Sjursen goes undercover in Trumplandia and comes back with this reflection on the U.S.
president's loss of loyalty among soldiers and veterans.
...As both the Covid-19 crisis and the
militarization of the police in the streets of American cities have made clear, the
imperial power that we veterans fought for abroad is the same one some of us are now struggling
against at home and the two couldn't be more intimately linked. Our struggle is, at least in
part, over who gets to define patriotism.
Should the sudden wave of military and veteran dissent keep rising, it will invariably crash
against the pageantry patriots of
Chickenhawk America who attended that Tulsa rally and we'll all face a new and critical
theater in this nation's culture wars. I don't pretend to know whether such protests will last
or military dissent will augur real change of any sort. What I do know is what my favorite rock
star, Bruce Springsteen, used to repeat before
live renditions of his song "Born to Run":
William H Warrick MD , July 10, 2020 at 13:21
oBOMBa destroyed the Anti-War Movement. When he got in the White House all of them began
going to Brunch instead of Peace/Anti-War marches.
"... Auten, identified by congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, never confirmed the most explosive allegations in the dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, cutting a number of corners in the verification process, Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz pointed out in his December report on FBI abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. ..."
The unnamed FBI "Supervisory Intelligence Analyst" cited by the Justice Department's watchdog for failing to properly vet the
so-called Steele dossier before it was used to justify spying on the Trump campaign teaches a class on the ethics of spying at a
small Washington-area college, records show.
The senior FBI analyst, Brian J. Auten, has taught the course
at Patrick Henry College since 2010, including the 11-month period in 2016 and 2017 when he and a counterintelligence team at FBI
headquarters electronically monitored an adviser to the Trump campaign based on false rumors from the dossier and forged evidence.
Auten, identified by congressional sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, never confirmed the most explosive allegations
in the dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, cutting a number of corners in the verification process,
Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz pointed out in his December report on FBI abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act.
By January 2017, the lead analyst had ample evidence the dossier was bogus. Auten could not get sources who provided information
to Steele to support the dossier's allegations during interviews. And collections from the wiretaps of Trump aide Carter Page failed
to reveal any confirmation of the claims. Auten even came across exculpatory evidence indicating Page was not the Russian asset the
dossier alleged, but was in fact a CIA asset helping the U.S. spy on Moscow.
Nonetheless, he and the FBI continued to use the Steele material as a basis for renewing their FISA monitoring of Page, who was
never charged with a crime.
Auten did not respond to requests for comment, and the FBI declined to comment.
In his report, Horowitz wrote that the analyst told his team of inspectors that he did not have any "pains or heartburn" over
the accuracy of the Steele reports. As for Steele's reliability as an FBI informant, Horowitz said, the analyst merely "speculated"
that his prior reporting was sound and did not see a need to "dig into" his handler's case file, which showed that past tips from
Steele had gone uncorroborated and were never used in court.
According to the IG report, Auten also wasn't concerned about Steele's anti-Trump bias or that his work was commissioned by Trump's
political opponent, calling the fact he worked for Hillary Clinton's campaign "immaterial." Perhaps most disturbing, the analyst
withheld the fact that Steele's main source disavowed key dossier allegations from a memo Auten prepared summarizing a meeting he
had with that source.
Auten appears to have violated his own stated "golden rule" for spying. A 15-year supervisor at the bureau, Auten has written
that he teaches students in his national security class at the Purcellville, Va., college that the FBI applies "the least intrusive
standard" when it considers surveilling U.S. citizens under investigation to avoid harm to "a subject's reputation, dignity and privacy."
At least three Senate oversight committees are seeking to question Auten about fact-checking lapses, as well as
"grossly inaccurate statements" he allegedly made to Horowitz, as part of the committee's investigation of the FBI's handling
of wiretap warrants the bureau first obtained during the heat of the 2016 presidential race.
FBI veterans worry Auten's numerous missteps signal a deeper rot within the bureau beyond top brass who appeared to have an animus
toward Donald Trump, such as former FBI Director James Comey and his deputy Andrew McCabe, as well as subordinates Lisa Page and
Peter Strzok. They fear these main players in the scandal enlisted group-thinking career officials like Auten to ensure an investigative
result.
"Anyone in his position has tremendous access to information and is well-positioned to manipulate information if he wanted to
do so," said Chris Swecker, a 24-year veteran of the FBI who served as assistant director of its criminal investigative division,
where he oversaw public corruption cases.
"Question is, was it deliberate manipulation or just rank incompetence?" he added. "How much was he influenced by McCabe, Page,
Strzok and other people we know had a deep inherent bias?"
Auten is a central, if overlooked, figure in the Horowitz report and the overall FISA abuse scandal, though his identity is hidden
in the 478-page IG report, which refers to him throughout only as "Supervisory Intelligence Analyst" or "Supervisory Intel Analyst."
In fact, the 51-year-old analyst shows up at every major juncture in the FISA application process.
Auten was assigned to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation from its opening in July 2016 and supervised its analytical efforts
throughout 2017. He played a key supportive role for the agents preparing the FISA applications, including reviewing the probable-cause
section of the applications and providing the agents with information about Steele's sub-sources noted in the applications. He also
helped prepare and review the renewal drafts.
Auten assisted the case agents in providing information on the reliability of Steele and his sources and reviewing for accuracy
their information cited in the body of the applications, as well as all the footnotes. His job was also to fill gaps in the FISA
application or bolster weak areas.
In addition, Auten personally met with Steele and his "primary sub-source," reportedly a Russian émigré living in the West, as
well as former MI6 colleagues of Steele. He also met with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and processed the dirt Ohr fed the
FBI from Glenn Simpson, the political opposition research contractor who hired Steele to compile the anti-Trump dossier on behalf
of the Clinton campaign.
Auten was involved in the January 2017 investigation of then-Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, according to internal
emails sent by then-FBI counterintelligence official Strzok.
What's more, the analyst helped draft a summary of the dossier attached to the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment
on Russian interference, which described Steele as "reliable." Other intelligence analysts argued against incorporating the dossier
allegations -- including rumors about potentially compromising sexual material -- in the body of the report because they viewed them
as "internet rumor."
According to the IG report, "The Supervisory Intel Analyst was one of the FBI's leading experts on Russia." Auten wrote a
book on the Russian
nuclear threat during the Cold War, and has taught graduate courses about U.S. and Russian nuclear strategy.
Still, he could not corroborate any of the allegations of Russian "collusion" in the dossier, which he nonetheless referred to
as "Crown material," as if it were intelligence from America's closest ally, Britain.
To the contrary, "According to the Supervisory Intel Analyst, the FBI ultimately determined that some of the allegations contained
in Steele's election reporting were inaccurate," the IG report revealed. Yet the analyst and the case agents he supported continued
to rely on his dossier to obtain the warrants to spy on Page -- and by extension, potentially the Trump campaign and presidency --
through incidental collections of emails, text messages and intercepted phone calls.
Steele Got the Benefit of the Doubt
According to the IG report , the supervisory
intelligence analyst not only failed to corroborate the Steele dossier, but gave Steele the benefit of the doubt every time sources
or developments called into question the reliability of his information or his own credibility. In many cases, he acted more as an
advocate than a fact-checker, while turning a blind eye to the dossier's red flags. Examples:
When a top Justice national security lawyer initially blocked the Crossfire team's attempts to obtain a FISA warrant, Auten
proactively turned to the dossier to try to push the case over the line. In an email to FBI lawyers, he forwarded an unsubstantiated
claim from Steele's Report 94 that Page secretly met with a Kremlin-tied official in July 2016, and asked, "Does this put us at
least *that* much closer to a full FISA on [Carter Page]?" (Emphasis in original).
Even though internal FBI emails reveal Auten knew Steele was working for the Clinton campaign by early January 2017, he did
not share this information with the Justice lawyer or the FISA court before helping agents reapply for warrants. He told the IG
he viewed the potential for political influences on the Steele reporting as "immaterial."
While most of Steele's past reporting as an informant for the FBI had not been corroborated and had never been used in a criminal
proceeding, including his work for an international soccer corruption investigation, Auten wrote that it had in fact been "corroborated
and used in criminal proceedings." His language made it into the FISA renewal applications to help convince the court Steele was
still reliable, despite his leaking the FBI's investigation to media outlet Mother Jones in late October 2016. Auten had merely
"speculated" that Steele's prior reporting was sound without reviewing an internal file documenting his track record.
Auten's notes from a meeting with Steele in early October 2016 reveal that Steele described one of his main dossier sources
-- identified in the IG report only as "Person 1," but believed to be Belarusian-American realtor Sergei Millian -- as a "boaster"
who "may engage in some embellishment." Yet the IG report noted the analyst "did not provide this description of Person 1 for
inclusion in the Carter Page FISA applications despite relying on Person 1's information to establish probable cause in the applications."
Auten failed to disclose to the FISA court negative feedback from British intelligence service colleagues of Steele. They
told Auten during a visit he made to London in December 2016 that Steele exercised "poor judgment" and pursued as sources "people
with political risk but no intel value," the IG report said.
In January 2017, Steele's primary sub-source told Auten that Steele "misstated or exaggerated" information he conveyed to
him in multiple sections of the dossier, according to a lengthy summary of the interview by the analyst. For instance, Steele
claimed that Kremlin-tied figures offered Page a bribe worth as much as $10 billion in return for lifting U.S. economic sanctions
on Russia. "We reviewed the texts [between Steele and the source] and did not find any discussion of a bribe," the IG report found.
Still, Auten let the rumor bleed into the FISA applications.
The primary sub-source also told the analyst he did not recall any discussion or mention of WikiLeaks conspiring with Moscow
to publish hacked Democratic National Committee emails, or that the Russian leadership and the Trump campaign had a "well-developed
conspiracy of cooperation," as described by Steele in his Report 95. The primary sub-source "did not describe a 'conspiracy' between
Russia and individuals associated with the Trump campaign or state that Carter Page served as an 'intermediary' between [the campaign]
and the Russian government," the IG found. Yet "all four Carter Page FISA applications relied on Report 95 to support probable
cause."
In addition, Auten's summary of the primary sub-source cast doubt on the dossier's allegation that the disclosure of DNC emails
to WikiLeaks was made in exchange for a GOP convention platform change regarding Ukraine. Yet this unsubstantiated rumor also
found its way into the applications. Confronted by Horowitz's investigators about all the discrepancies, the analyst offered excuses
for Steele. He said that while it was possible that Steele exaggerated or misrepresented information he received from the source,
it was also possible the source was lying to the FBI.
Even though the primary sub-source's account contradicted the allegations in Steele's reporting, the supervisory intel analyst
said he did not have any "pains or heartburn" about the accuracy of the Steele reporting.
Auten didn't try to get to the bottom of discrepancies between Steele and his sources until two months after the third and
final renewal application was filed. The analyst's September 2017 interview with Steele revealed clear bias against Trump. According
to the FBI's FD-302 summary of the interview, Steele and his London business partner, Christopher Burrows, who was also present,
described Trump as their "main opponent" and said that they were "fearful" about the negative impact of the Trump presidency on
the relationship between the United States and Britain.
The analyst also appeared to mislead, or at least misinform, the FBI's counterintelligence chief, Bill Priestap, by omitting
the primary sub-source's claim that Steele "exaggerated" much of the information in the dossier. In late February 2017, Auten
sent a two-page memo to Priestap briefing him about his meeting with the source, "but the memorandum did not describe the inconsistencies,"
the IG report noted.
Finally, recently declassified footnotes in the IG report directly contradict statements provided by Auten in the IG report
concerning the potential for Russian disinformation infiltrating Steele's reporting. The analyst told Horowitz's team that "he
had no information as of June 2017 that Steele's election reporting source network had been penetrated or compromised [by Russian
intelligence]." Yet, in January 2017, the FBI received a report that some of Steele's reporting "was part of a Russian disinformation
campaign" and in February 2017, the FBI received a second report that another part of Steele's reporting was "the product of [Russian
Intelligence Services] infiltrat[ing] a source into the network."
Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley
recently questioned the analyst's candor and integrity in a
letter to the FBI. "We are deeply troubled by the grossly inaccurate statements by the supervisory intelligence analyst," they
wrote.
The powerful senators have asked the FBI to provide additional records shedding light on what the analyst and other officials
knew about Russian disinformation as they were drafting the FISA applications.
Meanwhile, Auten's name appears on a
list of witnesses Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham recently gained authorization to subpoena to testify before
his own panel investigating the FISA abuse scandal. Graham intends to focus on the investigators, including the lead analyst, who
interviewed Steele's primary sub-source in January 2017 and discovered the Steele allegations were nothing more than "bar talk,"
as Graham put it in a recent interview, and should never have been used to get a warrant in the first place, to say nothing of renewing
the warrant.
In a Dec. 6 letter to Horowitz, FBI Director
Christopher Wray informed the inspector general he had put every employee involved in the 2016-2017 FISA application process through
"additional training in ethics." The mandatory training included "an emphasis on privacy and civil liberties."
Wray also assured Horowitz that he was conducting a review of all FBI personnel who had responsibility for the preparation of
the FISA warrant applications and would take any appropriate action to deal with them.
It's not immediately known if Auten has undergone such a review or has completed the required ethics training. The FBI declined
comment.
"That analyst needs to be investigated internally," Swecker said.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Auten appears to have violated the ethics training he provides his students at Patrick Henry College.
"When I teach the topic of national security investigations to undergraduates, we cover micro-proportionality, discrimination,
and the 'least intrusive standard' via a tweaked version of the Golden Rule -- namely, if you were being investigated for a national
security issue but you knew yourself to be completely innocent, how would you want someone to investigate you?" Auten wrote in a
September 2016
article
in Providence magazine, headlined "Just Intelligence, Just Surveillance & the Least Intrusive Standard."
He wrote the six-page paper to answer the question: "Is an intelligence operation, national security investigation or act of surveillance
being initiated under the proper authorities for the right purposes? Will an intelligence operation, national security investigation
or act of surveillance achieve the good it is meant to? And, in the end, will the expected good be overwhelmed by the resulting harm
or damage arising out of the planned operation, investigation or surveillance act?"
"National security investigations are not ethics-free," he asserted, advising that a federal investigator should never forget
that "the intrusiveness or invasiveness of his tactics places a subject's reputation, dignity and privacy at risk and has the ability
to cause harm."
At the same time, Auten said more intrusive methods such as electronic eavesdropping may be justified -- "If it is judged that
the threat is severe or the targeted foreign intelligence is of key importance to U.S. interest or survival." National security "may
necessitate collection based on little more than suspicion." In these cases, he reasoned, the harm to the individual is outweighed
by the benefit to society.
"Surveillance is not life-threatening to the surveilled," he said.
However, Page, a U.S. citizen, told RealClearInvestigations that he received "numerous death threats" from people who believed
he was a "traitor," based on leaks to the media that the FBI suspected he was a Russian agent who conspired with the Kremlin to interfere
in the 2016 election.
Auten also rationalized the risk of "incidental" surveillance of non-targeted individuals, writing: "If the particular act of
surveillance is legitimately authorized, and the non-liable subject has not been intentionally targeted, any incidental surveillance
of the non-liable subject would be morally licit."
A member of the International Intelligence Ethics Association, Auten has lectured since 2010 on "intelligence and statecraft"
at Patrick Henry College, where he is an adjunct professor . He
also sits on the college's Strategic Intelligence Advisory Board.
FBI veterans say the analyst's lack of rigor raises alarms.
"I worked with intel analysts all the time working counterintelligence investigations," said former FBI Special Agent Michael
Biasello, a 25-year veteran of the FBI who spent 10 years in counterintelligence. "This analyst's work product was shoddy, and inasmuch
as these FISA affidavits concerned a presidential campaign, the information he provided [to agents] should have been pristine."
He suspects Auten was "hand-picked" by Comey or McCabe to work on the sensitive Trump case, which was tightly controlled within
FBI headquarters.
"The Supervisory Intel Analyst must be held accountable now, particularly where his actions were intentional, along with anyone
who touched those fraudulent [FISA] affidavits," Biasello said.
When Colin Powell of all people has to appear on MSNBC to slam
fake reporting you know mainstream media has lost the plot.
In a rare moment, the former Secretary of State under Bush slammed the wall-to-wall coverage
of the Russian bounties in Afghanistan story as "almost hysterical" . It's all the more awkard
for MSNBC, which had him on the network Thursday to talk about it, given he's one of those
'never Trump' Bush-era officials, who despite a legacy of having fed the world lie after lie to
invade Iraq, has since been given "resistance hero" status among liberals.
Describing that military commanders on the ground didn't give credence to The New York Times
claim that Russia's GRU was paying Taliban and other militants to kill American soldiers,
Powell said the media "got kind of out of control" in the first days after the initial report
weeks ago.
"I know that our military commanders on the ground did not think that it was as serious a
problem as the newspapers were reporting and television was reporting," Powell told MSNBC's
Andrea Mitchell. "It got kind of out of control before we really had an understanding of what
had happened. I'm not sure we fully understand now."
"It's our commanders who are going to go deal with this kind of a threat, using intelligence
given to them by the intelligence community," Powell continued. "But that has to be analyzed.
It has to be attested. And then you have to go find out who the enemy is. And I think we were
on top of that one, but it just got almost hysterical in the first few days."
He also deflated the ongoing manufactured atmosphere which seeks to maintain a perpetual
Washington hawkish position vis-a-vis Moscow, based on perceived "Russian aggression".
"I don't think we're in a position to go to war with the Russians," Powell said. "I know Mr.
Putin rather well. He's just figuring out a way to stay in power until 2036. The last thing
he's looking for is a war, and the last thing he's looking for is a war with the United States
of America."
I've been reading The Hidden Injuries of Class which leads me to believe that the
prospects for Trump are better than many of you think they are. However, the future of a
further Trump administration seems direly unpredictable, whereas Biden-Rice (my guess) will
try to bring back the good old days -- didn't B. say 'nothing will change'? In the spirit of
looking for my keys under the streetlight where I can see, rather than in the dark where I
probably dropped them, I've been trying to think about the trajectory of this very
conservative team in the midst of what I think will turn out to be a fairly catastrophic,
fairly rapid set of changes. Some things that seem to be evading a lot of people's calculus
here are Biden-Rice's continued devotion to warmongering and imperialism, which I think might
actually have consequences even if it's intended only as political claptrap; I expect as well
the continued production of funny money to inflate asset prices -- these impinge on the poor
through rents. When the poor are evicted, where will they go? Into the streets. There are
some unanswered questions here for students of Biden and Company.
"Let's take Biden. What does it mean to vote for Joe Biden? He has this kind of goofy
persona which some people find charming. What is Biden's record? What is a person voting for
if they back Biden on Election Day 2020?
The humiliation of courageous women like Anita Hill who confronted her abuser. You vote
for the architects of endless war. You vote for the apartheid state in Israel. Biden supports
those things. With Biden you are voting for wholesale surveillance by the government,
including the abolition of due process and habeas corpus. You vote for austerity programs.
You vote for the destruction of welfare. That was Biden. You vote for cuts to Social
Security, which he has repeatedly called for cutting, along with Medicaid. You vote for
NAFTA, you vote for "free trade" deals. If you vote for Biden, you are voting for a real
decline in wages and the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs.
With Biden you are also voting for the assault on public education and the transfer of
federal funds to Christian "charter schools." With Biden you are voting for more than a
doubling of the prison population. With Biden you are voting for the militarized police and
against the Green New Deal.
You are also voting to limit a woman's right to abortion and reproductive rights. You are
voting for a segregated public school system. With Biden you are voting for punitive levels
of student debt and the inability of people to free themselves of that debt through
bankruptcy. A vote for Biden is a vote for deregulating banking and finance. Biden also
supports for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.
A vote for Biden is also a vote against the possibility of universal health care. You vote
for Biden and you are supporting huge, wasteful and bloated defense budgets. Biden also
supports unlimited oligarchic and corporate money to buy the elections.
That's what you're voting for.
A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for more of the same. The ruling elites would prefer Joe
Biden, just like they preferred Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump is vulgar and an embarrassment.
But the ruling elites also made it abundantly clear about their interests: Many of these
people were quoted by name saying that if Bernie Sanders was the nominee -- or even Elizabeth
Warren -- they would vote for Donald Trump."
People vote their resentments as much as their wallets. Dems are fighting to create voting
block that will lead them to the victory. In the past (and in some countries who updated the
applicable definitions, still), the most relevant additional class was the petty bourgeoisie; in
the modern US, however, the concept of the professional-managerial class is the most useful frame
of reference as for the base of neoliberal Democrats.
People who think the Democratic Party is responsive to the concerns or interests of the poor
and working classes are delusional, full stop. The Democrats are neoliberal sellouts to the
financial oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will not" be covered over the course of the campaign. And -- since race is an issue on which they feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives as ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought -- the Dems are using their media clout to make race the main topic of debate. ..."
"... Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made any attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into the Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the country, shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian nightmare. ..."
"... They are also the policies that have given rise to, what the pundits call, "right wing populism" which refers to the growing number of marginalized working people who despise Washington and career politicians, feel anxious about falling wages and dramatic demographic changes, and resent the prevailing liberal culture that scorns their religion and patriotism. ..."
"... This is Trump's mainly-white base, the working people the Democrats threw under the bus 30 years ago and now want to annihilate completely by deepening political polarization, fueling social unrest, pitting one group against another, and viciously vilifying them in the media as ignorant racists whose traditions, culture, customs and even history must be obliterated to make room for the new diversity world order. ..."
"... "Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities." ..."
The answer is "not always" due to existence of "What's the matter with Kansas" effect.
People can and do vote against their economic interests, although this is more common for
lower strata of population than for the elite.
This is the essence of the current play by the Neoliberal Democrats. Mike Whitney pointed
out that their support of black population is just a tactical trick:
The protests are largely a diversion aimed at shifting the public's attention to a
racialized narrative that obfuscates the widening inequality chasm (created by the
Democrats biggest donors, the Giant Corporations and Wall Street) to historic antagonisms
that have clearly diminished over time. (Racism ain't what it used to be.)
The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will
not" be covered over the course of the campaign. And -- since race is an issue on which
they feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives
as ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought -- the Dems are using their media clout to
make race the main topic of debate.
In short, the Democrats have settled on a strategy for quashing the emerging populist
revolt that swept Trump into the White House in 2016 and derailed Hillary's ambitious grab
for presidential power.
The plan, however, does have its shortcomings
Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made
any attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into
the Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross
imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies
including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down
economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama
as they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the
country, shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian
nightmare.
They are also the policies that have given rise to, what the pundits call, "right
wing populism" which refers to the growing number of marginalized working people who
despise Washington and career politicians, feel anxious about falling wages and dramatic
demographic changes, and resent the prevailing liberal culture that scorns their religion
and patriotism.
This is Trump's mainly-white base, the working people the Democrats threw under the
bus 30 years ago and now want to annihilate completely by deepening political polarization,
fueling social unrest, pitting one group against another, and viciously vilifying them in
the media as ignorant racists whose traditions, culture, customs and even history must be
obliterated to make room for the new diversity world order. Trump touched on this
theme in a speech he delivered in Tulsa. He said:
"Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our
heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear
down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of
violent crime in our cities."
He than went off the rail, but still the part of his analysis reproduced above looks
pretty prescient.
"... Whoever gets elected will certainly affect details of how the ship sinks ..."
"... I have come to hate the Maoist/Jacobin scum today referred to as "The Left". I want Trump to get a second term because it will cause my enemies to suffer. ..."
"... The real question in dire need of asking is: Do the Next 10 Presidential Elections Even Matter? And the answer remains: not a dime's worth of difference. "We the People" will continue to witness the same electoral circus complete with its fake debates as our elite's addiction to war will be craving its habitual fix. "We the People" are too stupefied and mired in our own addictions to cell phones and other mind numbing gadgets while being fed a steady diet of lies by the MSM. Our awakening is too remote for us to take back our country. ..."
"... Once again, talk is cheap. Why would the "deep state" "hate" him so much? Did he investigate 9/11? Did he end any wars, or pull out of NATO, or improve relations with Russia and/or China, or cut aid to Israel, etc.? No. ..."
"... I think there are some key differences here on what could take shape. If Biden wins, the Republicans can put down the Trump saga as a regrettable mistake and go back to being the boring old Jen Bush party moaning about lowering taxes for the rich and abortion. ..."
"... However if Trump wins, the Republicans will have to acknowledge that people support Trumpism and will have to start re orientating the party towards Trumpian Populism in future elections as they will realize that it is a permanent vote winner. ..."
"... One of guys on The Duran said that the politicians on the Left and Right don't care about Black Lives Matter, the statues, history, gender wars, gay this/LGXYZ that, the culture wars. That doesn't really concern them; they'll just let the sheeple fight it out. ..."
"... What they DO care about is their corporate masters, the people they are really beholden to. As long as their masters continue to make money and the culture wars don't disturb that, then all is well. ..."
The fact is that for the past four years the US liberals have waged a total informational war against Trump and it would be absolutely
unthinkable for them to ever accept a Trump re-election, even if he wins by a landslide. For the US Dems and neo-liberals, Trump
is the personification of evil, literally, and that means that "resistance" to him and everything he represents must be total. And
if he is re-elected, then there is only one possible explanation: the Russians stole the election, or the Chinese did. But the notion
that Trump has the support of a majority of people is literally unthinkable for these folks.
Truth be told, Trump has proven to be a fantastically incompetent President, no doubt about that. Was he even worse than Obama?
Maybe, it really all depends on your scoring system. In my personal opinion, and for all his very real sins and failings, Trump,
at least, did not start a major war, which Obama did, and which Hillary would have done (can't prove this, but that is my personal
belief). That by itself, and totally irrespective of anything else, makes me believe that Trump has been a "lesser evil" (even if
far more ridiculous) President than Obama has been or Hillary would have been. This is what I believed four years ago and this is
what I still believe: considering how dangerous for the entire planet "President Hillary" would have been, voting for Trump was not
only the only logical thing to do, it was the only moral one too because giving your voice to a warmongering narcissistic hyena like
Hillary is a profoundly immoral act (yes, I know, Trump is also a narcissist – most politicians are! – but at least his warmongering
has been all hot air and empty threats, at least so far). However, I don't think that this (not having started a major war) will
be enough to get Trump re-elected.
Why?
Because most Americans still like wars. In fact, they absolutely love them. Unless, of course, they lose. What Americans really
want is a President who can win wars, not a President who does not initiate them in the first place. This is also the most likely
reason why Trump did not start any major wars: the US has not won a real war in decades and, instead, it got whipped in every conflict
it started. Americans hate losing wars, and that is why Trump did not launch any wars: it would have been political suicide to start
a real war against, say, the DPRK or Iran. So while I am grateful that Trump did not start any wars, I am not naive to the point
of believing that he did so for pure and noble motives. Give Trump an easy victory and he will do exactly what all US Presidents
have done in the past: attack, beat up the little guy, and then be considered like a "wartime President hero" by most Americans.
The problem is that there are no more "little guys" left out there: only countries who can, and will, defend themselves if attacked.
The ideology of messianic imperialism which permeates the US political culture is still extremely powerful and deep seated and
it will take years, probably decades, to truly flush it down to where it belongs: to the proverbial trash-heaps of history. Besides,
in 2020 Americans have much bigger concerns than war vs. peace – at least that is what most of them believe. Between the Covid19
pandemic and the catastrophic collapse of the economy (of course, while the former certainly has contributed to the latter, it did
not single-handedly cause it) and now the BLM insurgency, most Americans now feel personally threatened – something which no wars
of the past ever did (a war against Russia very much would, but most Americans don't realize that, since nobody explains this to
them; they also tend to believe that nonsense about the US military being the best and most capable in history).
Following four years of uninterrupted flagwaving and MAGA-chanting there is, of course, a hardcore of true believers who believe
that Trump is nothing short of brilliant and that he will "kick ass" everything and everybody: from the spying Russians, to the rioting
Blacks, from the pandemic, to the lying media, etc. The fact that in reality Trump pitifully failed to get anything truly important
done is completely lost on these folks who live in a reality they created for themselves and in which any and all facts contradicting
their certitudes are simply explained away by silly stuff like "Q-anon" or "5d chess". Others, of course, will realize that Trump
"deflated" before those whom he called "the swamp" almost as soon as he got into the White House.
As for the almighty Israel Lobby, it seems to me that it squeezed all it could from Trump who, from the point of view of the Zionists,
was always a "disposable President" anyway. And now that Trump has done everything Israel wanted him to do, he becomes almost useless.
If anything, Pelosi, Schumer and the rest of them will try to outdo Trump's love for everything Israeli anyway.
So how much support is there behind Trump today? I really don't know (don't trust the polls, which have always been deeply wrong
about Trump anyway), but I think that there is definitely a constituency of truly frightened Americans who are freaking out (as they
should, considering the rapid collapse of the country) and who might vote Trump just because they will feel that for all his faults,
he is the only one who can save the country. Conversely, they will see Biden as a pro-BLM geriatric puppet who will hand the keys
of the White House to a toxic coalition of minorities.
So what if Trump does get re-elected?
In truth, the situation is so complex and there are so many variables (including many "unknown unknowns"!) that make predictions
impossible. Still, we can try to make some educated guesses, especially if based on some kind of logic such as the one which says
that "past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior". In other words, if Trump gets elected, we will get more of the same.
Personally, I would characterize this "same" as a further destruction of the US from within by the Democrats and their "coalition
of minorities" combined with a further destruction of the US Empire abroad by delusional Republicans.
I very much doubt that it makes any sense at all to vote for that, really. Better stay at home and do something worthwhile with
your time, no?
Now what about a Biden election?
Remember that Biden is now the de-facto leader of what I would loosely call the "anti-US coalition", that is the "coalition of
minorities" which really have nothing in common except their hatred of the established order (well, and, of course, their hatred
of Trump and of those who voted for him).
These minorities are very good at hating and destroying, but don't count on them to ever come up with constructive solutions –
it ain't gonna happen. For one thing, they are probably too stupid to come up with any constructive ideas, but even more important
is the fact that these folks all have a hyper-narrow agenda and, simply put, they don't care about "constructing" anything. These
folks are all about hatred and the instant gratification of their narrow, one-topic, agenda.
This also begs the question of why the Dems decided to go with Biden in spite of the fact that he is clearly an extremely weak
candidate. In spite? I am not so sure at all. I think that they chose him because he is so weak: the real power behind him will be
in the hands of the Schumer-Pelosi-Obama gang and of the interests these folks represent.
Unlike Trump who prostituted himself only after making it to the White House, the neo-liberal Dems have *already* prostituted
themselves to everybody who wanted to give them something in return, from the Ukie Nazis to the thugs of BLM, to the powerful US
homo-lobby. Don't expect them to show any spine, or even less so, love for the USA, if they get the White House. They hate this country
and most of its people and they are not shy about it.
What would happen to the US if the likes of Bloomberg or Harris took control? First, there would be the comprehensive surrender
to the various minorities which put these folks in power followed by a very strong blowback from all the "deplorables" ranging from
protests and civil disobedience, to local authorities refusing to take orders from the feds. Like it or not, but most Americans still
love their country and loathe the kind of pseudo-liberal ideology which has been imposed upon them by the joint actions of the US
deep state and the corporate world. There is even a strong probability that if Biden gets elected the USA's disintegration would
only accelerate.
On the international front, a Biden Presidency would not solve any of the problems created by Obama and Trump: by now it is way
too late and the damage done to the international reputation of the United States is irreparable. If anything, the Dems will only
make it worse by engaging in even more threats, sanctions and wars. Specifically, the Demolicans hate Russia, China and Iran probably
even more than the Republicrats. Besides, these countries have already concluded a long time ago that the US was "not agreement capable"
anyway (just look at the long list of international treaties and organization from which the US under Trump has withdrawn: what is
the point of negotiating anything with a power which systematically reneges on its promises and obligations?)
The truth is that if Biden gets elected, the US will continue to fall apart internally and externally, if anything, probably even
faster than under a re-elected Trump.
Which brings me to my main conclusion:
Why do we even bother having elections?
First, I don't think that the main role of a democracy is to protect minorities from majorities. A true democracy protects the
majority against the many minorities which typically have a one-issue agenda and which are typically hostile to the values of the
majority . Oh sure, minority rights should be protected, the question is how exactly?
For one thing, most states have some kind of constitution/basic law which sets a number of standards which cannot be violated
as long as this constitution/basic law is in force. Furthermore, in most states which call themselves democratic all citizens have
the same rights and obligations, and a minority status does not give anybody any special rights or privileges. Typically, there are
also fundamental international standards for human rights and fundamental national standards for civil rights. Minority rights (individual
or collective), however, are not typically considered a separate category which somehow trumps or supplements adopted norms for human
and civil rights (if only because it creates a special "minority" category, whereas in true "people power" all citizens are considered
as one entity).
It is quite obvious that neither the Republicrats nor the Demolicans represent the interests of "we the people" and that both
factions of the US plutocracy are under the total control of behind-the-scenes real powers. What happened four years ago was a colossal
miscalculation of these behind-the-scenes real powers who failed to realize how hated they were and how even a guy like Trump would
seem preferable to a nightmare like Hillary (as we know, had the Dems chosen Sanders or even some other halfway lame candidate, Trump
would probably not have prevailed).
This is why I submit that the next election will make absolutely no difference:
The US system is rigged to give all the power to minorities and to completely ignore the will of the people The choice between the
Demolicans and the Republicrats is not a choice at all The systemic crisis of the US is too deep to be affected by who is in power
in the White House
Simply put, and unlike the case of 2016, the outcome of the 2020 election will make no difference at all. Caring about who the
next puppet in the White House will be is tantamount to voting for a new captain while the Titanic is sinking . The major difference
is that the Titanic sank in very deep water whereas the "ship USA" will sink in the shallows, meaning that the US will not completely
disappear: in some form or another, it will survive either as a unitary state or as a number of successor states. The Empire, however,
has no chance of survival at all. Thus, anything which contributes to make the US a "normal" country and which weakens the Empire
is in the interests of the people of the USA. Voting for either one of the candidates this fall will only prolong the agony of the
current political regime in the USA.
The truth is that if Biden gets elected, the US will continue to fall apart internally and externally, if anything, probably
even faster than under a re-elected Trump.
This observation suggests that one should vote for Biden if one votes at all. Perhaps if one is going to the election because
there's a particularly crucial vote for county board of supervisors candidates (very important, by the way) and you happen to
be at the polls anyway, the fastest way to further the process of saying good riddance to the American empire is to vote for Joe
Biden.
Whoever gets elected will certainly affect details of how the ship sinks. Two consecutive elections with Gerontocrats. Neither
of the two nominally different parties has a very deep roster evidenced by the poverty of options they have been putting forward.
Given his decline, I don't expect Biden to have a long presidency if he survives to officially get the nomination.
Unless ur a 100% reprehensible crack head, go vote for Dumbo J Trump.
He is awful, he is beaten, he is an Israel sellout.
But the other side will kill you.
If Biden wins, the emboldened mob will come to your home to kill you. If you call the police, they won't come and they won't
investigate your rape/torture/death. If you defend yourself, you will be arrested and prosecuted. The media will deny it is happening
and also say that you deserved it.
I have come to hate the Maoist/Jacobin scum today referred to as "The Left". I want Trump to get a second term because it will
cause my enemies to suffer.
In rural Counties (Red America) an elected Sheriff is the chief local law officer. Watch for coalitions of Counties,
within or across State lines, demanding secession or limited autonomy. The only way forward for sane Americans is to remove themselves
from Woke jurisdictions. The election won't change that. But I will vote for Orange Man anyway. Just for spite!
The real question in dire need of asking is: Do the Next 10 Presidential Elections Even Matter? And the answer remains: not
a dime's worth of difference. "We the People" will continue to witness the same electoral circus complete with its fake debates
as our elite's addiction to war will be craving its habitual fix. "We the People" are too stupefied and mired in our own addictions
to cell phones and other mind numbing gadgets while being fed a steady diet of lies by the MSM. Our awakening is too remote for
us to take back our country.
"Just by asking the question of whether the next Presidential election matters, I am obviously suggesting that it might
not. To explain my reasons for this opinion, I need to reset the upcoming election in the context of the previous one. So let's
begin here."
Would the U.S. Navy have launched a cruise missile attack against the Shayrat airbase in Syria if Trump didn't order it? Would
Gen. Solemani have been assassinated if Trump didn't order it? Of course the next presidential election "matters" if we have one,
that is.
Now that the constitution and the rule of law are defunct and all power has been de facto consolidated into the office of president,
whether we have WW3 or not (for example) depends almost exclusively on the character of the person in the White House.
"The first thing which, I believe, ought to be self-evident to all by now is that there was no secret operation by any deep
state, not even a Zionist controlled one, to put Donald Trump in power."
Seriously? So why did Comey undermine Clinton's campaign and why didn't Obama fire him for it? And why did Obama attack the
Syrian Army at Deir Ezzor in Sept. 2016, an act that greatly escalated tensions with Russia and apparently scared some Sanders
supporters into Trump's camp, giving Trump a narrow margin of victory in three key states which put him in the White House? Because
shit happens?
"I would even argue that the election of Donald Trump was the biggest slap in the face of US deep state and of the covert
transnational ruling elites this deep state serves. Ever."
I would argue that you've been fooled. If that were actually the case, they would've impeached and removed him, right? Or they
would've deployed a lone nut against him. Or he would've at least encountered some kind of meaningful political or legal opposition.
"My evidence? Simple, look what these ruling 'elites' did both before and after Trump's election: before, they ridiculed
the very idea of 'President Trump' as both utterly impossible and utterly evil."
Talk is cheap. How come they didn't seem to have a problem with his war crimes in Syria; or his moving the embassy to Jerusalem;
or his attempts to start a war with Iran; or his trade war with China; or his attempt to starve Venezuela into submission; or
his arming of Ukraine; or his withdrawal from the INF treaty; etc,?
"As somebody who has had years of experience reading the Soviet press or, in another style, the French press, I can honestly
say that I have never seen a more ridiculously outlandish hate campaign against anybody that would come even close to the kind
of total hate campaign which Trump was subjected to."
Once again, talk is cheap. Why would the "deep state" "hate" him so much? Did he investigate 9/11? Did he end any wars, or
pull out of NATO, or improve relations with Russia and/or China, or cut aid to Israel, etc.? No.
But let's say for the sake of argument that "they" really do "hate" him for some reason. So what? That doesn't mean that they
don't want him as president, right? If they really do hate him then he may be just the person they need.
@Diversity
Heretic ruits of financial empire. The Boomers are still the biggest demographic in the US. Starting in the 1980s onward,
they established portfolio systems that extracted wealth via the US's world reserve currency status.
This marks the unholy covenant made by Wall Street and middle class Boomers. The Boomers are dying off, and taking the US Empire
with it into the afterlife. The younger generation won't receive a nickel, and that's likely a good thing in the long term. But
Trump and Sanders still can't make aggressive economic reform while America is still dominated by "The United States of Boomer."
They can only pave the road for reform and future leaders to lead the charge.
I have come to hate the Maoist/Jacobin scum today referred to as "The Left". I want Trump to get a second term because it
will cause my enemies to suffer.
I agree. MORALE COUNTS. Data geeks don't understand this. Political watchers don't understand this. People who analyze the
number of tanks and guns don't understand this.
Morale wins wars. We need to defy the Left any way we can. A Trump win will be spit in their eyes. It will put some fighting spirit
into our side.
These minorities are very good at hating and destroying, but don't count on them to ever come up with constructive solutions
– it ain't gonna happen. For one thing, they are probably too stupid to come up with any constructive ideas, These folks are
all about hatred and the instant gratification of their narrow, one-topic, agenda.
I don't know about that, I think Alastair Crooke, may be closer to the mark with his conclusion.
The "toy radicals, and Champagne Bolsheviks" – in these terms of dripping disdain from Williamson – are very similar to
those who rushed into the streets in 1917. But before dismissing them so peremptorily and lightly, recall what occurred.
Into that combustible mass of youth – so acultured by their progressive parents to see a Russian past that was imperfect
and darkly stained – a Trotsky and Lenin were inserted. And Stalin ensued. No 'toy radicals'. Soft became hard totalitarianism.
I think there are some key differences here on what could take shape. If Biden wins, the Republicans can put down the Trump
saga as a regrettable mistake and go back to being the boring old Jen Bush party moaning about lowering taxes for the rich and
abortion.
However if Trump wins, the Republicans will have to acknowledge that people support Trumpism and will have to start re orientating
the party towards Trumpian Populism in future elections as they will realize that it is a permanent vote winner. Basically how
they started to change themselves into becoming an evangelical Conservative party due to Reagan where as before, it was the Democrats
who were the Conservatives.
Even if they do this though, the Republicans are still going to remain the good old American majority white party so out right
winning future elections after Trump is going to be very difficult. I think this all potentially bodes for a potential secession
crisis in the future.
However even if Trump wins, the Democrats may start to take notice and try to compete with the Republicans and start to moderate
their policies, shifting away from Identity politics and embracing the populist waves and trying to alternate with a more centrist
position. But considering all the crazy lefties in power within the party structure, this would be an incredibly difficult task,
almost Herculean to achieve.
So we could still be looking at a potential secession down the road.
But we all have to admit one thing – Donald Trump, love him or loathe him, has changed ultimately the political face of politics
for the better. Even though he actually has done very little, just the fact he got elected with his views really does go to show
the people have had enough and want changes.
Debating electoral politics at this point is for autists and morons. The globalists have won. They will be educating your children
while you work your shit job getting felt up by Africans on the way to your meaningless conference in Tempe.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Me too. I too will vote for Trump just out of spite. Saker is so ignorant about America and Americans. That's why I usually
don't read the Saker articles. The average homeless black guy is more informed about America than Saker.
the neo-liberal Dems have *already* prostituted themselves to everybody who wanted to give them something in return, from
the Ukie Nazis to the thugs of BLM, to the powerful US homo-lobby. Don't expect them to show any spine, or even less so, love
for the USA, if they get the White House. They hate this country and most of its people and they are not shy about it.
The Ukie "Nazis", BLM and homo-lobby are just tools. You make it sound like they're in charge. Please stop posting garbage
like that.
Saker – you started out by saying that it was a complete shock to the ruling elite when Trump won. I agree. You then described
how the Left (and most on the Right) have made Trump's presidency a living hell. I agree.
But then you said: "Truth be told, Trump has proven to be a fantastically incompetent President, no doubt about that. Was he
even worse than Obama? Maybe, it really all depends on your scoring system."
Obama was treated with kid gloves because he's an insider, a player. That's the only reason he ended up in the White House;
the elite sanctioned him and put him there.
But Trump is not an insider and he wasn't elite-approved. OF COURSE HE COULDN'T GET MUCH DONE! They didn't let him. They have
fought him every step of the way. After seeing what Trump has had to contend with, no outsider is ever going to attempt it again.
If Obama had gone through what Trump has gone through, his skinny little legs would have folded before his first month was
up.
One of guys on The Duran said that the politicians on the Left and Right don't care about Black Lives Matter, the statues,
history, gender wars, gay this/LGXYZ that, the culture wars. That doesn't really concern them; they'll just let the sheeple fight
it out.
What they DO care about is their corporate masters, the people they are really beholden to. As long as their masters continue
to make money and the culture wars don't disturb that, then all is well.
They just stole $6 trillion and handed it to Wall Street, hedge funds, private equity. Covid, the lock downs and the culture
wars are a great smoke screen to hide the looting going on.
"With Republicans siding with BLM, and wanting to replace Columbus Day with Juneteenth
with friends like that who needs enemies?"
They do what their corporate donors tell them to do, just like the Dems. All that matters on both sides of the aisle are the
corporate campaign donors. Nothing else. Nike, for instance, wants Blacks to continue buying their shoes. If they have to get
down on one knee, so be it. The politicians follow suit.
@anon
n't be a Koch-brothers Speaker Ryan around to undermine Trump's agenda. And, the GOP needs to dump Turtle Man as their Senate
leader, and promote someone who could actually do the job, like the other Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. If those things happen,
real progress could finally be made in saving what's left of the country.
At one point there wasn't a "dime's worth of difference" between the two parties, but, as the D's have gone further and further
White Man-hating crazy Left, that is no longer true today. The election of Biden will guarantee a radical left-wing minority female
sitting in the White House (how much longer will that name last?) within six months.
@ploni almoni
Trump is a mentally and morally defective total moron who's completely unfit for the office he holds. Knowing this, the "deep
state" put him there for one reason and one reason only: because they felt he could be manipulated into taking risks above and
beyond those which their dime-a-dozen political opportunists would take – in the pursuit of their stalled imperial agenda.
As I see it, the following linked statement by the "World Mental Health Coalition" (particularly paragraphs two and five) fully
explains the Trump "presidency."
@mark tapley
roximation of where I'm going with all this).
And as has been attributed to Sinclair Lewis, HL Mencken and several others:
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying the cross."
3. And that's when the first large economically-sustainable states e.g., California or Texas or New York or Pennsylvania or
Georgia will seek to break out of the Union – and take their smaller neighboring states with them in blocs.
4. And in a futile attempt to prevent a dissolution of the Union from happening, Federal troops will be brought in – and that's
when the first shots of the next civil war will be fired.
Twain nailed at the turn of the century, "If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it." Mark Twain
Who's Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates
The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic
parties. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the major party candidates to draft secret agreements.
"The fact is that for the past four years the US liberals have waged a total informational war against Trump "
No, not a "total informational war against Trump" but a conspicuously partial informational war against Trump.
They have no problem with his various war crimes and endless provocations against Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela. They have
no problem with his withdrawing from the INF treaty and starting an arms race that puts the whole world in great danger. They
choose to focus on his failure to wear a mask in public, for example, while ignoring that he's brought the world to the brink
of WW3. And this should be an important clue as to what's going on here yet it somehow escapes "The Saker" just like it apparently
escapes other pundits e.g. Paul Craig Roberts.
" and it would be absolutely unthinkable for them to ever accept a Trump re-election, even if he wins by a landslide."
If it is so "absolutely unthinkable" then why don't they run somebody against him who's not showing signs of senile dementia,
for example?
In any case it seems Trump's handlers and enablers realize that he will likely not be reelected no matter who they run against
him, so they're pulling out all the stops to get some kind of a major war started before the end of his term. In desperation they
installed him in the White House and in desperation they now seek to force a major war before we go back to government by opportunistic-career-politician-puppet-rulers.
Are there any Republican Senators beside Lankford (OK) and Johnson (WIS), who are supporting this travesty? After Tucker Carlson
skewered them the other night, I wonder how many more will be dumb enough to back it? Don't buck the Tuck if you don't want to
be flooded with calls and emails from constituents who hate you.
@Harold
Smith . President Donald Trump, as a direct response to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack that occurred on 4 April."
You and everyone knows that there was no "chemical attack," and that Shayrat was empty. The US "missile response" was, on the
one hand, an attempt to "save face" having been outmaneuvered and lost the Isis gambit, and on the other to test Russian missile
defenses for technical purposes, for the upcoming war. In all these cases Trump has to "take responsibility" or admit that all
he controls is what is served for lunch.
Make believe is all fine and good, but you people are the forces of darkness kidding yourselves and the rest of us into oblivion.
@RP1
ump), and the fact that international treaties and agreements to which the United States is a party, demonstrably no longer mean
anything.
And for the icing on the cake (i.e. the consummation of the degenerative process which began before Trump) the fake president
was charged with "abuse of power" and "obstruction of congress" – in a fake impeachment trial – and was acquitted, thus proving
to the rest of the world (if anymore proof was necessary) that the concepts of "separation of powers"/"checks and balances"/"rule
of law" have been replaced by the concept of rule by the psychotic impulses of an unaccountable, politically omnipotent psychopath.
@4 Pete
Saker with economics. Ann Coulters spruiking for Trump was about immigration not economics.
Whether Trump failed on immigration because of a lack of will or a lack of backup by the republican side of The Party is irrelevant.
It just means voting is pointless either way.
It's hard to see much enthusiasm being manufactured on either side of the manufacturerd political divide this election. Biden
is an incoherent clown and Trump is a known quantity now unable to claim future greatness like he did in 2016.
The best vote in 2020 is staying home or going to a gun store and stocking up on election day. Voting just encourages more
bs from the political class.
Elections rarely matter, but this one actually could make a difference. Replacing Trump puppet with Biden puppet won't change
Federal actions, because Federal actions NEVER change. But the replacement WILL change the media. As soon as Biden puppet is in
office, the media will IMMEDIATELY stop creating panic and fear, and the lockdowns and masks will subside if not quite disappear.
It's worth campaigning and voting for Biden.
@ploni almoni
CIA establishment, which is run by Israel, carried out the murder of Soleimani and Trump was told about it after the fact, and
was told 'you own it.'"
For the Nth time: In that case why didn't "the CIA establishment run by Israel" assassinate Soleimani when Obama was president?
Why didn't the embassy get moved to Jerusalem or Syrian land be given to Israel or the INF treaty be repudiated or Venezuela be starved
or self-destructive trade war with China be started, etc.,when Obama was president?
Your "reasoning" has been thoroughly debunked ad nauseum; give it up. (I will likely not waste any more time arguing absurdities
with you). Chris Cosmos
, says: July
3, 2020 at 3:21 pm GMT
Great analysis as usual. However, let me point out some problems with what you've written. First, Americans do love wars but
they don't care about winning. The US military corrupt and incompetent as it is the most popular by a mile of any us institution.
Americans love the military as an idea. That idea is that it represents, theoretically and mythically, the ultimate struggle between
"good guys" and "bad guys" which fully mature military officers use to represent "them" and us. Since military conflicts are out
of sight and out of mind and the mainstream media lies so blatantly and the collective memory is no longer than a few months it
is possible that no matter how obvious the defeat or obvious the corruption to you an me who follow events the vast majority of
Americans only see movies of the glory of the US military and covert operatives and quickly forget war-crimes/massive violations
of the Geneva Conventions on War, defeat, and so on in favor of the fantasy/myth represented in commercials for military recruitment.
Second, the idea that so-called minorities represented by BLM and so on can or will have power in Washington is absurd. These
groups are used and have been used by the corporate oligarchs as a way to divide the working and middle classes–making grand gestures
of "solidarity" with BLM (always a corporate oriented group) means nothing. The grand movement of wealth from the working and
middle classes towards the 0.001% will continue inexorably as it has since the late 70s whether the RP or the DP is in power.
As far as the oligarchs are concerned manipulating popular culture through mind-control techniques (using the smartest human on
Earth) will keep their people in power. Trump was a slight interruption
Trump himself was boxed in a corner very quickly by the purge of Flynn and his refusal to vet staff. He had no choice but to
blunder from one thing to another with ALL of Washington and Hollywood solidly against him. The positives that he brought, however,
to the his Presidency was that he showed in high relief the nature of the Deep State–even the term was largely forbidden (I was
kicked out of a liberal/progressive blog, in part, for using the term "Deep State"). We saw through the Russiagate fiasco the
reality that the US mainstream media is primarily kind of Ministry of Truth not an "objective" institution that sought truth.
Like the American love for the military, most Americans will go along with the media Narrative because all societies need narratives,
myths, and commons frames of reference–so even if most people see (with their lying eyes) the reality of the propaganda organs,
they'll still "believe". Trump, as you said blustered and bloviated on going to war but never really did–he was the dove in the
administration–he hired people like Pompeo and Bolton in order to keep from being eaten by the Deep State. Trump had to spend
all his time in office out-foxing the operatives within his administration from destroying or even killing him. The Deep State
does not play nice.
Trump has absolutely no chance of winning in November. People in this country are just tired of conflict and are ready to give
the Deep State all the power it wants as long as they can rule. It is likely that the Senate will turn blue and we will have one
party rule. The Republican demographic is, at present, neither large nor enthusiastic enough to be of much help. As for the coalition
of minorities, they have no chance to go beyond the ghettos and if they come around here trying to burn anything down they will
be met by a lot of veterans who are armed to the teeth–so I don't see much cultural change outside the coasts and large urban
areas. Meanwhile Covid will continue to disrupt life, drug ODs will increase, access to health-care will be reduced, and we are
headed for a very new dispensation that may involve a dissolution of the country.
While I agree with the author's conclusions I disagree that " most Americans still like wars."
No. I think that we hate them, hate to send our children to die/be ripped apart for a bunch of old scumbags who are in the
pockets of the Defense Industry, hate to see us reviled by the World, hate to see our Blood & Treasure spent on people who despise
us and hate to pay for it all.
Sadly, the author's conclusions are spot-on. There is no remedying this disaster; we are in our final days as a coherent Nation.
This is "Operation Enduring Clusterfuck" writ large. As the acronym goes, "TINVOWOOT."
The best that I can see is Balkanization–with or without preliminary/local & regional shooting–with division along racial lines.
Give blacks the cities that they inhabit now in great numbers, give them a region (with ocean access) and have people move to
"Red" and "Blue" states according to their race/safety/beliefs. Trade–or war–will follow as a natural consequence.
But, Blacks need to know that when THEY riot their cities burn; when Whites riot entire CONTINENTS burn.
I voted for Trump. I was conned. Trump was selected by the .001% as the most effective figurehead to preside over the destruction
of America.
Do you really believe the most wealthy and powerful people in the world would leave the choice of a major leader up to the
unwashed masses? They manipulate everything, absolutely everything.
If voting could actually negatively impact their power and wealth, they would never allow it.
The .001% are just Jeffrey Dahmer cannibals in expensive clothing, and YOU are on the menu.
Trump got elected for two main issues he pledged during his 2016 campaign: ending all foreign wars and greatly reducing immigration.
On ending foreign wars and bringing home the troops, he's failed. Since he took office he's been dialing up the heat to the
verge of war with Iran, NK, China, Russia, Venezuela, and we still have troops everywhere incl. in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Meanwhile all the trade war jabs with China is just Kabuki theater. The intention is not to bring back manufacturing as he claimed
but to blackmail the CCP into handing over control of China's banks to the globalist bankers. His overt pandering to Israel at
every turn is nauseating. I suspect Mossad has him by the balls when they seized all records from his Jewish attorney.
On immigration, again nothing like what he promised. He has drastically reduced asylum seeking, but illegal immigration reached
a record under his watch until he thankfully won an important quick deportation law against those who failed asylum app. His border
wall is still largely not visible. After four long years, he is finally doing something about legal immigration, but his temporary
suspension of H1b visas and green cards until the end of the year may be too little too late to save him, and he still hasn't
done anything to suspend OPT and EB5. I fear this is all just for show. Immediately after he gets reelected, he will feel all
generous and remove all those restrictions.
But the alternative is unthinkable. Biden will immediately resume all ME wars as directed by Israel. He is as compromised as
Trump, Mossad already has him by the balls with his bribery scandals in Ukraine and China through his son. Zionists/deep state
like to have dirty politicians elected, the dirtier the better, as the easier it is for them to be blackmailed.
The question is will his followers feel enthusiastic enough to come out and vote?
Trump's election has proved one thing. His election must have come as a surprise even to him, and he was unprepared with a
list of candidates for the various posts he had to fill to carry out his wishes. He was dependent on others who were not well
disposed towards him.
Even though Foreign Policy supposedly the President's prerogative, in this case his hands were tied behind his back, such that
even low level functionaries were opposing his policies quite openly. The military were running rings around him when he wanted
to reduce military presence in the Occupied countries. In fact he was coerced into bombing some facilities in those countries
based on fake incidents. What Trump had promised his electorate, he could not deliver. He is a failure. The Blob defeated him
at every turn. In fact by appointing the likes of Pompeo he became even less powerful, if that is possible.
If he gets elected a second time somehow, he will not be able to deliver on his promises unless he destroys the Blob completely
Ralph Nader said something that opened my eyes to the true nature of national elections in 2000. The Democrips started that
day's whole "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" nonsense, and a reporter asked him about it. He said "The Republicans have nominated
that worst candidate for US President in history, he's bad on every level. If Al Gore can't run a run a decent enough campaign
to defeat him, what good is he?"
I stopped voting for anything above state representitive in 2012 and will not vote in hat will be either our ultimate or penultimate
presidential election this year.
He will cause the whole world to dump the US Dollar as a reserve currency, because he acts like a bully who ignores his blatant
weakpoints. At that moment, the USA will just become a bankrupt state and will lose its special status: the US power is based
mainly on that.
He will not reverse the tax policies that he implemented HIMSELF He is a zionist elite agent and he will stay like that
You are dreaming too much. How could he do, during his second term, the exact opposite of what he did in the first? It is a
total nonsense
the real power behind him will be in the hands of the Schumer-Pelosi-Obama gang and of the interests these folks represent.
Precisely. Biden will be a ceremonial head of state, much as the president of the USSR was. There are a lot of people saying
that Biden's VP will be the de facto president, but I'm not so sure. I think Pelosi – Schumer – Obama will form the ruling junta,
which is fitting inasmuch as they've been trying really hard to turn the USA into a corrupt banana republic.
He will cause the whole world to dump the US Dollar as a reserve currency, because he acts like a bully who ignores his blatant
weakpoints. At that moment, the USA will just become a bankrupt state and will lose its special status: the US power is based
mainly on that.
He will not reverse the tax policies that he implemented HIMSELF He is a zionist elite agent and he will stay like that
You are dreaming too much. How could he do, during his second term, the exact opposite of what he did in the first? It is a total
nonsense
@Anonymous
y demanding that Russia give back Crimea, for example, something that everyone knew Russia could not do?
"That was a no go w the Establishment and they have engaged in a relentless campaign against him."
Let's see, he's betrayed his supporters on many issues; his health is obviously deteriorating; as you point out he's an "incompetent
narcissist"; there's a "relentless campaign against him" according to you; and polls show him trailing Biden in several key states;
so why is he running for reelection? If LBJ can retire after one term why can't Trump?
@Harold
Smith ls go back before WW1 to Samual Bush who was brought onto the Jew run War Industries Board (what a great racket that
was) by Percy Rockefeller during the puppet actor and syphilitic W. Wilson's catatonic lay about under Col. House (Rothschilds
employee) and Bernard Baruch administration. The Zionists control both phony parties and just use the Jew run MSM to put on a
show. Many commentators such as Patagonia Man believe it is too late but I still maintain the remote possibility that enough people
will wake up to put some decent rep. in the House. Forget about the Presidential baboons.
3. I have outlined, not only the breakup of the US into several geopolitical units (and quite possibly, but hopefully not,
another civil war) but the megaregions in which North America is heading, within say, the next 150 – 250 years.
Just because I believe all of the above doesn't mean I can't observe and comment on the theater that passes for US politics.
Needless to say, I won't be voting in November.
Finally, there's a great saying attributed to Einstein:
"The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result"
@mark tapley
"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent
impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not
for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. " https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S1537592714001595
You can tell the Saker doesn't live in America, since he believes Americans love war. This has never been true and it is safe
to assume Americans are really sick of American Imperialism in general right now.
War and warmongering do not enjoy any significant support in any major political block in the USA right now. Only the Oligarchs,
NWO, Plutocrats and Neocons are for wars and they are not even collectively close to being a plurality.
"... What they have "won" is an electorate where a significant minority, but still a minority, are the party faithful but the majority (growing over time) vote Democratic only as the lesser evil, i.e. because they believe that the media coverage and electoral system's exclusion of third parties in effect forces them to vote Democratic by holding a gun to their head. Maybe I'm wrong, but then I would want to see more media coverage of third party candidates combined with "Is the Democratic Party nominee your first choice?" polling before conceding that I am. ..."
Chetan Murthy @48: "The Dems didn't lose working-class votes in 2016: the median income of a
Hillary voter was less than that of a Trump voter [or maybe it was average? In any case, not
much difference.] What the Dems lost, was "white non-college-educated" voters. They retained
working class voters of color."
I doubt that the Democrats have "won" working class votes, white, black, hispanic, or other,
since the time of LBJ, and possibly before that. What they have "won" is an electorate where a
significant minority, but still a minority, are the party faithful but the majority (growing
over time) vote Democratic only as the lesser evil, i.e. because they believe that the media
coverage and electoral system's exclusion of third parties in effect forces them to vote
Democratic by holding a gun to their head. Maybe I'm wrong, but then I would want to see more
media coverage of third party candidates combined with "Is the Democratic Party nominee your
first choice?" polling before conceding that I am.
What I see is that U.S. voters are forced into a choice between a conservative center-right
national-security party (Democrats) whose main virtues are that they are not fascist or racist
and are willing to provide a basic welfare state safety net, though one not as extensive as in
Europe. Opposed to them is a party whose ideology and behavior are degenerating into something
combining the pre-conditions of fascism (e.g., pre-Great War Germany) and the 1860 secessionist
South.
Changing this state of affairs is not something that will be accomplished by elections, but
by large and sustained protest movements (think Occupy or BLM multiplied many times). The next
few decades will be interesting, but not fun.
Orange Watch 07.06.20 at 5:40 pm (no link)
Chetan Murthy@48:
It's helpful that you told us who you were, in so few words. 43% of the US are non-voters.
The median household income of non-voters is less than half of the median income of a Clinton
voter (which was higher than the overall US median, albeit by less than the Trump median
was). Clinton didn't lose in 2016 because of who voted as much as who didn't ; every
serious analysis (and countless centrist screeds) since Trump's installation has told us
that. Losing the working class doesn't require that the Republicans gain them; if the working
class drops out, that shifts the electoral playing field further into the favor of politics
who cater to the remaining voting blocks. Democrats playing Republican-lite while mouthing
pieties about how they're totally not the party of the rich will always fare worse in that
field than Republicans playing Republicans while mouthing pieties about how they ARE the
party of the rich, but also of giving everyone a chance to make themselves rich. I know it's
been de rigour for both Dems and the GOP to ignore the first half of Clinton's
deplorable quote, but it truly was just as important as the half both sides freely remember.
The Democrats have become a party of C-suite diversity, and they have abandoned the working
class. And when their best pick for President's plenty bold plan for solving police violence
is to encourage LEOs to shoot people in the leg instead of the chest (something that could
only be said by a grifter or someone with more knowledge of Hollywood than ballistics
or anatomy), the prospect of keeping the non-white portions of the working class from
continuing to drop out is looking bleak.
MisterMr@49:
The traditional threading of that needle is to expand class-based analysis to more
accurately reflect real-world political and economic behavior. In the past (and in some
countries who updated the applicable definitions, still), the most relevant additional class
was the petty bourgeoisie; in the modern US, however, the concept of the
professional-managerial class is the most useful frame of reference.
The answer is "not always" due to existence of "What the matter with Kansas" effect.
People can and do vote against their economic interests, although this is more common for
lower strata of population then for the elite.
This is the essence of the current play by the Neoliberal Democrats. Mike Whitney pointed
out that their support of black population is just a tactical trick:
The protests are largely a diversion aimed at shifting the public's attention to a
racialized narrative that obfuscates the widening inequality chasm (created by the Democrats
biggest donors, the Giant Corporations and Wall Street) to historic antagonisms that have
clearly diminished over time. (Racism ain't what it used to be.)
The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will not"
be covered over the course of the campaign. And– since race is an issue on which they
feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives as
ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought– the Dems are using their media clout to
make race the main topic of debate.
In short, the Democrats have settled on a strategy for quashing the emerging populist
revolt that swept Trump into the White House in 2016 and derailed Hillary's ambitious grab
for presidential power.
The plan, however, does have its shortcomings
Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made any
attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into the
Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross
imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies
including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down
economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as
they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the
country, shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian
nightmare.
They are also the policies that have given rise to, what the pundits call, "right wing
populism" which refers to the growing number of marginalized working people who despise
Washington and career politicians, feel anxious about falling wages and dramatic demographic
changes, and resent the prevailing liberal culture that scorns their religion and patriotism.
This is Trump's mainly-white base, the working people the Democrats threw under the bus 30
years ago and now want to annihilate completely by deepening political polarization, fueling
social unrest, pitting one group against another, and viciously vilifying them in the media
as ignorant racists whose traditions, culture, customs and even history must be obliterated
to make room for the new diversity world order. Trump touched on this theme in a speech he
delivered in Tulsa. He said:
"Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our
heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down
statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of violent
crime in our cities."
He then went off the rail, but still the part of his analysis reproduced above looks pretty
prescient.
"... This is a zugzwang for neoliberal Dems. Without working class votes they can't win. And those votes are lost. Clinton gambit that in Cola-Pepsi duopoly the working class has nowhere to go (because Republicans are ever worse) worked for a couple of decades but in 2016 suddenly stopped. They same happened in UK. And will soon happen in Germany as Merkel is history too: Biden without senility. ..."
"... We need to accept the fact that the Neoliberal Dems lost its key constituency and that limits their ability to win the political power. They can't even select a decent leader, because Biden as a party leader is a cruel joke. ..."
"... IMHO 20% of upper middle class is not enough as the key constituency simply because a part of this voter block belongs to Republicans (military middle class). And that essentially all what the neoliberal Dems, as "Republicans-lite" currently have. ..."
"... Although in 2020 they might have a unique chance due to Trump self-disintegration. But their ability to hold into minorities votes, while selling those minorities down the river is an aberration, so in this case in 2022 they might lose all the gains. ..."
"... Biden in a way symbolizes the crisis of Clinton wing of the Democratic Party really well: they have no future, only the past. ..."
"... It is July. By January 2021, the U.S. economy will have suffered a structural collapse in multiple sectors. That is the economic consequence of the pandemic. Restaurants, shopping malls, bars, colleges, hotels, airlines, cruise lines -- easily 15% of the workforce will be unemployed and another 25% seriously underemployed. ..."
"... For some reason, the main divide in politics today is a sort of culture war, and republicans and other right wing parties managed to present the traditionalist side of the culture war as the "working class" one, and therefore the other side as the evil cosmopolitan prosecco sipping faux leftish but in reality very snobbish one, so that they pretend that they are the working class party because of their traditionalist stance. ..."
"... But they aren't: already the fact that they blame "cosmopolitans" shows that they think in terms of nationalism (like Trump and his China virus), which is a way to deflect the attention from class conflict. ..."
"... This doesn't automatically mean that the Dems get the working class: what happens is that conservative vote is U shaped, they get a ton of votes from very low incomes, and a ton of votes from very high incomes, but few votes in the middle. ..."
"... it is still true that in the very low incomes Reps rake up a lot of votes (although, as for my previous comment, I think this is a case of false consciousness, aka they cling to their guns and their Bibles, aka they've been bamboozled). ..."
a party that is no longer of the working class is unlikely to pass legislation that
benefits the working class.
This is an important point worth repeating again and again.
This is a zugzwang for neoliberal Dems. Without working class votes they can't win. And
those votes are lost. Clinton gambit that in Cola-Pepsi duopoly the working class has nowhere
to go (because Republicans are ever worse) worked for a couple of decades but in 2016
suddenly stopped. They same happened in UK. And will soon happen in Germany as Merkel is
history too: Biden without senility.
Using "identity wedge" and amplifying the current riots is a desperate move of
"substituting with minorities" the lost working class votes. They want to split the country
in such a way that Republicans are in minority. Probably will not work as nationalism as a
platform is on upswing now and Trump's "national neoliberalism" has some grass roots support
even among the minorities, despite that his promises are all fake. Riots dramatically
increased polarization and the result of this polarization are not necessary beneficial to
neoliberal Dems.
We need to accept the fact that the Neoliberal Dems lost its key constituency and that
limits their ability to win the political power. They can't even select a decent leader,
because Biden as a party leader is a cruel joke. The fact that "there is no alternative" no
longer holds -- the return (on a new level) to some form of the New Deal is clearly an
alternative. The alternative that the majority of population wants.
All those neoliberal fairy
tales about "free market" (can it exists with multinationals in power?), "personal
responsibility" (which means unlimited ability of capital to eliminate decent jobs and
replace them with perma-temps, or offshore them) and that "rising tide lifts all boats" no
longer work. That's why Bezos supports BLM while paying below average to the workers in
warehouses. He "feels the pain." ;-)
IMHO 20% of upper middle class is not enough as the key constituency simply because a part
of this voter block belongs to Republicans (military middle class). And that essentially all what the neoliberal
Dems, as "Republicans-lite" currently have.
Although in 2020 they might have a unique chance due to Trump self-disintegration. But
their ability to hold into minorities votes, while selling those minorities down the river is
an aberration, so in this case in 2022 they might lose all the gains.
Biden in a way symbolizes the crisis of Clinton wing of the Democratic Party really well:
they have no future, only the past.
While Republicans now can play the nationalist card like in Weimar Germany. The recent
riots play into their hands, and this effect will last till November.
mainstream Democrats recognise the need for radical change, and Biden will align with
the mainstream position as he always has done
You said you would leave this, your third assumption, to comments, so here is my
comment.
The U.S. is in the midst of a deep legitimacy crisis and contrary to popular belief among
liberals, it is not Trump particularly whose legitimacy is being called into question. Oh,
sure, there have been relentless attacks on him -- from partisan opponents and from much of
mainstream media -- but like the "anti-racism" of the recent protests -- much of it is
dissembling and distraction. Charges of colluding with Putin to win the 2016 election turned
out to be fake news -- rather obviously so from the beginning -- but a big enough mob went
down that path with no self-awareness. I am not saying Trump is not an egregiously bad
President; he is. But, notice please, before you go assuming that mainstream Democrats are
going wake up in 2021 wanting to govern in the real world , that they have not shown much
inclination toward truth-telling or critical realism these last 20 years.
It is July. By January 2021, the U.S. economy will have suffered a structural collapse in
multiple sectors. That is the economic consequence of the pandemic. Restaurants, shopping
malls, bars, colleges, hotels, airlines, cruise lines -- easily 15% of the workforce will be
unemployed and another 25% seriously underemployed.
Did I mention that the U.S. is undergoing a legitimacy crisis?? Whose legitimacy is being
called into question?
I would submit that the legitimacy of the elite professional and managerial classes is
being called into question, for want of performance or any sense of responsibility. The urban
PMC are the core constituency of the establishment Democratic Party. The vestigial working
class elements and the ideological Left are distant memories and oppressed minorities seeking
social justice, mere props. I would say the Party establishment is confident they can put the
re-animated corpse of Biden into the White House. And look how gleefully they welcome
Republican never-Trumpers into the clubhouse! If you were one of the fools and tools who
thought Obama did not want Republicans to control Congress, you are getting another chance to
see how the Obama Alumni Association works with the Lincoln Project, how happy they are to
deliver the kind of policy that appeals to rich, old, suburban Republican women.
The thing is, the political classes -- the millionaire media pundits, the politicians, the
lobbyists, the generals, the journamalists, the manipulative political operatives and
propagandists, the pious policy "experts", the highly paid executives and financial managers
running monopolies into the ground and non-profits into irrelevance -- they have enacted
their neo-liberal agenda and it doesn't work.
We have just watched the once highly touted CDC completely botch the great Pandemic. They
could not devise a test. They screwed up the rules on who could or should be tested. They
lied early on about the need to wear masks. They staged a moral panic over a need for
ventilators, when ventilators are a terrible therapeutic alternative. In the new Puritanism,
they shut down public beaches but they watched passively as liberal heroes like Cuomo set off
a holocaust by sending COVID-19 patients to nursing homes.
This in a country that cannot manufacture PPE. Or win a war. Trump, in his fumbling way,
might get the U.S. out of Afganistan, but the NY Times -- who brought us WMD not that long
ago -- reports the Russians are paying bounties on American soldiers killed. No report on the
treatment of Julian Assange though. Boeing is going to get the 737 Max in the air real soon
now. Citibank is borrowing at 0.03 from the Fed and lending to credit card users at 27% and
may be insolvent.
So, let us assume the Democrats, after nominating an elderly sob who had a hand in the
crime bill that gave the U.S. the highest incarceration rate in the world, the bankruptcy
bill that saddled tens of millions with credit card and student debt that cannot be
discharged, and every stupid war of the last nearly twenty years, will suddenly see the
necessity of radical change. And, after making an alliance with conservative Republicans
hostile to even Trump's fake populism in order to elect Biden, seeing the light on radical
reform is so likely! So plausible.
And, what's the play? The carrot of bi-partisan cooperation coupled with the fearful stick
of abolishing the filibuster someday somehow if they don't play nice. You do realize that
only Republicans are allowed to manipulate the filibuster and only in ways that favor their
agenda of, say, stacking the courts? And, the strategic vision? Reinforcing the Rube Goldberg
contraption which is Obamacare? You do know Biden is on record as adamantly opposed to
Medicare4all? And, that Medicaid is a need-based nightmare of controlled deprivation? In a
country where public health is such a shambles that a pandemic is running out of control.
Without working class votes they can't win. And those votes are lost
It's helpful that you told us who you were, in so few words. The Dems didn't lose
working-class votes in 2016: the median income of a Hillary voter was less than that
of a Trump voter [or maybe it was average? In any case, not much difference.] What the Dems
lost, was "white non-college-educated" voters. They retained working class voters of
color.
But hey, they don't count as working-class voters to you. Thanks for playing.
White collar are, by definition, working class, because they don't own the means of
production. What I see is an opposition between blue collars and white collars, that are two
wings of the working class, not that democrats are going against the working class.
For some reason, the main divide in politics today is a sort of culture war, and republicans
and other right wing parties managed to present the traditionalist side of the culture war as
the "working class" one, and therefore the other side as the evil cosmopolitan prosecco
sipping faux leftish but in reality very snobbish one, so that they pretend that they are the
working class party because of their traditionalist stance.
But they aren't: already the fact that they blame "cosmopolitans" shows that they think in
terms of nationalism (like Trump and his China virus), which is a way to deflect the
attention from class conflict.
So comparatively the Dems are still the working class party, and the fact that some working
class guys vote for trump sows that they suffer from false consciousness, not that the Dems
are too right wing (the dems ARE too right wing, but this isn't the reason some working class
guys are voting Trump).
Neoliberalism and free markets are not the same thing, and furthermore neoliberalism
and capitalism are not the same thing; at most neoliberalism is a form of unadultered
capitalism. However since neoliberalism basically means "anti new deal", and new deal
economies were still free market and still capitalist (we can call them social democratic,
but in this sense social democracy is a form of controlled capitalism), it follows that the
most economically successful form of capitalism and free markets to date is not
neoliberalism.
"the median income of a Hillary voter was less than that of a Trump voter"
This doesn't automatically mean that the Dems get the working class: what happens is that
conservative vote is U shaped, they get a ton of votes from very low incomes, and a ton of
votes from very high incomes, but few votes in the middle.
Since income distribution is pear shaped (there is more distance between high incomes and the
median than between low incomes and the median) this still gives an higher average income than
the Dem's base, but it is still true that in the very low incomes Reps rake up a lot of votes
(although, as for my previous comment, I think this is a case of false consciousness, aka
they cling to their guns and their Bibles, aka they've been bamboozled).
Trump as wolf in sheep's clothing in his policy toward Russia. Any person who can appoint
Bolton as his national security advisor should be criminally prosecuted for criminal
incompetence. To say nothing about Pompeo, Haley and many others. Such a peacenik, my ***
The USA foreign policy is not controlled by the President. It is controlled by the "Deep state"
Notable quotes:
"... The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes. ..."
"... But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion. ..."
"... despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most significant actions against Russia by any recent administration. ..."
"... Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy. ..."
When it comes to Russia, the Trump administration just can't seem to make
up its mind.
For the past three years, the administration has careered between President Donald Trump's
attempts to curry favor and friendship with Vladimir Putin and longstanding deep-seated
concerns about Putin's intentions. As Trump has repeatedly and openly cozied up to Putin, his
administration has imposed harsh and meaningful sanctions and penalties on Russia.
The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish
but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in
Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy
and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes.
Even before Trump took office questions about Russia abounded. Now, nearing the end of his
first term with a difficult
reelection ahead , those questions have resurfaced with a vengeance. Intelligence
suggesting Russia
was encouraging attacks on U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan by putting bounties on
their heads has thrust the matter into the heart of the 2020 campaign.
The White House says the intelligence wasn't confirmed or brought to Trump's attention, but
his vast chorus of critics are skeptical and maintain the president should have been
aware.
The reports have alarmed even pro-Trump Republicans who see Russia as a hostile global foe
meddling with nefarious intent in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Ukraine and Georgia, a waning
former superpower trying to regain its Soviet-era influence by subverting democracy in Europe
and the United States with disinformation and election interference .
Trump's overtures to Putin have unsettled longstanding U.S. allies in Europe, including
Britain, France and Germany, which have expressed concern about the U.S. commitment to the NATO
alliance, which was forged to counter the Soviet threat, and robust democracy on the
continent.
But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential
friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may
share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion.
Within the Trump administration, the national security establishment appears torn between
pursuing an arguably tough approach to Russia and pleasing the president. Insiders who have
raised concern about Trump's approach to Russia -- including at least one of his national
security advisers, defense secretaries and secretaries of state, but especially lower-level
officials who spoke out during impeachment -- have nearly all been ousted from their
positions.
Suspicions about Trump and Russia go back to his 2016 campaign. His appeal to Moscow to dig up his
opponent's emails , his plaintive suggestions that Russia and the United States should be
friends and a series of contacts between his advisers and Russians raised questions of
impropriety that led to special counsel Robert Mueller's
investigation . The investigation ultimately did not allege that anyone associated with the
campaign illegally conspired with Russia.
Mueller, along with the U.S. intelligence community, did find that Russia interfered with
the election, to sow chaos and also help Trump's campaign. But Trump has cast doubt on those
findings, most memorably in a 2018 appearance on stage with Putin in
Helsinki .
Yet despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most
significant actions against Russia by any recent administration.
Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control
treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine
despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to
prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties
believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy.
At the same time, Trump has compounded the uncertainty by calling for the withdrawal or
redeployment of U.S. troops from Germany, angrily deriding NATO allies for not meeting alliance
defense spending commitments, and now apparently ignoring dire intelligence warnings that
Russia was paying or wanted to pay elements of the Taliban to kill American forces in
Afghanistan.
On top of that, even after the intelligence reports on the Afghanistan bounties circulated,
he's expressed interest in inviting Putin back into the G-7 group of nations over the
objections of the other members.
White House officials and die-hard Trump supporters have shrugged off the obvious
inconsistencies, but they have been unable to staunch the swell of criticism and pointed
demands for explanations as Russia, which has vexed American leaders for decades, delights in
its ability to create chaos.
"... I would submit that the legitimacy of the elite professional and managerial classes is being called into question, for want of performance or any sense of responsibility. The urban PMC are the core constituency of the establishment Democratic Party. The vestigial working class elements and the ideological Left are distant memories and oppressed minorities seeking social justice, mere props. ..."
"... The thing is, the political classes -- the millionaire media pundits, the politicians, the lobbyists, the generals, the journamalists, the manipulative political operatives and propagandists, the pious policy "experts", the highly paid executives and financial managers running monopolies into the ground and non-profits into irrelevance -- they have enacted their neo-liberal agenda and it doesn't work. ..."
"... This in a country that cannot manufacture PPE. Or win a war. Trump, in his fumbling way, might get the U.S. out of Afghanistan, but the NY Times -- who brought us WMD not that long ago -- reports the Russians are paying bounties on American soldiers killed. No report on the treatment of Julian Assange though. Boeing is going to get the 737 Max in the air real soon now. Citibank is borrowing at 0.03 from the Fed and lending to credit card users at 27% and may be insolvent. ..."
"... So, let us assume the Democrats, after nominating an elderly SOB who had a hand in the crime bill that gave the U.S. the highest incarceration rate in the world, the bankruptcy bill that saddled tens of millions with credit card and student debt that cannot be discharged, and every stupid war of the last nearly twenty years, will suddenly see the necessity of radical change. And, after making an alliance with conservative Republicans hostile to even Trump's fake populism in order to elect Biden, seeing the light on radical reform is so likely! So plausible. ..."
mainstream Democrats recognize the need for radical change, and Biden will align with
the mainstream position as he always has done
You said you would leave this, your third assumption, to comments, so here is my
comment.
The U.S. is in the midst of a deep legitimacy crisis and contrary to popular belief among
liberals, it is not Trump particularly whose legitimacy is being called into question. Oh,
sure, there have been relentless attacks on him -- from partisan opponents and from much of
mainstream media -- but like the "anti-racism" of the recent protests -- much of it is
dissembling and distraction. Charges of colluding with Putin to win the 2016 election turned
out to be fake news -- rather obviously so from the beginning -- but a big enough mob went down
that path with no self-awareness. I am not saying Trump is not an egregiously bad President; he
is. But, notice please, before you go assuming that mainstream Democrats are going wake up in
2021 wanting to govern in the real world , that they have not shown much inclination toward
truth-telling or critical realism these last 20 years.
It is July. By January 2021, the U.S. economy will have suffered a structural collapse in
multiple sectors. That is the economic consequence of the pandemic. Restaurants, shopping
malls, bars, colleges, hotels, airlines, cruise lines -- easily 15% of the workforce will be
unemployed and another 25% seriously underemployed.
Did I mention that the U.S. is undergoing a legitimacy crisis?? Whose legitimacy is being
called into question?
I would submit that the legitimacy of the elite professional and managerial classes is being
called into question, for want of performance or any sense of responsibility. The urban PMC are
the core constituency of the establishment Democratic Party. The vestigial working class
elements and the ideological Left are distant memories and oppressed minorities seeking social
justice, mere props.
I would say the Party establishment is confident they can put the
re-animated corpse of Biden into the White House. And look how gleefully they welcome
Republican never-Trumpers into the clubhouse! If you were one of the fools and tools who
thought Obama did not want Republicans to control Congress, you are getting another chance to
see how the Obama Alumni Association works with the Lincoln Project, how happy they are to
deliver the kind of policy that appeals to rich, old, suburban Republican women.
The thing is, the political classes -- the millionaire media pundits, the politicians, the
lobbyists, the generals, the journamalists, the manipulative political operatives and
propagandists, the pious policy "experts", the highly paid executives and financial managers
running monopolies into the ground and non-profits into irrelevance -- they have enacted their
neo-liberal agenda and it doesn't work.
We have just watched the once highly touted CDC completely botch the great Pandemic. They
could not devise a test. They screwed up the rules on who could or should be tested. They lied
early on about the need to wear masks. They staged a moral panic over a need for ventilators,
when ventilators are a terrible therapeutic alternative. In the new Puritanism, they shut down
public beaches but they watched passively as liberal heroes like Cuomo set off a holocaust by
sending COVID-19 patients to nursing homes.
This in a country that cannot manufacture PPE. Or win a war. Trump, in his fumbling way,
might get the U.S. out of Afghanistan, but the NY Times -- who brought us WMD not that long ago
-- reports the Russians are paying bounties on American soldiers killed. No report on the
treatment of Julian Assange though. Boeing is going to get the 737 Max in the air real soon
now. Citibank is borrowing at 0.03 from the Fed and lending to credit card users at 27% and may
be insolvent.
So, let us assume the Democrats, after nominating an elderly SOB who had a hand in the
crime bill that gave the U.S. the highest incarceration rate in the world, the bankruptcy bill
that saddled tens of millions with credit card and student debt that cannot be discharged, and
every stupid war of the last nearly twenty years, will suddenly see the necessity of radical
change. And, after making an alliance with conservative Republicans hostile to even Trump's
fake populism in order to elect Biden, seeing the light on radical reform is so likely! So
plausible.
And, what's the play? The carrot of bi-partisan cooperation coupled with the fearful stick
of abolishing the filibuster someday somehow if they don't play nice. You do realize that only
Republicans are allowed to manipulate the filibuster and only in ways that favor their agenda
of, say, stacking the courts? And, the strategic vision? Reinforcing the Rube Goldberg
contraption which is Obamacare? You do know Biden is on record as adamantly opposed to
Medicare4all? And, that Medicaid is a need-based nightmare of controlled deprivation? In a
country where public health is such a shambles that a pandemic is running out of control.
'All the attention in this thread so far has been on the political dimension of uncertainty,
but it seems to me the public health dimension is also crucial and quite up in the air. What
will the trajectory of the virus look like in the US over the next several months? Will
infections continue to explode out of control?'
Not just the public health, but the economic effects of the public health. As I pointed out
in a previous thread, it's not difficult to work out why Trump looked like he was going to win
in January: the stock market was booming, unemployment was low, crime was low, there were no
new wars it's not a mystery.
People vote with their wallets.
If Trump someone manages to face down the neo-liberals in his own party and arrange for a
gigantic stimulus bill (bigger than the last one) and keeps 'benefits' going past August, he is
in with a shout. If he doesn't, and if the economy continues its path to free fall, he will
lose.
People vote with their wallets. It is not difficult. You don't need to invoke Russia and
etc. to work out why Trump won in 2016 (the impact of the Obama stimulus package, which was too
small, hadn't et 'percolated through' to people's bank balances at that point). And, if Trump
loses in 2020, the reasons will be self-evident and nothing to do with 'people seeing through
him' or 'brave liberals averted a turn to fascism'. If he loses it will be because he screwed
up on the 'good' economy.
I think you must mean Susan Rice – Obama's former National Security Advisor. A known
Russophobe and neo-liberal Democrat warhawk. I believe Biden promised, in one of his lucid
moments, to choose 'a woman of color' for his VP. This is what it has come to in the fight to
capture votes; it's not enough to spend – literally – billions in campaign funds,
but you also have to court as many communities as possible instead of just picking the best
person for the job. I'm not suggesting it is impossible a black or brown woman could be the
best person for the job, but in that case there would be no need to announce it in advance,
thereby eliminating all whites and males from competition. You can blame the voters for that
as much as the politicians – screwing up the job of leadership has become so
commonplace that a perception has arisen that the choice should be made on the basis of
'whose turn it is'.
Susan Rice could be baited into war with Russia at the drop of a hat – she is not a
diplomat, has a filthy temper and is totally committed to the ideal of the United States as a
benevolent tyrant which is not afraid to make the tough decisions because it knows what's
best. When it says 'do', you do. Or else. I think it is pretty plain now that the Democratic
strategy is to either use Biden – if elected – as a talking head for the Clinton
Machine if he is able to remain reasonably convincing, or to relieve him for health reasons
if he becomes visibly incompetent. Either way, rule in that administration will not be
Biden's decisions.
It is so much easier to get along when both can be right and wrong in the same exchange. I
do not have to run to my room to bury my face in my pillow and scream, like I do when I'm
wrong. Well, that's The Hill, so it's a solid recommendation and not one of those throwaway
"Hey, she'd make a great president!" endorsements like the papers make whenever some new
mouthpiece appears briefly on the radar (remember 'Joe the plumber'?) But Condi has been out
of politics an eternity, in political time, and would have to rebuild alliances and get
quickly up to speed. I frankly doubt Biden is considering her.
She would be a marginal improvement on Susan Rice, though, for the faults I have already
cited.
During Obama's presidency, the US ambassador to the UN was a wonderfully talented brown
woman. Can't remember her name now, but she liked taking names.
No, no, this was during the first couple of years of Donald Trump's Presidency: the
woman's name was Nikki Haley, originally born Nimrata Randhawa and of Sikh Indian background.
She liked keeping a long shit list of people and countries to nurture dreams of punishment
against.
Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are getting most of the
buzz, but former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice is also been getting a lot
of attention in Joe Biden's campaign as he considers who to pick as his running mate, sources
say
####
I say, is that a cheeky cooking pun squeezed in to the headline? It gets a clap from me if
it is intentional!
From the way the project is framed, it seems to be a quite traditional top-down view of
how things might/will unfold. What seems to me to be absent from the outline is the
possibility that the underlying social reality the politicians regularly try to cope with has
been so churned up during the last few months that no attempt to comprehend "the economic
consequences of the pandemic" can get very far unless that new reality is first
evaluated.
What seems to me to be absent from the outline is the possibility that the underlying
social reality the politicians regularly try to cope with has been so churned up during the
last few months that no attempt to comprehend "the economic consequences of the pandemic"
can get very far unless that new reality is first evaluated.
Right. And not only COVID-19 is a "known unknown." Riots are yet another factor. If
iconoclasm activity continues, chances of Biden with his semi-senility as an albatross around
his neck might become more problematic. Essentially rioters increase the chances of Trump
re-election.
The guy does not understand that the Uniparty (Cola Pepsi dichotonomy) drives riots to avoid questions about
deterioration of standard of living of lower 80% of population, illicit enrichment of financial oligarchy, privatization of
healthcare by private equity sharks and other ills of neoliberalism
There will be no civil war. Most of the events are just directed toward winning November elections and financed with this
explicit purpose via usual color revolution channels (Soros and Co) . When a vulture capitalist (Romney) supports the
movement, you can be sure that it is fake.
Notable quotes:
"... In last week's article I discussed the issue of American "balkanization" and the rapid migration of conservatives and moderates from large population centers and states that are becoming militant in their progressive ideology. ..."
"... Others are here because they can't stand the hostility of identity politics, cancel culture and race riots. Either way, they are fleeing places with decidedly leftist influences. ..."
In last week's article I discussed the issue of American "balkanization" and the rapid
migration of conservatives and moderates from large population centers and states that are
becoming militant in their progressive ideology. In my home state of Montana there has been a
surge of people trying to escape the chaos and oppression of leftist states. Some are here
because of the pandemic and the harsh restrictions they had to endure during the first
lockdowns. Others are here because they can't stand the hostility of identity politics, cancel
culture and race riots. Either way, they are fleeing places with decidedly leftist
influences.
Uprooting and moving to an entirely new place is not an easy thing to do, especially in the
middle of a pandemic. For many people, such an idea would have been unthinkable only a few
years ago. Believe me, moving to a place like the Rocky Mountain Redoubt is not an easy
transition for most. Hopefully these people understand that they will have to make extensive
preparations for the rough winter and be ready to work hard in the spring and summer months to
survive. Maybe they don't realize yet how tough it is here; maybe they know and don't care.
That's how bad the situation has become – Rational and reasonable people are willing
to leave behind their old life and risk it all to keep a margin of freedom.
In my view it is clear that the political left has gone so far off the rails into its own
cultism that there is no coming back. There can be no reconciliation between the two sides, so
we must separate, or we must fight. I advocate for separation first for a number of
reasons:
First and foremost, conservatives are the primary producers within American culture. If
we leave the leftists to their own devices there is a chance they will simply implode in on
themselves and eat each other because they have no idea how to fill the production void.
The recent developments in the defunct CHAZ/CHOP autonomous zone are a perfect example.
Those people don't have the slightest clue what they are doing and it shows.
Second, if conservatives separate it provides a buffer that helps defuse future random
conflicts. When you force the two sides into a box together eventually they will find a
reason to try to kill each other. Putting some distance between them and us reduces the
angst.
Third, if the leftists decide they don't like that we have separated and are thriving on
our own, and they attempt to antagonize or attack us where we live, then we hold the clear
moral high ground when we smash them to pieces in response.
I fully realize that the third outcome is the most likely. War is probably inevitable. Why?
Because collectivists and narcissists are never satisfied. They desire unlimited control over
the lives of others and they will use any means to get that control no matter how destructive.
Separating from them is only a stop-gap that allows us to take the superior position. Through
peaceful migration, we set the pace of the conflict. Eventually they will come after us, and
there will be no doubt about our response then. There will be no way to spin the result in
their favor, no way for them to play the victims.
"... So called “Democrats”, especially Biden himself, and Biden entourage are sellouts to financial oligarchy. They represent defeated in 2016 wing of the US neoliberal elite — adherents to classic neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization. ..."
"... To expect them to attempt anything of value other the kicking the neoliberalism can down the road is extremely naive. ..."
The more you tie your analysis of economic consequences to the assumption of a Democratic
victory in the Presidential election and a Democratic majority in the Senate, the more of it
will be at risk of being rendered moot by the Republicans retaining either the Presidency or
a Senate majority or both, but I guess you know that and are implicitly accepting the risk of
having to do a lot of rewriting in that event (if the book is supposed to appear after the
elections) or of the book rapidly losing value after the elections (if it’s supposed to
appear earlier).
By the same logic, the more you tie your analysis of economic consequences to one
particular the way the political strategic battle will play out following the election of a
Democratic President and Congressional majority, the more of it will be at risk of being
rendered moot by the Democrats pursuing a different strategy. Given the initial assumption of
a Democratic President with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, I suggest you
would do better with a short discussion at a very high level of generality about why
(a) you
expect the Democrats to have the necessary political determination to overcome obstructionism
by a Senate minority and/or the Supreme Court and
(b) you believe there are strategic and
procedural options available (not necessarily just one option) by which the Democrats could
overcome Senate and/or Supreme Court opposition to a substantial extent if not entirely. You
may be right in advising the selection of health care as the issue to fight on, but if the
Democrats choose a different one and achieve a similar procedural victory, the economic
consequences will be much the same, surely?
I’m assuming that the title is supposed to be a genuine indication of the main topic
of the book and not a way of disguising a real topic of ‘What’s Going to Happen
Next’ or ‘What Should Happen Next’, which would not be quite the same.
If the Democrats take the White House and Congress they’ll have a very short window
to get anything done. The plutocracy will react by weakening the dollar e.g. by moving small
amounts into the euro, cryptocurrencies and/or even the renmimbi. Interest rates will rise,
and this will frighten many (or most) of the Democrats into austerity measures to reduce the
budget deficit.
Thus will arise the old propaganda refrain that Democrats don’t know
what they are doing, and the resulting frustrations, and Fox News falsehoods, might prompt
voters to return Congress to Republican control in the midterms.
Therefore the Democrats should adopt a strategy of getting a few irreversible things done
at the very beginning by ditching the filibuster and passing some popular programs which
might ALSO help the party against Republican propaganda in future elections. This can be done
in healthcare, comprehensive immigration reform, infrastructure, and new constitutional
amendments.
Healthcare — Push for a public option so people can choose to join a national single
payer: “Health Care National Choice.” 70% of the people want this. This can grow
to subsume and finally eliminate Medicaid, which is a tough sell to many state governments
and their voters because they have to pick up half the Medicaid costs after several
years.
Immigration — Pass the total package: improved border security (including fencing)
and an expanded immigration court system + immediate citizenship for DACA and a path to
citizenship for the 11 million other illegals. “Comprehensive Immigration
Reform.” 70% of the people want this, too. It has been proposed a half-dozen times in
one form or another since Bill Clinton’s presidency, and the moderate Republicans come
on board, but the rightwing fringe opposes it so it doesn’t get passed, and then the
Republicans lie in the very next election that the Democrats want open borders. This insanity
has to stop — stop being victims of the rope-a-dope, and get rid of the filibuster!
Constitutional amendments — 1. Amendment against anonymous property holdings: A. End
to dark money campaign contributions. B. End to anonymous shell corporations. C. Any
candidate for US President must release the last ten years of tax returns.
Amendment against executive misconduct: A. Executive branch inspectors general shall not
be removed but by Congressional approval. B. Not complying with Congressional subpoenas is an
impeachable offense. C. In the case of House impeachment, “executive privilege”
is automatically voided. D. If a President is removed from office, all of his or her pardons
are automatically voided and the miscreants returned to jail.
likbez 07.05.20 at 2:29 am
So called “Democrats”, especially Biden himself, and Biden entourage are sellouts to financial oligarchy. They
represent defeated in 2016 wing of the US neoliberal elite — adherents to classic neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization.
To expect them to attempt anything of value other the kicking the neoliberalism can down the road is extremely naive.
In this sense Lee A. Arnold post ( 07.04.20 at 5:20 pm #12) is completely detached from reality.
My take on Tucker and Maddow: both serve those who write their paychecks, but one of the
two bosses is a better businessman.
Tucker does not duplicate Hannity which lets them serve different (if overlapping)
segments of the audience. Showing Paralimpil and Gabbard to the viewers did not lead to any
major perturbation in American politics, but it lets his viewer feel that they are better
informed than the fools who watch Maddow. And it helps that to a degree they are.
I get that Tucker invites good a reasonable people on his show and gives voice space where
they would not otherwise get it. That is deliberate.
I bet you that the stats show that the demented monotone oozing out of MSNBC and CNN etc
has been a serious turn off for a sector of audience that is well informed and exercise
critical faculties. That is exactly what Tucker needs to pay for his program as I would be
fairly sure these people are Consumers of a desirable degree and advertisers like Tucker's
formula and Fox Bosses like Tuckers income generator.
I don't think it is more complex than that and his bosses will entertain most heresies as
long as the program generates advertiser demand for that time slot.
So Tucker is OK and he is reasonable and he will interview a broad spectrum. Good for him.
But he smooths the pillow and caresses the establishment arse.
So former tank repairman decided again managed to make a make a mark in world diplomacy
:-).
Notable quotes:
"... Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his attempt to gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the old P5+1: ..."
"... The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S. stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation. ..."
"... Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's alarmist warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters that it would use to threaten Europe and India: ..."
"... This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed these capabilities while under the current embargo. ..."
"... The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law. ..."
Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his
attempt to
gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the
old P5+1:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Tuesday for an arms embargo on Iran to be
extended indefinitely, but his appeal fell flat at the United Nations Security Council, where
Russia and China rejected it outright and close allies of the United States were
ambivalent.
The Trump administration is more isolated than ever in its Iran obsession. The ridiculous
effort to invoke the so-called "snapback" provision of the JCPOA more than two years after
reneging on the agreement met with failure, just as most observers predicted months
ago when it was first floated as a possibility. As I said at the time, "The
administration's latest destructive ploy won't find any support on the Security Council. There
is nothing "intricate" about this idea. It is a crude, heavy-handed attempt to employ the
JCPOA's own provisions to destroy it." It was never going to work because all of the other
parties to the agreement want nothing to do with the administration's punitive approach, and
U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA meant that it forfeited any rights it had when it was still part
of the deal.
Opposition from Russia and China was a given, but the striking thing about the scene at the
U.N. this week was that major U.S. allies
joined them in rebuking the administration's obvious bad faith maneuver:
The pointedly critical tone of the debate saw Germany accusing Washington of violating
international law by withdrawing from the nuclear pact, while Berlin aligned itself with
China's claim that the United States has no right to reimpose U.N. sanctions on Iran.
The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to
destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S.
stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran
and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of
its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation.
Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's
alarmist
warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters
that it would use to threaten Europe and India:
If you fail to act, Iran will be free to purchase Russian-made fighter jets that can
strike up to a 3,000 kilometer radius, putting cities like Riyadh, New Delhi, Rome, and
Warsaw in Iranian crosshairs.
This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last
thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how
deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to
launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed
these capabilities while under the current embargo.
It has no need for expensive fighters, and
it is not at all certain that their government would even be interested in acquiring them. Pompeo's presentation was a weak attempt to exaggerate the potential threat from a state that
has very limited power projection, and he found no support because his serial fabrications
about Iran have rendered everything he says to be worthless.
The same administration that wants to keep an arms embargo on Iran forever has no problem
flooding the region with U.S.-made weapons and providing them to some of the worst governments
in the world. It is these client states that are doing the most to destabilize other countries
in the region right now. If the U.N. should be putting arms embargoes on any country, it should
consider imposing them on Saudi Arabia and the UAE to limit their ability to wreak havoc on
Yemen and Libya.
The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to
reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt
to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law.
"This good and benevolent government was given to us by, you know, the thing," said Joe
Biden.
"We should take a moment and be thankful for that. You know, I was around on the first
Dependence Day, when Paul Washington and George Revere rode their donkeys into the holy city
of Washington. I watched them come into town. I even stuck a feather in Revere's hat and
called him 'macaroni'. He didn't really appreciate that, you know. But it was a good
time."
"Durkan called for charges to be dismissed against those who were arrested for alleged misdemeanors The mayor also said that
Seattle arts and parks departments would preserve a community garden and artwork and murals that protesters created within the
zone."
...Statues of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant and Theodore Roosevelt are dragged down, while the murals and graffiti
of misfits who trashed downtown Seattle are to be preserved.
It's been nearly four years since the myth of Trump-Russia collusion made its debut in
American politics, generating an endless stream of stories in the corporate press and hundreds
of allegations of conspiracy from pundits and officials. But despite netting scores of
embarrassing admissions, corrections, editor's notes and retractions in that time, the theory
refuses to die.
Over the years, the highly elaborate "Russiagate" narrative has fallen away piece-by-piece.
Claims about Donald Trump's various back channels to Moscow -- Carter Page ,
George Papadopoulos ,
Michael Flynn ,
Paul Manafort ,
Alfa Bank -- have each been thoroughly discredited. House Intelligence Committee
transcripts released in May have revealed that nobody who asserted a Russian hack on Democratic
computers, including the
DNC's own cyber security firm , is able to produce evidence that it happened. In fact, it
is now clear the entire investigation into the Trump campaign was
without basis .
It was alleged that Moscow manipulated the president with " kompromat " and black mail,
sold to the public in a " dossier " compiled by a former British
intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. Working through a DC consulting firm , Steele was hired by
Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump, gathering a litany of accusations that Steele's own primary
source would later dismiss as "hearsay" and "rumor."
Though the FBI was
aware the dossier was little more than sloppy opposition research, the bureau nonetheless
used it to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
Even the claim that Russia helped Trump from afar, without direct coordination, has fallen
flat on its face. The "
troll farm " allegedly tapped by the Kremlin to wage a pro-Trump meme war -- the Internet
Research Agency -- spent only $46,000 on Facebook ads, or around 0.05 percent
of the $81 million budget of the Trump and Clinton campaigns. The vast majority of the IRA's
ads had nothing to do with U.S. politics, and more than half of those that did were published
after the election, having no impact on voters. The Department of Justice, moreover,
has dropped its charges
against the IRA's parent company, abandoning a major case resulting from Robert Mueller's
special counsel probe.
Though few of its most diehard proponents would ever admit it, after four long years, the
foundation of the Trump-Russia narrative has finally given way and its edifice has crumbled.
The wreckage left behind will remain for some time to come, however, kicking off a new era of
mainstream McCarthyism and setting the stage for the next Cold War.
It Didn't Start With
Trump
The importance of Russiagate to U.S. foreign policy cannot be understated, but the road to
hostilities with Moscow stretches far beyond the current administration. For thirty years, the
United States has
exploited its de facto victory in the first Cold War, interfering in Russian elections in
the 1990s, aiding oligarchs as they looted the country into poverty, and orchestrating Color
Revolutions in former Soviet states. NATO, meanwhile, has been enlarged up to Russia's border,
despite American assurances the alliance wouldn't expand "
one inch " eastward after the collapse of the USSR.
Unquestionably, from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the day Trump took office, the United
States maintained an aggressive policy toward Moscow. But with the USSR wiped off the map and
communism defeated for good, a sufficient pretext to rally the American public into another
Cold War has been missing in the post-Soviet era. In the same 30-year period, moreover,
Washington has pursued one disastrous
diversion after another in the Middle East, leaving little space or interest for another
round of brinkmanship with the Russians, who were relegated to little more than a talking
point. That, however, has changed.
The Crisis They Needed
The Washington foreign policy establishment -- memorably dubbed "
the Blob " by one Obama adviser -- was thrown into disarray by Trump's election win in the
fall of 2016. In some ways, Trump stood out as the dove during the race, deeming "endless wars"
in the Middle East a scam, calling for closer ties with Russia, and even questioning the
usefulness of NATO. Sincere or not, Trump's campaign vows shocked the Beltway think tankers,
journalists, and politicos whose worldviews (and salaries) rely on the maintenance of empire.
Something had to be done.
In the summer of 2016, WikiLeaks
published thousands of emails belonging to then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, her
campaign manager, and the Democratic National Committee. Though damaging to Clinton, the leak
became fodder for a powerful new attack on the president-to-be. Trump had worked in league with
Moscow to throw the election, the story went, and the embarrassing email trove was stolen in a
Russian hack, then passed to WikiLeaks to propel Trump's campaign.
By the time Trump took office, the narrative was in full swing. Pundits and politicians
rushed to outdo one another in hysterically denouncing the supposed election-meddling, which
was deemed the "political equivalent" of the 9/11
attacks , tantamount to
Pearl Harbor , and akin to the Nazis' 1938
Kristallnacht pogrom. In lock-step with the U.S. intelligence community -- which soon
issued a
pair of reports endorsing the Russian hacking
story -- the Blob quickly joined the cause, hoping to short-circuit any tinkering with NATO or
rapprochement with Moscow under Trump.
The allegations soon broadened well beyond hacking. Russia had now waged war on American
democracy itself, and "sowed discord" with misinformation online, all in direct collusion with
the Trump campaign. Talking heads on cable news and former intelligence officials -- some of
them playing both
roles at once -- weaved a dramatic plot of conspiracy out of countless news reports,
clinging to many of the "bombshell" stories long after their key claims were
blown up .
A
large segment of American society eagerly bought the fiction, refusing to believe that
Trump, the game show host, could have defeated Clinton without assistance from a foreign power.
For the first time since the fall of the USSR, rank-and-file Democrats and moderate
progressives were aligned with some of the most vocal Russia hawks across the aisle, creating
space for what many have called a " new Cold War. "
Stress Fractures
Under immense pressure and nonstop allegations, the candidate who shouted "America First"
and slammed NATO as "
obsolete " quickly adapted himself to the foreign policy consensus on the alliance, one of
the first signs the Trump-Russia story was bearing fruit.
Demonstrating the Blob in action, during debate on the Senate floor over Montenegro's bid to
join NATO in March 2017, the hawkish John McCain castigated Rand Paul for daring to oppose the
measure, riding on anti-Russian sentiments stoked during the election to accuse him of "working for Vladimir
Putin." With most lawmakers agreeing the expansion of NATO was needed to "push back" against
Russia, the Senate approved the request nearly
unanimously and Trump signed it without batting an eye -- perhaps seeing the attacks a veto
would bring, even from his own party.
Allowing Montenegro -- a country that illustrates everything wrong with
NATO -- to join the alliance may suggest Trump's criticisms were always empty talk, but the
establishment's drive to constrain his foreign policy was undoubtedly having an effect. Just a
few months later, the administration would put out its National
Security Strategy , stressing the need to refocus U.S. military engagements from
counter-terrorism in the Middle East to "great power competition" with Russia and China.
On another aspiring NATO member, Ukraine, the president was also hectored into reversing
course under pressure from the Blob. During the 2016 race, the corporate press savaged the
Trump campaign for working behind the scenes to " water down " the Republican Party platform after it opposed a
pledge to arm Ukraine's post-coup government. That stance did not last long.
Though even Obama decided against arming the new government -- which his administration
helped to install
-- Trump reversed that move in late 2017, handing Kiev hundreds of Javelin anti-tank missiles.
In an irony noticed by
few , some of the arms went to
open neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian military, who were integrated into the country's National
Guard after leading street battles with security forces in the Obama-backed coup of 2014. Some
of the very same Beltway critics slamming the president as a racist demanded he pass weapons to
out-and-out white supremacists.
Ukraine's
bid to join NATO has all but stalled under President Volodymyr Zelensky, but the country
has nonetheless played an outsized role in American politics both before and after Trump took
office. In the wake of Ukraine's 2014 U.S.-sponsored coup, "Russian aggression" became a
favorite slogan in the American press, laying the ground for future allegations of
election-meddling.
Weaponizing Ukraine
The drive for renewed hostilities with Moscow got underway well before Trump took the Oval
Office, nurtured in its early stages under the Obama administration. Using Ukraine's revolution
as a springboard, Obama launched a major rhetorical and policy offensive against Russia,
casting it in the role of an aggressive ,
expansionist power.
Protests erupted in Ukraine in late 2013, following President Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to
sign an association agreement with the European Union, preferring to keep closer ties with
Russia. Demanding a deal with the EU and an end to government corruption, demonstrators --
including the above-mentioned neo-Nazis -- were soon in the streets clashing with security
forces. Yanukovych was chased out of the country, and eventually out of power.
Through cut-out organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the Obama
administration poured millions of
dollars into the Ukrainian opposition prior to the coup, training, organizing and funding
activists. Dubbed the "Euromaidan Revolution," Yanukovych's ouster mirrored similar US-backed
color coups before and since, with Uncle Sam riding on the back of legitimate grievances while
positioning the most
U.S.-friendly figures to take power afterward.
The coup set off serious unrest in Ukraine's Russian-speaking enclaves, the eastern Donbass
region and the Crimean Peninsula to the south. In the Donbass, secessionist forces attempted
their own revolution, prompting the new government in Kiev to launch a bloody "war on terror"
that continues to this day. Though the separatists received some level of support from Moscow,
Washington placed sole blame on the Russians for Ukraine's unrest, while the press breathlessly
predicted an all-out invasion that never materialized.
In Crimea -- where Moscow has kept its Black Sea Fleet since the late 1700s -- Russia took a
more forceful stance, seizing the territory to keep control of its long term naval base. The
annexation was accomplished without bloodshed, and a referendum was held weeks later affirming
that a large majority of Crimeans supported rejoining Russia, a sentiment
western polling firms have since
corroborated . Regardless, as in the Donbass, the move was labeled an invasion, eventually
triggering a raft of sanctions from the
U.S. and the EU (and more
recently, from
Trump himself ).
The media made no effort to see Russia's perspective on Crimea in the wake of the revolution
-- imagining the U.S. response if the roles were reversed, for example -- and all but ignored
the preferences of Crimeans. Instead, it spun a black-and-white story of "Russian aggression"
in Ukraine. For the Blob, Moscow's actions there put Vladimir Putin on par with Adolf Hitler,
driving a flood of frenzied press coverage not seen again until the 2016
election.
Succumbing to Hysteria
While Trump had already begun to cave to the onslaught of Russiagate in the early months of
his presidency, a July 2018 meeting with Putin in Helsinki presented an opportunity to reverse
course, offering a venue to hash out differences and plan for future cooperation. Trump's
previous sit-downs with his Russian counterpart were largely uneventful, but widely portrayed
as a meeting between master and puppet. At the Helsinki Summit, however, a meager gesture
toward improved relations was met with a new level of hysterics.
Trump's refusal to interrogate Putin on his supposed election-hacking during a summit press
conference was taken as irrefutable proof that the two were conspiring together. Former CIA
Director John Brennan declared it an
act of treason , while CNN gravely
contemplated whether Putin's gift to Trump during the meetings -- a World Cup soccer ball
-- was really a secret spying transmitter. By this point, Robert Mueller's special counsel
probe was in full effect, lending official credibility to the collusion story and further
emboldening the claims of conspiracy.
Though the summit did little to strengthen U.S.-Russia ties and Trump made no real effort to
do so -- beyond resisting the calls to directly confront Putin -- it brought on some of the
most extreme attacks yet, further ratcheting up the cost of rapprochement. The window of
opportunity presented in Helsinki, while only cracked to begin with, was now firmly shut, with
Trump as reluctant as ever to make good on his original policy platform.
Sanctions!
After taking a beating in Helsinki, the administration allowed tensions with Moscow to soar
to new heights, more or less embracing the Blob's favored policies and often even outdoing the
Obama government's hawkishness toward Russia in both rhetoric and action.
In March 2018, the poisoning of a former Russian spy living in the United Kingdom was blamed
on Moscow in a highly
elaborate storyline that ultimately fell
apart (sound familiar?), but nonetheless triggered a wave of retaliation from western
governments. In the largest diplomatic purge in US history, the Trump administration expelled
60 Russian officials in a period of two days, surpassing Obama's ejection of 35 diplomats in
response to the election-meddling allegations.
Though Trump had called to lift rather
than impose penalties on Russia before taking office, worn down by endless negative press
coverage and surrounded by a coterie of hawkish advisers, he was brought around on the merits
of sanctions before long, and has used them liberally ever since.
Goodbye INF, RIP
OST
By October 2018, Trump had largely abandoned any idea of improving the relationship with
Russia and, in addition to the barrage of sanctions, began shredding a series of major treaties
and arms control agreements. He started with the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty (INF), which had eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons -- medium-range missiles
-- and removed Europe as a theater for nuclear war.
At this point in Trump's tenure, super-hawk John Bolton had assumed the position of national
security advisor, encouraging the president's worst instincts and using his newfound influence
to convince Trump to ditch the INF treaty. Bolton -- who helped to detonate a number of arms control
pacts in previous administrations -- argued that Russia's new short-range missile had
violated the treaty. While there remains some dispute over the missile's true range and whether
it actually breached the agreement, Washington failed to pursue available dispute mechanisms
and ignored Russian offers for talks to resolve the spat.
After the U.S. officially scrapped the agreement, it quickly began testing formerly-banned
munitions. Unlike the Russian missiles, which were only said to have a range overstepping the
treaty by a few miles, the U.S. began testing nuclear-capable land-based cruise
missiles expressly banned under the INF.
Next came the Open Skies Treaty (OST), an idea originally floated by President Eisenhower,
but which wouldn't take shape until 1992, when an agreement was struck between NATO and former
Warsaw Pact nations. The agreement now has over 30 members and allows each to arrange
surveillance flights over other members' territory, an important confidence-building measure in
the post-Soviet world.
Trump saw matters differently, however, and turned a minor dispute over Russia's
implementation of the pact into a reason to discard it altogether, again egged on by militant
advisers. In late May 2020, the president declared
his intent to withdraw from the nearly 30-year-old agreement, proposing nothing to replace
it.
Quid Pro Quo
With the DOJ's special counsel probe into Trump-Russia collusion
coming up short on both smoking-gun evidence and relevant indictments, the president's
enemies began searching for new angles of attack. Following a July 2019 phone call between
Trump and his newly elected Ukrainian counterpart, they soon found one.
During the call ,
Trump urged Zelensky to investigate a computer server he believed to be linked to Russiagate,
and to look into potential
corruption and nepotism on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden, who played an
active role in Ukraine following the Obama-backed coup.
Less than two months later, a " whistleblower
" -- a CIA officer detailed to the White House, Eric Ciaramella -- came forward with an "urgent
concern" that the president had abused his office on the July call. According to his
complaint , Trump threatened to withhold U.S. military aid, as well as a face-to-face
meeting with Zelensky, should Kiev fail to deliver the goods on Biden, who by that point was a
major contender in the 2020 race.
The same players who peddled Russiagate seized on Ciaramella's account to manufacture a
whole new scandal: "Ukrainegate." Failing to squeeze an impeachment out of the Mueller probe,
the Democrats did just that with the Ukraine call, insisting Trump had committed grave
offenses, again conspiring with a foreign leader to meddle in a U.S. election.
At a high point during the impeachment trial, an expert called to testify by the Democrats
revived George W.
Bush's "fight them over there" maxim to
argue for U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine, citing the Russian menace. The effort was doomed
from the start, however, with a GOP-controlled Senate never likely to convict and the evidence
weak for a "quid pro quo" with Zelensky. Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, was a failure
in its stated goal, yet both served to mark the administration with claims of foreign collusion
and press for more hawkish policies toward Moscow.
The End of New START?
The Obama administration scored a rare diplomatic achievement with Russia in 2010, signing
the New START Treaty, a continuation of the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty inked in
the waning days of the Soviet Union. Like its first iteration, the agreement places a cap on
the number of nuclear weapons and warheads deployed by each side. It featured a ten-year sunset
clause, but included provisions to continue beyond its initial end date.
With the treaty set to expire in early 2021, it has become an increasingly hot topic
throughout Trump's presidency. While Trump sold himself as an expert dealmaker on the campaign
trail -- an artist , even -- his negotiation
skills have shown lacking when it comes to working out a new deal with the Russians.
The administration has
demanded that China be incorporated into any extended version of the treaty, calling on
Russia to compel Beijing to the negotiating table and vastly complicating any prospect for a
deal. With a nuclear arsenal around one-tenth the size of that of Russia or the U.S., China has
refused to join the pact. Washington's intransigence on the issue has put the future of the
treaty in limbo and largely left Russia without a negotiating partner.
A second Trump term would spell serious trouble for New START, having already shown
willingness to shred the INF and Open Skies agreements. And with the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty (ABM) already killed under the Bush administration, New START is one of the few
remaining constraints on the planet's two largest nuclear arsenals.
Despite pursuing massive escalation with Moscow from 2018 onward, Trump-Russia conspiracy
allegations never stopped pouring from newspapers and TV screens. For the Blob -- heavily
invested in a narrative as fruitful as it was false -- Trump would forever be "Putin's puppet,"
regardless of the sanctions imposed, the landmark treaties incinerated or the deluge of warlike
rhetoric.
Running for an Arms Race
As the Trump administration leads the country into the next Cold War, a renewed arms race is
also in the making. The destruction of key arms control pacts by previous administrations has
fed a proliferation powder keg, and the demise of New START could be the spark to set it
off.
Following Bush Jr.'s termination of the ABM deal in 2002 -- wrecking a pact which placed
limits on Russian and American missile defense systems to maintain the balance of mutually
assured destruction -- Russia soon resumed funding for a number of strategic weapons projects,
including its hypersonic missile. In his announcement of the new technology in
2018, Putin deemed the move a response to Washington's unilateral withdrawal from ABM, which
also saw the U.S. develop new weapons .
Though he inked New START and campaigned on vows to pursue an end to the bomb, President
Obama also helped to advance the arms build-up, embarking on a 30-year
nuclear modernization project set to cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion. The Trump administration
has embraced the initiative with open arms, even
adding to it , as Moscow follows suit with upgrades to its own arsenal.
In May, Trump's top arms control envoy promised to spend Russia and China
into oblivion in the event of any future arms race, but one was already well underway.
After withdrawing from INF, the administration began churning
out previously banned nuclear-capable cruise missiles, while fielding an entire new class
of
low-yield nuclear weapons. Known as "tactical nukes," the smaller warheads lower the
threshold for use, making nuclear conflict more likely. Meanwhile, the White House has also
mulled a live bomb test -- America's first since 1992 -- though has apparently shelved
the idea for now.
A Runaway Freight Train
As Trump approaches the end of his first term, the two major U.S. political parties have
become locked in a permanent cycle of escalation, eternally compelled to prove who's the bigger
hawk. The president put up mild resistance during his first months in office, but the
relentless drumbeat of Russiagate successfully crushed any chances for improved ties with
Moscow.
The Democrats refuse to give up on "Russian aggression" and see virtually no pushback from
hawks across the aisle, while intelligence "leaks" continue to flow into the imperial press,
fueling a whole new round of election-meddling
allegations .
Likewise, Trump's campaign vows to revamp U.S.-Russian relations are long dead. His
presidency counts among its accomplishments a pile of new sanctions, dozens of expelled
diplomats and the demise of two major arms control treaties. For all his talk of getting along
with Putin, Trump has failed to ink a single deal, de-escalate any of the ongoing strife over
Syria, Ukraine or Libya, and been unable to arrange one state visit in Moscow or DC.
Nonetheless, Trump's every action is still interpreted through the lens of Russian
collusion. After announcing a troop drawdown in Germany on June 5, reducing the U.S. presence
by just one-third, the president was met with the now-typical swarm of baseless charges. MSNBC
regular and retired general Barry McCaffrey dubbed the move "a gift to
Russia," while GOP Rep. Liz Cheney said the meager troop movement
placed the "cause of freedom in peril." Top Democrats in the House and Senate
introduced bills to stop the withdrawal dead in its tracks, attributing the policy to
Trump's "absurd affection for Vladimir Putin, a murderous dictator."
Starting as a dirty campaign trick to explain away the Democrats' election loss and jam up
the new president, Russiagate is now a key driving force in the U.S. political establishment
that will long outlive the age of Trump. After nearly four years, the bipartisan consensus on
the need for Cold War is stronger than ever, and will endure regardless of who takes the Oval
Office next.
"... I agree that globalism is/will be heading into the dumpers, but I see no chance that US-based manufacturing is going to make any significant come-back. ..."
"... What market will there be for US-manufactured goods? US "consumers" are heavily in debt and facing continued downward pressures on income. ..."
"... There will certainly be, especially given the eye-opener of COVID-19, a big push to have medical (which includes associated tech) production capacities reinvigorated in the US. ..."
"... More "disposable" income goes toward medical expenditures. Less money goes toward creating export items; wealth creation only occurs through a positive increase in balance of trade. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, death, the US will likely continue, for the mid-term, to export weaponry; but, don't expect enough growth here to mean much (margins will drop as competition increases, so figure downward pressure on net export $$). ..."
"... the planet cannot comply with our economic model's dependency on perpetual growth: there can NOT be perpetual growth on a finite planet. US manufacturing requires, as it always has, export markets; requires ever-increasing exports: this is really true for all others. Higher standards of living in the US (and add in increasing medical costs which factor into cost of goods sold) means that the price of US-manufactured goods will be less affordable to peoples outside of the US. ..."
"... I'll also note that the notion of there being a cycle, a parabolic curve, in civilizations is well noted/documented in Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival (you can find electronic bootlegged copies on the Internet)- HIGHLY recommended reading! ..."
"... All of this is pretty much reflected in Wall Street companies ramp-ups in stock-buy-backs. That's money that's NOT put in R&D or expansion. I'm pretty sure that the brains in all of this KNOW what the situation is: growth is never coming back. ..."
"... Make no mistake, what we're facing is NOT another recession or depression, it's not part of what we think as a downturn in the "business cycle," as though we'll "pull out of it," it's basically an end to the super-cycle ..."
"... We are at the peak (slightly past peak, but not far enough to realize it yet) and there is no returning. Per-capita income and energy consumption have peaked. There's not enough resources and not enough new demand (younger people, people that have wealth) to keep the perpetual growth machine going. ..."
I agree that globalism is/will be heading into the dumpers, but I see no chance that US-based manufacturing is going to
make any significant come-back.
The world's economy is in contraction. Although capital, what actual capital exists, will have to try and do something "productive,"
it is confronted by this fact, that everything is facing contraction. During times of contraction it's a game of acquisition rather
than expanding capacity: the sum total is STILL contraction; and the contraction WILL be a reduction in excess, excess manufacturing
and labor.
What market will there be for US-manufactured goods? US "consumers" are heavily in debt and facing continued downward pressures
on income. China is self-sufficient (enough) other than energy (which can be acquired outside of US markets). Most every other
country is in a position of declining wealth (per capita income levels peaked and in decline). And manufacturing continues to
increase its automation (less workers means less consumers).
There will certainly be, especially given the eye-opener of COVID-19, a big push to have medical (which includes associated
tech) production capacities reinvigorated in the US. One has to look at this in The Big Picture of what it means, and that's that
the US population is aging (and in poor health).
More "disposable" income goes toward medical expenditures. Less money goes toward
creating export items; wealth creation only occurs through a positive increase in balance of trade. And on the opposite end of
the spectrum, death, the US will likely continue, for the mid-term, to export weaponry; but, don't expect enough growth here to
mean much (margins will drop as competition increases, so figure downward pressure on net export $$).
Lastly, and it's the reason why global trade is being knocked down, is that the planet cannot comply with our economic model's
dependency on perpetual growth: there can NOT be perpetual growth on a finite planet. US manufacturing requires, as it always
has, export markets; requires ever-increasing exports: this is really true for all others. Higher standards of living in the US
(and add in increasing medical costs which factor into cost of goods sold) means that the price of US-manufactured goods will
be less affordable to peoples outside of the US.
And here too is the fact that other countries' populations are also aging. Years
ago I dove into the demographics angle/assessment to find out that ALL countries ramp and age and that you can see countries'
energy consumption rise and their their net trade balance swing negative- there's a direct correlation: go to the CIA's Factbook
and look at demographics and energy and the graphs tell the story.
I'll also note that the notion of there being a cycle, a parabolic
curve, in civilizations is well noted/documented in Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival (you can find
electronic bootlegged copies on the Internet)- HIGHLY recommended reading!
All of this is pretty much reflected in Wall Street companies ramp-ups in stock-buy-backs. That's money that's NOT put in R&D
or expansion. I'm pretty sure that the brains in all of this KNOW what the situation is: growth is never coming back.
MANY years ago I stated that we will one day face "economies of scale in reverse." We NEVER considered that growth couldn't
continue forever. There was never a though about what would happen with the reverse "of economies of scale."
Make no mistake,
what we're facing is NOT another recession or depression, it's not part of what we think as a downturn in the "business cycle,"
as though we'll "pull out of it," it's basically an end to the super-cycle.
We will never be able to replicate the state of things
as they are. We are at the peak (slightly past peak, but not far enough to realize it yet) and there is no returning. Per-capita
income and energy consumption have peaked. There's not enough resources and not enough new demand (younger people, people that
have wealth) to keep the perpetual growth machine going.
It is not just senility. Looks like Ukrainegate is not enough for her and she wants to throw kitchen sink at Trump. Charging for "alleged"
action is directly from Stalin's NKVD practice
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday called for US sanctions against Russia's intelligence
service over bounties that it reportedly offered Taliban militants to kill American soldiers in
Afghanistan.
...After drawing outrage from progressives for having Larry Summers – a neoliberal
economist who ran the Treasury under Bill Clinton and later Harvard University – advising
the campaign, back in April, Biden's handlers have decided to keep mum about his advisers going
forward.
Anyone advising Biden has been sworn to secrecy, banned from even acknowledging their
relationship with the campaign, let alone revealing the names of other members, according to a
New York
Times feature on Thursday, titled 'Biden's Brain Trust on the Economy: Liberal and Sworn to
Silence'.
"Simply put, do not talk to the press": Biden is now seeking input from more than 100
left-leaning economists and other researchers, but shrouding his team in secrecy.
@jimtankersley
@thomaskaplan https://t.co/E6h8Eumydf
Presumptive Democratic nominee for President Joe Biden has perplexed the Internet by making
a highly confusing brag against sitting President Donald Trump, by saying that he will "read
his daily briefings."
...The lack of overt context in his statement quickly led many commenters to declare his
pledge the "lowest bar ever" for a presidential hopeful.
"... One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia paid the Taliban to kill GIs as an attempt to pre-empt the findings into Russiagate's origins. ..."
"... But Moscow recognized from the start that Washington was embarked on a fool's errand in Vietnam. There would be no percentage in getting directly involved. And so, the Soviets sat back and watched smugly as the Vietnamese Communists drove U.S. forces out on their "own resources." As was the case with the Viet Cong, the Taliban needs no bounty inducements from abroad. ..."
"... Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is complete, when everything the American public believes is false." ..."
"... If Durham finds it fraudulent (not a difficult task), the heads of senior intelligence and law enforcement officials may roll. That would also mean a still deeper dent in the credibility of Establishment media that are only too eager to drink the Kool Aid and to leave plenty to drink for the rest of us. ..."
"... I am not a regular Maddow-watcher, but to me she seemed unhinged -- actually, well over the top. ..."
One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia paid the Taliban to kill GIs
as an attempt to pre-empt the findings into Russiagate's origins.
O n Friday The New York Times featured a report based on anonymous intelligence
officials that the Russians were paying bounties to have U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan with
President Donald Trump refusing to do anything about it. The flurry of Establishment media
reporting that ensued provides further proof, if such were needed, that the erstwhile "paper of
record" has earned a new moniker -- Gray Lady of easy virtue.
Over the weekend, the Times ' dubious allegations grabbed headlines across all media
that are likely to remain indelible in the minds of credulous Americans -- which seems to have
been the main objective. To keep the pot boiling this morning, The New York Times' David
Leonhardt's daily web piece
, "The Morning" calls prominent attention to a banal
article by a Heather Cox Richardson, described as a historian at Boston College, adding
specific charges to the general indictment of Trump by showing "how the Trump administration
has continued to treat Russia favorably." The following is from Richardson's newsletter on
Friday:
"On April 1 a Russian plane brought ventilators and other medical supplies to the
United States a propaganda coup for Russia;
"On April 25 Trump raised eyebrows by issuing a joint statement with Russian President
Vladimir Putin commemorating the 75th anniversary of the historic meeting between American
and Soviet troops on the bridge of the Elbe River in Germany that signaled the final defeat
of the Nazis;
"On May 3, Trump called Putin and talked for an hour and a half, a discussion Trump
called 'very positive';
"On May 21, the U.S. sent a humanitarian aid package worth $5.6 million to Moscow to
help fight coronavirus there. The shipment included 50 ventilators, with another 150 promised
for the next week;
"On June 15, news broke that Trump has ordered the removal of 9,500 troops from
Germany, where they support NATO against Russian aggression. "
Historian Richardson added:
"All of these friendly overtures to Russia were alarming enough when all we knew was that
Russia attacked the 2016 U.S. election and is doing so again in 2020. But it is far worse
that those overtures took place when the administration knew that Russia had actively
targeted American soldiers. this bad news apparently prompted worried intelligence officials
to give up their hope that the administration would respond to the crisis, and instead to
leak the story to two major newspapers."
Hear the siren? Children, get under your desks!
The Tall Tale About Russia Paying for Dead U.S. Troops
Times print edition readers had to wait until this morning to learn of Trump's
statement last night that he was not briefed on the cockamamie tale about bounties for killing,
since it was, well, cockamamie.
Late last night the president tweeted: "Intel just reported to me that they did not find
this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or the VP. "
For those of us distrustful of the Times -- with good reason -- on such neuralgic
issues, the bounty story had already fallen of its own weight. As Scott Ritter pointed out
yesterday:
"Perhaps the biggest clue concerning the fragility of the New York Times ' report
is contained in the one sentence it provides about sourcing -- "The intelligence
assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan
militants and criminals." That sentence contains almost everything one needs to know
about the intelligence in question, including the fact that the source of the information is
most likely the Afghan government as reported through CIA channels. "
And who can forget how "successful" interrogators can be in getting desired answers.
Russia & Taliban React
The Kremlin called the Times reporting "nonsense an unsophisticated plant," and from
Russia's perspective the allegations make little sense; Moscow will see them for what they are
-- attempts to show that Trump is too "accommodating" to Russia.
A Taliban spokesman called the story "baseless," adding with apparent pride that "we" have
done "target killings" for years "on our own resources."
Russia is no friend of the Taliban. At the same time, it has been clear for several years
that the U.S. would have to pull its troops out of Afghanistan. Think back five decades and
recall how circumspect the Soviets were in Vietnam. Giving rhetorical support to a fraternal
Communist nation was de rigueur and some surface-to-air missiles gave some substance to
that support.
But Moscow recognized from the start that Washington was embarked on a fool's errand in
Vietnam. There would be no percentage in getting directly involved. And so, the Soviets sat
back and watched smugly as the Vietnamese Communists drove U.S. forces out on their "own
resources." As was the case with the Viet Cong, the Taliban needs no bounty inducements from
abroad.
Besides, the Russians knew painfully well -- from their own bitter experience in
Afghanistan, what the outcome of the most recent fool's errand would be for the U.S. What point
would they see in doing what The New York Times and other Establishment media are
breathlessly accusing them of?
CIA Disinformation; Casey at Bat
Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is
complete, when everything the American public believes is false."
Casey made that remark at the first cabinet meeting in the White House under President
Ronald Reagan in early 1981, according to Barbara Honegger, who was assistant to the chief
domestic policy adviser. Honegger was there, took notes, and told then Senior White House
correspondent Sarah McClendon, who in turn made it public.
If Casey's spirit is somehow observing the success of the disinformation program called
Russiagate, one can imagine how proud he must be. But sustained propaganda success can be a
serious challenge. The Russiagate canard has lasted three and a half years. This last gasp
effort, spearheaded by the Times , to breathe more life into it is likely to last little
more than a weekend -- the redoubled efforts of Casey-dictum followers notwithstanding.
Russiagate itself has been unraveling, although one would hardly know it from the
Establishment media. No collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Even the sacrosanct
tenet that the Russians hacked the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks has been disproven
, with the head of the DNC-hired cyber security firm CrowdStrike
admitting that there is
no evidence that the DNC emails were hacked -- by Russia or
anyone else .
U.S. Attorney John Durham. (Wikipedia)
How long will it take the Times to catch up with the CrowdStrike story, available
since May 7?
The media is left with one sacred cow: the misnomered "Intelligence Community" Assessment of
Jan. 6, 2017, claiming that President Putin himself ordered the hacking of the DNC. That
"assessment" done by "hand-picked analysts" from only CIA, FBI and NSA (not all 17 intelligence
agencies of the "intelligence community") reportedly is being given close scrutiny by U. S.
Attorney John Durham, appointed by the attorney general to investigate Russiagate's
origins.
If Durham finds it fraudulent (not a difficult task), the heads of senior intelligence and
law enforcement officials may roll. That would also mean a still deeper dent in the credibility
of Establishment media that are only too eager to drink the Kool Aid and to leave plenty to
drink for the rest of us.
Do not expect the media to cease and desist, simply because Trump had a good squelch for
them last night -- namely, the "intelligence" on the "bounties" was not deemed good enough to
present to the president.
(As a preparer and briefer of The President's Daily Brief to Presidents Reagan and HW
Bush, I can attest to the fact that -- based on what has been revealed so far -- the Russian
bounty story falls far short of the PDB threshold.)
Rejecting Intelligence Assessments
Nevertheless, the corporate media is likely to play up the Trump administration's rejection
of what the media is calling the "intelligence assessment" about Russia offering -- as Rachel
Maddow indecorously put it on Friday -- "bounty for the scalps of American soldiers in
Afghanistan."
I am not a regular Maddow-watcher, but to me she seemed
unhinged -- actually, well over the top.
The media asks, "Why does Trump continue to disrespect the assessments of the intelligence
community?" There he goes again -- not believing our "intelligence community; siding, rather,
with Putin."
In other words, we can expect no let up from the media and the national security miscreant
leakers who have served as their life's blood. As for the anchors and pundits, their level of
sophistication was reflected yesterday in the sage surmise of Face the Nation's Chuck Todd, who
Aaron Mate reminds us, is a "grown adult and professional media person." Todd asked guest John
Bolton: "Do you think that the president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did
help him win the election, and he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?"
"This is as bad as it gets," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday, adding the aphorism
she memorized several months ago: "All roads lead to Putin." The unconscionably deceitful
performance of Establishment media is as bad as it gets, though that, of course, was not
what Pelosi meant. She apparently lifted a line right out of the Times about how Trump
is too "accommodating" toward Russia.
One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia as a reflection of the need
to pre-empt the findings likely to issue from Durham and Attorney General William Barr in the
coming months -- on the theory that the best defense is a pre-emptive offense. Meanwhile, we
can expect the corporate media to continue to disgrace itself.
Vile
Caitlin Johnstone, typically,
pulls no punches regarding the Russian bounty travesty:
"All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile, but a special
disdain should be reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the
essential task of creating an informed populace and holding power to account. How much of an
unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and uncritically parrot
the completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity? How
much work did these empire fluffers put into killing off every last shred of their dignity?
It boggles the mind.
It really is funny how the most influential news outlets in the Western world will
uncritically parrot whatever they're told to say by the most powerful and depraved
intelligence agencies on the planet, and then turn around and tell you without a hint of
self-awareness that Russia and China are bad because they have state media.
Sometimes all you can do is laugh."
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-years as a CIA analyst he led the Soviet
Foreign Policy Branch and prepared The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon,
Ford, and Reagan. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS).
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Aaron , June 30, 2020 at 12:33
If anything, all roads lead to Israel. You have to consider the sources, the writers,
journalists, editors, owners, and rich people from which these stories come. This latest
ridiculous story will certainly help Trump, so the sources of these Russia stories are
actually fans of Trump, they love his tax cuts, he helps their revenue streams, and he's the
greatest friend and Zionist to Israel so far and also Wall Street. I think most Americans can
understand that Putin doesn't possess all of the supernatural all-encompassing powers and
mind-controlling omnipotence that Pelosi and her ilk attribute to him. That's why at his
rallies, when Trump points to where the journalists are and sneers at them calling them
bloodsuckers and parasites and all that, the people love it, because of stuff like this. It's
like saying "look at those assholes, those liberal journalists over at CNN say that you voted
for me because of Vladimir Putin?!" It just pisses off people to keep hearing that mantra
over and over. So it's a gift to Trump, it helps him so much. And seeing that super expensive
helicopter flying around the barren rocky slopes of the middle east, seems like it's out of
some Rambo movie. And like Rambo, the tens of thousands of American servicemen that were
sacrificed over there, and still commit suicides at a horrific rate, have always been treated
by the architects of these wars that only helped the state of Israel, as the expendables.
Whether it's a black life, a soldier fighting in Iraq, a foreclosed on homeowner by Mnuchin's
work, or a brainwashed New York Times subscriber, we don't seem to matter, we seem to feel
the truth that to these people were are indeed expendable. The question to answer I think is,
not who is a Russian asset, but who is an Israeli asset?
Andrew Thomas , June 30, 2020 at 12:04
Great reporting as usual, Ray. But special kudos for the NYT moniker 'Gray lady of easy
virtue.' I almost laughed out loud. A rare occurrence these days.
Michael P Goldenberg , June 30, 2020 at 10:45
Thanks for another cogent assessment of our mainstream media's utter depravity and
reckless irresponsibility. They truly have become nothing more than presstitutes and enemies
of the people.
Bob Van Noy , June 30, 2020 at 10:42
"It's all over but the shouting" goes the idiom and I think that is true of Russiagate,
especially, thank all goodness, here at Robert Parry's Journalistic site!
I have a theory that propaganda has a lifetime but when it reaches a truly absurd level,
it's all over. Clearly, we've reached that level Thanks to all at CN
evelync , June 30, 2020 at 10:33
You call Rachel Madcow "unhinged", Ray ..well, yes, I'm shocked at myself that there was a
time that I tuned in to her show .
Sorry Ms Madcow you've turned yourself into a character from Dr Strangelove
The key threats – climate change, pandemics, nuclear war – and why we continue
to fail to address these real things while filling the airwaves instead with the tiresome
russia,russia,russia mantra – per Accam's razer suggests that it serves very short term
interests of money and power whoever whatever the MICIMATT answers to.
"Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is
complete, when everything the American public believes is false." "
Who exactly was the "we" Casey was answering to each day?
I know it wasn't me or the planet or humanity or anyone I know.
Bill Rice , June 30, 2020 at 10:20
If only articles like this were read by the masses. Maybe people would get a clue. Blind
patriotism is not patriotic at all. Skepticism is healthy.
torture this , June 30, 2020 at 09:54
It's a shame that VIPS reporting is top secret. It's the only information coming from
people familiar with the ins and outs of spy agencies that can be trusted.
GeorgeG , June 30, 2020 at 09:45
Ray,
You missed the juicy stuff. See: tass.com/russia/1172369 Russia Foreign Ministry: NYT article
on Russia in Afghanistan fake from US intelligence. Here is the kicker:
The Russian Foreign Ministry pointed to US intelligence agencies' involvement in Afghan
drug trafficking.
"Should we speak about facts – moreover, well-known [facts], it has not long been a
secret in Afghanistan that members of the US intelligence community are involved in drug
trafficking, cash payments to militants for letting transport convoys pass through, kickbacks
from contracts implementing various projects paid by American taxpayers. The list of their
actions can be continued if you want," the ministry said.
The Russian Foreign Ministry suggested that those actions might stem from the fact that
the US intelligence agencies "do not like that our and their diplomats have teamed up to
facilitate the start of peace talks between Kabul and the Taliban (outlawed in Russia –
TASS)."
"We can understand their feelings as they do not want to be deprived of the above
mentioned sources of the off-the-books income," the ministry stressed.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:08
Affirmative Ray, two of my old comrades who were SF both did security on CIA drug flights
back in the day, and later on both while under VA care decided to die off God I miss them,
great guys and honest souls.
DH Fabian , June 30, 2020 at 09:41
One point remains a mystery. Why would anyone think that when the US invades a country,
someone would need to pay the people of that country a bounty to fight back?
Mark Clarke , June 30, 2020 at 09:27
If Biden wins the presidency and the Democrats take back the Senate, Russiagate will
strengthen and live on for many years.
Al , June 30, 2020 at 12:11
All to deflect from Clinton's private server while SOS, 30,000 deleted emails, and the
sale of US interests via the Clinton Foundation.
Zedster , June 30, 2020 at 12:56
That, or we learn Chinese.
Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 09:08
Another interesting aside is that Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop funding Terrorists" bill went
nowhere in Congress. So it's Ok for us and our Arab allies to fund them, but not the
Russians? Maybe we should go back to calling them the Mujahideen?
Thomas Scherrer , June 30, 2020 at 12:10
Preach, my child.
And aloha to the last decent woman in those halls.
Do you not think that the timing of all this (months after the report was allegedly
presented to Trump) is an attempt to stop Trump from signing an agreement with the Taliban
that will allow him to withdraw American troops from that country?
Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 08:58
Great article Ray, but I have to question whether Durham will fulfill his role and get to
the bottom of the origins of RussiaGate. If he actually does name names and prosecute, how
will the MSM cover it? What will Ms. Madcow have to say? Ever since the fizzling failure of
the Epstein investigation, I have had my doubts about Barr and his minion Durham. I hope I'm
wrong. Time will tell.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:24
I think on here I can talk about this issue you brought up Scott, on other places when I
tried to have a rational discussion on the matter, I got shouted down, well they tried
anyway.
I highly suggest to any readers of this here on Consortium to get Gore Vidal's old book,
Imperial America, and also watch his old documentary, THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA.
Here is the point of it,
"Officially we have two parties which are in fact wings of a common party of property with
two right wings. Corporate wealth finances each. Since the property party controls every
aspect of media they have had decades to create a false reality for a citizenry largely
uneducated by public schools that teach conformity with an occasional advanced degree in
consumerism."
-GORE VIDAL, The United States of Amnesia
Also,
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party and it has two right wings:
Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in
their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more
corrupt -- until recently and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments
when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is
no difference between the two parties."
? Gore Vidal
Others have pointed out the same like this,
"Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and
the ruling party is the business party."
? Noam Chomsky
"In the United States [ ] the two main business-dominated parties, with the support of the
corporate community, have refused to reform laws that make it virtually impossible to create
new political parties (that might appeal to non-business interests) and let them be
effective. Although there is marked and frequently observed dissatisfaction with the
Republicans and Democrats, electoral politics is one area where notions of competitions and
free choice have little meaning. In some respects the caliber of debate and choice in
neoliberal elections tends to be closer to that of the one-party communist state than that of
a genuine democracy."
? Robert W. McChesney, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies is a foolish
idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can
throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in
policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other
party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately
the same basic policies."
? Carroll Quigley [1910 – 1977 was an American historian and theorist of the evolution
of civilizations. He is remembered for his teaching work as a professor at Georgetown
University, for his academic publications.]
Teddy Roosevelt, whose statue is under attack in NYC, had this to say,
"The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a
closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This
crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business
privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from
either."
-THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Outlook, July 27, 1912
I suggest also that you look up on line this article, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: Our Fake
Two-Party System
by Prof. Stephen H. Unger at Columbia, here is his concluding thought,
"The drift toward loss of liberty, unending wars, environmental degradation, growing economic
inequality can't be stopped easily, but it will never be halted as long as we allow corporate
interests to rule our country by means of a pseudo-democracy based on the two-party
swindle."
With this all in mind, and if your my age, you might recall about how over the past more then
50 years, no matter which party gets in power, nothing of any significance changes, the wars
continue, the transfer of wealth to the few, and the erosion of basic civil liberties
continues pretty well unabated.
Trump is surrounded by neo-cons and I expect nothing will happen to change anything. I would
get into how most called liberals are hardly that, but in reality neo-cons, but I've said
enough for now, when you consider the statements I shared, then the Matrix begins to come
unraveled.
Grady , June 30, 2020 at 08:01
Not to mention the potential peace initiative with Afghanistan and Taliban that is
looming. Peace is not profitable, so who has the dual interests in maintaining protracted war
in a strategic location while ensuring the poppy crop stays the most productive in the world?
It seems said poppy production under the pre war Taliban government was minimal as they
eliminated most of it. Attacking the Taliban and thwarting its rule allowed for greater
production, to the extent it is the global leader in helping to fulfill the opiate demand.
Gary Webb established long ago that the intelligence community, specifically the CIA, has
somewhat of a tradition in such covert operations and logic would dictate they're vested
interest lies in maintaining a high yield crop while feeding the profit center that is the
MIC war machine. While certainly a bit digressive, the dots are there to connect.
Paul , June 30, 2020 at 07:54
My friend, I love your columns. Thank you, you have been one of the few sane voices on
Russiagate from the beginning.
Sadly most Americans and most people in the world will not receive these simple truths you
are telling. (not their fault)
We will continue our fight against the system.
Peace, Paul from South Africa
Voice from Europe , June 30, 2020 at 07:38
Don't think this will be the last Russiagate gasp whoever becomes the next president.
The 'liberal democrats' believe their own delusions and as long as they control the MSM, they
won't stop. Lol.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:29
You should read my reply to Scott, most of these Democrats are not liberals, but neo-cons
who just liberal virtue signal while in reality supporting the neo-con agenda. I hate it how
the so called alternative or independent media abuse terms and words, which obscures
realities. Anyway, take a look at my reply and the quotes I shared.
"Definition of liberal, one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox,
traditional, or established forms or ways, progressive, broad-minded, . willing to respect or
accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas, denoting a political
and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free
enterprise."
? Derived from Webster's and the Oxford Dictionaries
"Liberal' comes from the Latin liberalis, which means pertaining to a free man. In
politics, to be liberal is to want to extend democracy through change and reform. One can see
why that word had to be erased from our political lexicon."
? Gore Vidal, "The Great Unmentionable: Monotheism and its Discontents," The Lowell Lecture,
Harvard University, April 20, 1992.
Once again I would like to compliment Mr McGovern on his magnificently Biblical
appearance. That full set would do credit to any Old Testament prophet.
I see him as the USA's own Jeremiah.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:12
Seeing that picture of Johnson's sad, wicked bloodhound features really, really makes me
wish I had had a chance to be outside his tent pissing in. I'd have been careful to drink as
many gallons of beer as possible beforehand.
Although it would have been better, from a humanitarian pont of view, just to set fire to
the tent.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:10
"Historian Richardson "
Clearly a serious exaggeration.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:09
Ah, the Chinook! The 60-year-old helicopter that epitomises everything Afghan patriots
love about the USA. It's big, fat, slow, clumsy, unmanoeuvrable, and may carry enough US
troops to make shooting it down a damaging political blow against Washington.
Vivek , June 30, 2020 at 05:43
Ray,
What do you make of Barbara Honeggar's second career as a alternative story peddler?
see hXXps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB21BVFOIjw
CNfan , June 30, 2020 at 03:43
A brilliant piece, with a deft touch depicting the timeless human follies running our
foreign policy circus. Real-world experience, perspective, and courage like Ray's were the
dream of the drafters of our 1st Amendment. And ending with Caitlin's hammer was effective.
As to who benefits? I suspect the neocons – our resident war-addicts and Israeli
assets. Paraphrasing Nancy, "All roads lead to Netanyahu."
So,Russia what will do in next Upcoming Years during these covid-19.
Realist , June 30, 2020 at 02:54
Ray, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has embraced these allegations against
Russia as the gospel truth and has threatened to seek revenge against Putin once he occupies
the White House.
He said Americans who serve in the military put their life on the line. "But they should
never, never, never ever face a threat like this with their commander in chief turning a
blind eye to a foreign power putting a bounty on their heads."
"I'm quite frankly outraged by the report," Biden said. He promised that if he is elected,
"Putin will be confronted and we'll impose serious costs on Russia."
This is the kind of warmongering talk that derailed the expected landslide victory for the
Queen of Warmongers in 2016. This time round though, Trump has seemingly already swung and
badly missed three times in his responses to the Covid outbreak, the public antics attributed
to BLM, and the Fed's creation of six trillion dollars in funny money as a gift to the most
privileged tycoons on the planet. In baseball, which will not have a season in spite of the
farcical theatrics between ownership and players, that's called a "whiff" and gets you sent
back to the bench.
According to all the pollsters, Donnie's base of white working class "deplorables" are
already abandoning his campaign–bigly, prompting the none-too-keen Biden to assume that
over-the-top Russia bashing is back in season, especially since trash-talking Nobel Laureate
Obama is now delivering most of the mute sock puppet Biden's lines. It was almost comical to
watch Joe do nothing but grin in the framed picture to the left of his old boss during their
most recent joint interview with the press. This dangerous re-set of the Cold War is NOT what
the people want, nor is it good for them or any living things.
DH Fabian , June 30, 2020 at 10:18
Biden already lost 2020 -- in spite of the widely-disliked Trump. This is why Democrats
began working to breath life back into Russia-gate by late last year, setting the stage to
blame Russia for their 2020 defeat. We spent the past 25 years detailing the demise of the
Democratic Party (replaced by the "New Democrat Party"), and it turned out that the party
loyalists didn't hear a word of it.
John A , June 30, 2020 at 02:15
As a viewer from afar, in Europe, I find it mindboggling how the American public seem to
believe all this nonsense about Russia. Have the people there really been that dumbed down by
chewing gum for the eyes television and disgusting chemical and growth h0rmone laced food?
Sad, sad, sad.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:17
John, I think there is something to what you say about dumbing down. I recall Albert Jay
Nock lamenting, in about 1910, how dreadfully US education had already been dumbed down
– and things have been going steadily downhill ever since.
But I don't think we can quite release the citizenry from responsibility on account of
their ignorance. (Isn't it a legal maxim that ignorance is not an excuse?)
There is surely deep down in most people a sly lust for dominance, a desire to control and
forbid and compel; and also a quiet satisfaction at hearing of inferior foreigners being
harmed or killed by one's own "world class" armed forces.
TS , June 30, 2020 at 11:14
> As a viewer from afar, in Europe, I find it mindboggling how the American public seem
to believe all this nonsense about Russia.
May I remind you that most of the mass media in Europe parrot all this nonsense, and a
large segment of the public swallows it?
Charles Familant , June 30, 2020 at 00:50
Mr. McGovern has not made his case. To his question as to why Taliban militants need any
additional incentive to target U.S. troops in Afghanistan, it is not far-fetched to believe
these militants would welcome additional funds to continue their belligerency. Waging war is
not cheap and is especially onerous for relatively small organizations as compared to major
powers. What reason would Putin have to pay such bounty? The increase in U.S. troop
casualties would provide Trump an additional rationale to bring the troops home, as he had
promised during his campaign speeches in 2015 and 2016. This action would be a boon to his
re-election prospects. Putin is well aware that if Biden wins in November, there is little
likelihood of the hostility in Afghanistan or anywhere else being brought to an end. But,
more to the point, the likelihood of U.S. sanctions against Russia being curtailed under a
Biden presidency is remote. To what he deemed rhetorical, Mr. McGovern asks how successful
were U.S. interrogators of such captured Taliban in the past, I remind him that there were
opposing views regarding which techniques were most effective. Might not these interrogators
have, in the present case, employed more effective means? Finally, it should not even be a
question as to why any news agency does not reveal its sources. But in this case, the New
York Times specifically mentions that the National Security Council discussed the
intelligence finding in late March. Further, if it is true that Trump, Pence et al ignored
the said briefs of which the administration was well aware, this should be no surprise to any
of us. Case in point: how long did it take Trump to respond to the present pandemic? One
telling observation: Mr. McGovern says that Heather Cox Richardson is "described as a
historian at Boston College.' She is not just "described as a historian" Mr. McGovern, she IS
a historian at Boston College; in fact, she is a professor at that college and has authored
six scholarly works that have been published as books, the most recent of which in March of
this year by the Oxford University Press. Mr. McGovern states that the points Richardson made
her most most recent newsletter as "banal." I see nothing banal in that newsletter, but
rather a list of relevant factual occurrences. Finally (this time it really is final), Mr.
McGovern employs the use of sarcasm to discount what Richardson and others have contended
regarding this most recent expose. And seems to give more credibility to the comments made by
Trump and his cohorts, as though this administration is remarkable for its integrity.
Sam F , June 30, 2020 at 11:05
Plausible interest does not make unsupported accusations a reality. What bounties did the
US offer?
Have you forgotten that the US set up Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with weapons to attack the USSR
there?
Zhu , June 30, 2020 at 00:34
Come December this year, which losing party will blame which scapegoat? Russia? China? The
Man in the Moon? It must be a hard decision!
Zhu , June 30, 2020 at 00:31
Unfortunately, bad ideas and conspiracy fictions rarely disappear completely. But that
Afghans need to be paid to kill invaders is the dumbest conspiracy fiction yet.
Thomas Fortin , June 29, 2020 at 21:31
Excellent report Ray, as usual.
Interesting note here, I watched The Hill's Rising program, and listened to young
conservative Saagar say, although he does not believe that Russia-gate is credible, he made
the statement that Russia is supplying the Taliban weapons and wants us to get out of
Afghanistan, and that is considered a fact by all journalists!
Saagar is a bit conflicted, he does not, but does believe the gods of intelligence, like so
many did with the Gulf of Tonkin so long ago, I remember that all too well.
As I look out upon the ignorant masses and useful idiots who strain at those Confederate and
other monuments, while continuing to elect the same old people back into office who continue
the status quo, its a bit discouraging. We were told so long ago about our current situation,
that,
"It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a
populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy
attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments
of their own debasement and ruin." [James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817]
As a historian of some sort and educational film maker, I do my best to educate people,
though its a bit overwhelming at times how ignorant and fascist brain-washed most are.
Monroe, like the other founders knew the secret of maintaining a free and prosperous
republic, from the same piece, "Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to
preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote
intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties."
George Carlin got it right about why education "sucks", it was by design, so our work is cut
out for us.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what
never was and never will be."
~Thomas Jefferson
GMCasey , June 29, 2020 at 21:25
Why would Putin even bother? America and its endless wars is doing itself in. Afghanistan
is said to be," the graveyard of empires." It was for Alexander the Great -- –it was
for Russia and I suppose that it will be for America too -- -
DW Bartoo , June 29, 2020 at 20:50
Ray, I certainly hope that Durham and Barr will not wait too long a time to make public
the truth about Russiagate.
Indeed, certain heads should, figuratively, roll, and as well, the whole story about who
was behind the setting up of Flynn needs to, somehow, make it through the media flack.
Judge Sullivan's antics having been rather thoroughly shot down, though the media is
desperately trying to either spin or ignore the reality that it was not merely Flynn that
Sullivan was hoping to harm, but also the power of the executive branch relative to the
judicial branch.
The role of Obama and of Biden who, apparently, suggested the use of the Logan Act as the
means to go after Flynn, who we now know was intentionally entrapped by the intrepid FBI,
need to be made clear as well.
Just as with the initial claims that torture was the work of "a few bad apples", when
anyone with any insight into such "policy" actions had to have known that it WAS official
policy (crafted by Addington, Bybee, and Yoo, as it turned out, directed to do so by the Bush
White House), so too, must it be realized that it was not some rogue agents and loose
cannons, but actual instructions "from above", explicit or implicit, that "encouraged" the
behavior of those who spoke of "Insurance" policies designed to hamper, hinder, and harm the
incoming administration.
Clearly, I am no fan of Trump, and while I honestly regard the Rule of Law as essentially
a fairytale for the gullible (as the behavior of the "justice" system from the " qualified
immunity" of the police, to the "absolute immunity" of prosecutors, judges, and the political
class must make clear,to even the most giddy of childish believers in U$ purity, innocence,
and exceptionalism, that the "law" serves to protect wealth and power and NOT the public), I
should really like to consider that even in a pretend democracy, some things are simply not
to be tolerated.
Things, like torture, like fully politicized law enforcement or "intelligence" agencies,
like secret court proceedings, where judges may be lied to with total impunity and actual
evidence is not required. As well as things like a media thoroughly willing to requrgitate
blatant propaganda as "fact" (while having, again, no apparent need of genuine evidenc), or
other things like total surveillance, and the destruction of habeas corpus.
One should like to imagine that such things might concern the majority.
Yet, a society that buys into forever wars, lesser-evil voting, and created Hitler like
boogeymen, that countenances being lied into wars and consistently lied to about virtually
everything, is hardly likely to discern the truth of things until the "Dream" collapses into
personal pain, despair, and Depression.
Unless there is an awakening quite beyond that already tearing down statues, but yet still
, apparently, unwilling to grasp the totality of the corruption throughout the entire edifice
of "authority", of the total failure of a system that has no real legitimacy, except that
given it by voters choosing between two sides of the same tyranny, it may be readily
imagined, should Biden be "victorious", that Russiagate, Chinagate, Irangate, Venezuelagate,
and countless other "Gates" will become Official History.
In which case, this is not a last gasp, of Russiagate, but a new and full head of steam
for more of the same.
How easy it has been for the lies to prevail, to become "truth" and to simply disappear
the voices of those who ask for evidence, who dare question, who doubt.
How easy to co-opt and destroy efforts to educate or bring about critically necessary
change.
There are but a few months for real evidence to be revealed.
If Durham and Barr decide not to "criminalize policy differences", as Obama, the
"constitutional scholar", did regarding torture, then what might we imagine will be the
future of those who have an understanding of even those lies long being used, and with recent
additions, for example, to torture Julian Assange?
All of the deceit has common purpose, it is to maintain absolute control.
If Russiagate is not completely exposed, for all that it is and was intended to be, then
quaint little discussions about elite misbehavior will be banished from general awareness,
and those who persist in questioning will be rather severely dealt with.
Antonia , June 30, 2020 at 11:43
ABSOLUTELY. Well said. NOW where to make the changes absolutely necessary?
Zalamander , June 29, 2020 at 18:47
Thanks Ray. There are multiple reasons for the continued existance of Russiagate as the
Democratic party has no real answers for the economic depression affecting millions of
Americans. Neoliberal Joe Biden is also an exceptionally weak presidential candidate, who
does not even support universal healthcare for all Americans like every other advanced
industrialized country has. That said, the Dems are indeed desperate to deflect attention
away from the Durham investigation, as it is bound to expose the total fraud of Crossfire
Hurricane.
Sam F , June 29, 2020 at 18:16
Thanks, Ray, a very good summary, with reminders often needed by many in dealing with
complex issues.
Control freaks that cannot even control their own criminal impulses!
...They suffer from god-complexes, since they do not believe in God, they feel an obligation to act as God, and decide the fates
of over 7 billion people, who would obviously be better off if the PICs were sent to the Fletcher Memorial Home for Incurable Tyrants!
Biden's known foreign policy advisers are a who's who of the foreign policy establishment.
Recent comments by some high-profile members of Biden's brain trust show an undiminished, and
decidedly unprogressive, enthusiasm for regime change wars, sanctions, and nuclear weapons.
Biden's top foreign policy adviser, former deputy secretary of state Antony Blinken,
recently expressed his regret that the Obama administration didn't do enough to overthrow the
Assad regime in Syria. Clearly he would like a second bite at the apple. And in a recent
discussion hosted by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), Blinken promised that a Biden
administration would keep in place all U.S. sanctions on Iran, including the ones that
were put in place by Trump, in violation of the terms of the Iranian nuclear accord. Music to
AIPAC's ears.
Meanwhile, two other Biden advisers, former Defense Department officials Jim Townsend and
Michelle Flournoy, recently took to the pages of Der Spiegel to argue against a proposal
by the chairman of the social democrats in the Bundestag to remove American nuclear weapons
from Germany. Townsend and Flournoy
write that the very idea of a Germany without the capacity to drop nuclear bombs
"strikes at the heart of the trans-Atlantic bargain." The idea that Germany might (quite
understandably) want to free itself from such a Strangelovian "bargain" left the two former
Pentagon officials aghast.
Even worse, as The Atlantic 's Peter Beinart
points out, "Instead of challenging the Pentagon's sky-high budget, Biden's highest-profile
foreign-policy foray since clinching the Democratic nomination has been to try to out-hawk
Donald Trump on China."
Then there's Biden's own record on matters of war and peace. As ranking member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, Biden appeared to ridicule the testimony of UN
weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who testified before the committee in the run-up to the
invasion of Iraq. Biden, as we all know, would subsequently vote to authorize the war.
Is it Biden though? I didn't think a turnip can run foreign policy. There is no
difference here between democrats and republicans, they both agree on the full spectrum
dominance and keeping Europe (Germany), Russia, China, Japan down (never mind the smaller
actors like Iran and Venezuela, or Cuba for that matter), by all means...
Petty scoundrels from NYT are not that inventive. They just want to whitewash Russiagate fiasco. This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux
- regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media organizations.
Notable quotes:
"... After Iraq WMD and Russia Collusion, we should ask for real evidence instead of the "top intelligence sources". And we should not buy we can't provide any evidence because of sources & methods. ..."
"... On a practical note, how was a Taliban soldier militant meant to verify his claim to a bounty? I assume that scalping was not a feasible option, but if you are going to offer a bounty then you are going to want proof that the person claiming that bounty did, indeed, do the job. ..."
After Iraq WMD and Russia Collusion, we should ask for real evidence instead of the "top
intelligence sources". And we should not buy we can't provide any evidence because of
sources & methods.
Be skeptical of anything published by Pravda on the Hudson and Pravda on the Potomac
when it comes to intelligence matters. Especially months before a general election.
On to Moscow! Where's Bomb'n Bolton when we need him?
"a European intelligence official told CNN."..... "The official did not specify as to the
date of the casualties, their number or nationality, or whether these were fatalities or
injuries."
So, unknown official, unknown date, unknown if there were any actual casualties.
"The US concluded that the GRU was behind the interference in the 2016 US election and
cyberattacks against the Democratic National Committee and top Democratic officials."
Quick, someone tell the House Impeachment Inquiry Committee! Oh, wait, that was Ukraine.
What did Mueller collude, I mean conclude, about that Russian interference?
Let me quote the former acting DNI:
"You clearly don't understand how raw intel gets verified. Leaks of partial information to
reporters from anonymous sources is dangerous because people like you manipulate it for
political gain."
I believe he was tweeting that to the press, but then they are doing this for political
reasons. Lockdowns and socialist revolutionary riots must not be working in the left's
favor. I wonder why?
On a practical note, how was a Taliban soldier militant meant to verify his claim to a
bounty? I assume that scalping was not a feasible option, but if you are going to offer a bounty
then you are going to want proof that the person claiming that bounty did, indeed, do the
job.
So if a coalition soldier died on *this* day how was a Talibani supposed to confirm to
the GRU that "Yep, I did that. Where's my money?"
TTG, I think you are being led away from the truth by your significant bias against Russia.
Those with a blinkered vision see only what they want to see. No mystery there.
Now you want to portray NYT as the paragon of truth telling!! Haven't we seen enough
examples of the lying by Jewish owned neocon media, especially the Times? Now that the
Russia-gate fire is nearly put out, these guys are pumping this story. You really need to understand the depth of hatred the Jews have for Russia and Russians
that makes them like this. That's the only country /civilisation that got away from their
grasp just when they thought have got it. Not once, but twice in the last century.
But then isn't your ancestry from Lithuania. Your hatred is strong. I get that - I see
that all time with people from the ex-Soviet republics formerly ruled by Russia. Hope
others see that too.
Regardless of its veracity, this story will definitely hit Trump where it hurts -
chapeau to the individual(s) who conceived this work of fiction, if indeed it is so.
Again, whether or not performance bonuses* were actually offered by the GRU, has anyone
considered that this may still be a Russian Intelligence op?
Perhaps we should first ask whether the Kremlin wants to deal with a US under
another 4 years of Trump. From their FP POV, the huge uncertainty and instability they see
in the US now will surely be ramped up to a whole new level, in the event that he is
re-elected. And of course all hope that Trump may be able to improve the relationship with
Russia was dashed long ago, by Russiagate and the ongoing Russophobia among the Borg.
Jeffrey's mission in Syria is a case in point. At least the US Deep State is the devil they
know.
If the answer to the above question is "no" it must surely be a trivial matter for the
GRU to feed such a damaging story to Trump's enemies in the USIC.
* "bounties" is an emotive word, useful to Trump's enemies, evoking individual pay for an
individual death - real personal stuff. As others have pointed out the practicality of such
a scheme seems improbable. Surely it is more likely that any such incentive pay would be
for the group, upon coalition casualties confirmed in the aftermath of an attack. The
distinction may not seem important, but the Resistance media can be relied upon to use
language designed to inflict the most harm.
'Intel' without evidence is "bunk". Have we learned nothing from Chrissy Steele and the
Russiagate fiasco - I know a guy who knows a guy who said... the Russians are bad and
Donald Trump is an a......e. Bob Mueller and 18 pissed off democrats have concluded that
the Russians are systemically bad and Donald Trump is an a......e. 4 months before a
Presidential election intel sources have revealed to the NYT that the Russians are very
very bad and Donald Trump is an a......e. Ah yes, the New York Ridiculously Self Degraded
Times has broken another important story. I wonder why? Enough already...and yes, we have
made a systemic laughing stock of ourselves.
Oh, and remind me again of why we've been staying around Kabul - something about improving
the lot of women, or gays, or someone?
I'm personally not ready to "duck and cover" after reading this.
I have accepted the fact that Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. I am watching
television news at night but no longer see the clock ticking as I turn it off and go to
sleep. So far, no one I know has taken to building a fallout shelter in his back yard.
I want an answer to this question: Whatever happened to the pillow and blanket I had to
bring to school and store in the school's basement in case we all had to retreat there and
be locked down in it during the bombing? Who do I go to to get reparations for the cost of
those items? (I was never given the opportunity to retrieve them when I graduated.) Did
Khrushchev have to take his shoe to a cobbler after using it to pound on the table while
threatening to bury us?
There's a rich history of stories about USI involvement in the drug trade. CIA was
involved in the heroin trade during the Viet Nam War. The Iran-Contra mess involved selling
Columbian cocaine to help finance Nicaraguan anti-Communist rebels. US involvement in the
Afghanistan drug trade has been talked about for years. As I said, there are no glitter
fartin' unicorns here.
The Iranian statistics do not lie. Transhipment of drugs across Iran from Afghanistan
has been increasing since the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
The US Office of Foreign Asset Control, the US DIA, the CIA etc. are powerless to do
anything about that but are, evidently, all powerfull against USD transactions of the
Iranian government.
"... Trump's problems among college-educated whites have drawn much attention during his presidency. What's new is declining support among non-college educated whites, where he holds only a 19-point lead. He won that demographic by 37 points in 2016. And his declining support among this key constituency is pronounced in six battleground states, with only 16 percent of non-college educated whites backing him. In October, his lead among them was 24 points. In 2016, Trump won these battleground voters by 26 points. ..."
White voters are turning away from President Trump. That assessment includes his invaluable
working-class white base
. But Trump has only himself and his campaign to blame for the bad news contained in the latest polls. While America burns, his
campaign's only plan seems to be wooing black voters by tweeting that
Joe Biden
is the "real" racist. Trump seems unable to do anything about the riots or the
devastation
wrought by
coronavirus . The latest poll numbers should knock some sense into the president. He seems to be responding a little lately,
but he's going to lose the election if he sticks to
Jared Kushner 's agenda and
doesn't fight like the candidate
we
elected in 2016.
The latest polls from The New York Times poll lay bare the ugly truth.
Trump's problems among
college-educated
whites have drawn much attention during his presidency. What's new is declining support among non-college educated whites,
where he holds only a 19-point lead. He won that demographic
by 37 points in 2016. And his declining support among this
key constituency is pronounced
in six battleground states, with only 16 percent of non-college educated whites backing him. In October, his lead among them was
24 points. In 2016, Trump won these battleground voters by 26 points.
Funny thing is, those voters aren't defecting to Biden's camp, either; their support for him has increased by just 1 since October.
The Times describes them as "
white voters with more
conservative attitudes on racial issues," which likely means they think Trump has not delivered the promised nationalist agenda.
One voter told the Times's Cohn he's disappointed with
Trump
's not cracking down
on the rioters and shutting down the economy because of the
Chinese
Virus pandemic. He'll still vote for Trump, but without much enthusiasm.
Older whites are also jumping ship. In six battleground states, Trump and Biden are about even among whites 65 or older. Trump
won them by nearly 20 points in 2016. The Times
attributes that decline to the president's coronavirus response and his "tone" [
Trump Faces
Mounting Defections From a Once-Loyal Group: Older White Voters , by Alexander Burns and Katie Glueck, June 28, 2020].
That picture of Trump's America hardly inspires confidence.
The only positive for Trump is that Biden has roughly the same non-white support that
Hillary Clinton had in 2016
. But that's not exactly great news, either, given the campaign's focus on painting Biden as the "real" racist. The message is
having zero effect on non-whites. The Times : Biden leads by 74 points among blacks and by 39 points among Hispanics [
Biden
Takes Dominant Lead as Voters Reject Trump on Virus and Race , by Alexander Burns, Jonathan Martin and Matt Stevens, June
24, 2020].
A tweet from Trump campaign manager
Brad
Parscale last week illustrates the idiocy. Parscale attacked Biden for working with
Strom Thurmond to impose harsh sentences
on crack dealers. He claimed this legislation targeted blacks and Trump is fixing the "problem"
Unhappily, Parscale is not alone. Official Republican and Trump campaign accounts regularly tweet cringeworthy statements about
Confederate monuments and criminal justice reform.
Democrats seem to have forgotten that Pres. Trump has led the way on innovative criminal justice reform.
He signed the FIRST STEP Act & established the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement & the Admin. of Justice -- which
aims to improve relations between the public & police.
Who, exactly, are these messages for? If they're intended to win the black vote, they're failing. If they're meant to soothe white
suburbanite concerns about Trump's alleged "racism," they're failing. If they're meant to excite Trump's working class white base,
again, they're failing.
Parscale
set
out the agenda for the Trump campaign in a January interview with Lou Dobbs: the economy and healthcare. When Dobbs asked about
immigration, the campaign manager replied that they didn't need to worry about it because "we already have [immigration patriots
as] voters." Other issues, he claimed, will bring in new voters.
The Son-in-Law
in Chief might wish to consult the polling data to verify that claim.
Parscale is taking a lot of heat lately for the poor messaging and the
Tulsa rally's underwhelming attendance . Reports suggest Parscale is on his way out as part of a major campaign shake-up. Maybe,
but he's not the ultimate problem.
Jared Kushner and the Republican establishment are setting Trump's agenda and message, Parscale merely carries it out. And frighteningly,
as Politico reported, Kushner "who effectively oversees the campaign from the White House, is expected to play an even more
active role" [ Trump admits
it: He's losing , by Alex Isenstadt, June 27, 2020].
Trump recently tweeted an ad that suggests he might ditch the awful messaging. It pins the current chaos on Democrats and the
Left and states they want to burn America to the ground.
It's a powerful, take-no-prisoners video with the same message that helped Trump win in 2016 and might just re-energize his base
in time for Election Day.
Yet tough talk alone won't win back Trump's base. He must act . Signs are improving there, too..
Over the weekend, he tweeted several wanted
pictures of statue vandals. Four leftists were hit with federal charges for attacking the Andrew Jackson statue in DC [
Justice Department Charges 4 Over Attempt to Topple Andrew Jackson Statue In D.C. , by Jason Slotkin, NPR , June
28, 2020]. Putting left-wing criminals behind bars sends the right message and might stifle the unrest. And again, he's helping unemployed
Americans with
the immigration ban for the rest of the year. Nearly two-thirds of Americans support it, according to the latest polling.
Trump must show Americans that the Chinese Virus threat is decreasing, the economy is recovering, and law and order is being restored.
Tweets about money for black colleges, Biden's tough-on-crime bills, and or his long-ago cooperation with "segregationists" won't
do.
Trump must make this election about order versus chaos and put Democrats on the side of the rioters and the radicals in Antifa
and Black Lives Matter.
You guys at VDare are always very hopeful, and I like that. I've read of some of the moves that the President has made, such
as the ones you state here (on immigration and some justice for Cult-Revolutionalists). However, these things never seem to be
part of any coherent, consistent strategy of any sort.
Perhaps President Trump is not a strategist and can't think in that manner. He definitely has no specific principles or moral
compass, or any kind of damn compass. This is why he listens to his son-in-law Kushner, who is out to destroy the country like
the rest of them.
I agree with the one guy you mentioned (who replied to Mr. Cohn). There's no choice on who to vote for anyway, not matter how
much Trump screws up. But then, all this happening is not going to be settled at the voting booth anyway
Yeah, Trump comes off like a used car salesman with high pressure tactics. But who can vote for dugout Joe who hides in his
basement avoiding complex questions? Apples Oranges ?
Trump is done. Kushner is nothing more than an Israeli plant. They know that Biden is just like Pelosi and she and Joe would
kill every white person in America if Israel wanted. The entire Congress is owned by Israel. Trump is done. Obama's "Third Term"
more accurately described as Coup d'etat setup with the Deep State and Obama's Jewish friends left from his administration destroyed
Trump on the first day of his tenure.
Trump can't stop putting his foot in his mouth. He abandoned White America and no matter what he did for the Blacks including
money for their universities made no difference. No matter how many jobs he created it didn't count because these mongrels don't
want jobs they want free stuff. Obama did nothing for blacks except destroying many middle class blacks but it doesn't matter.
Blacks are tribalistic gang bangers and as Obama their Lord taught them only see color.
Trump is done and so is America. The Jews always win no matter who is president. You better start arming yourself because you
are not going to believe what is going to happen when Biden wins. In Washington D.C. today Blacks were rioting against Target
because they call the police when blacks steal stuff. You can't make this up and the Jewish controlled media just laughs at us.
Ok, but what if Trump were to say Dems are the real racists ? Wouldn't that win the Black vote? Forgive me, gallows
humor.
It's truly pathetic the people Trump surrounds himself with. His instincts always seemed good, but apparently he can't implement
a damn thing. At least all this is showing conservatives how rotten the leadership of all their hallowed institutions are (FBI,
military, police, etc).
Sexual assault is not about sex, it's about power. I watched about half of that montage mentioned and I was thoroughly
disgusted... Biden is the worst kind of creep... Where's the metoo movement on him??
I grew up right there as well. My late father respected joe's dad who used to come into the dealership to make his car payment
( my dad's first job.) Dad always insisted that joe is a phoney, a plagerist, and elitist. Everyone with a brain from the
Brandywine Valley and Wilmington area knows he's a liar and a racist as well. He thinks he's smart, but he's a creepy old
weirdo, the uncle your parents warned you to stay away from at family functions!
I'm old enough to remember Biden when was serving as the chair of the committee investigating Anita Hill's allegations against
Clarence Thomas. At that time, I know nothing if his sexual appetite, but his behavior during those proceedings was weird.
This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux - regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media
organizations.
Notable quotes:
"... To be clear, this is journalistic malpractice. Mainstream media outlets which publish anonymous intelligence claims with no proof are just publishing CIA press releases disguised as news. They're just telling you to believe what sociopathic intelligence agencies want you to believe under the false guise of impartial and responsible reporting. This practice has become ubiquitous throughout mainstream news publications, but that doesn't make it any less immoral. ..."
"... "Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials," tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi. ..."
"... "So we are to simply believe the same intelligence orgs that paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo, lied about torture in Afghanistan, and lied about premises for war from WMD in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin 'attack'? All this and no proof?" ..."
"... "It's totally outrageous for Russia to support the Taliban against Americans in Afghanistan. Of course, it's totally fine for the US to support jihadi rebels against Russians in Syria, jihadi rebels who openly said the Taliban is their hero," ..."
"... On the flip side, all the McResistance pundits have been speaking of this baseless allegation as a horrific event that is known to have happened, with Rachel Maddow going so far as to describe it as Putin offering bounties for the "scalps" of American soldiers in Afghanistan. This is an interesting choice of words, considering that offering bounties for scalps is, in fact, one of the many horrific things the US government did in furthering its colonialist ambitions , which, unlike the New York Times allegation, is known to have actually happened. ..."
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based
in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on
Twitter @caitoz
Whenever one sees a news headline ending in
"US Intelligence Says", one should always mentally replace everything that comes before it with "Blah blah blah we're probably lying."
"Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill Troops, US Intelligence Says", blares the
latest viral headline from the New York Times . NYT's unnamed sources
allege that the GRU "secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan -- including
targeting American troops", and that the Trump administration has known this for months.
To be clear, this is journalistic malpractice. Mainstream media outlets which publish anonymous intelligence claims with no proof
are just publishing CIA press releases disguised as news. They're just telling you to believe what sociopathic intelligence agencies
want you to believe under the false guise of impartial and responsible reporting. This practice has become ubiquitous throughout
mainstream news publications, but that doesn't make it any less immoral.
In a post-Iraq-invasion world, the only correct response to unproven anonymous claims about a rival government by intelligence
agencies from the US or its allies is to assume that they are lying until you are provided with a mountain of independently verifiable
evidence to the contrary. The US has far too extensive a record of lying
about these things for any other response to ever be justified as rational, and its intelligence agencies consistently play a foundational
role in those lies.
Voices outside the mainstream-narrative control matrix have been calling these accusations what they are: baseless, lacking in
credibility, and not reflective of anything other than fair play, even if true.
"Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials,"
tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi.
"So we are to simply believe the same intelligence orgs that paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo, lied
about torture in Afghanistan, and lied about premises for war from WMD in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin 'attack'? All this and no proof?"
tweeted author and analyst Jeffrey Kaye.
"It's totally outrageous for Russia to support the Taliban against Americans in Afghanistan. Of course, it's totally fine
for the US to support jihadi rebels against Russians in Syria, jihadi rebels who openly said the Taliban is their hero," tweeted author and analyst Max Abrams.
On the flip side, all the McResistance pundits have been
speaking of this baseless allegation as a horrific event that is known to have happened, with Rachel Maddow
going so far as to describe it as Putin offering
bounties for the "scalps" of American soldiers in Afghanistan. This is an interesting choice of words, considering that
offering bounties for scalps is, in fact, one of the many horrific things
the US government did in furthering its colonialist ambitions , which, unlike the New York Times allegation, is known to have
actually happened.
It is true, as many have been pointing out, that it would be fair play for Russia to fund violent opposition the the US in Afghanistan,
seeing as that's exactly what the US and its allies have been doing to Russia and its allies in Syria, and did to the Soviets in
Afghanistan via Operation Cyclone . It is also true
that the US military has no business in Afghanistan anyway, and any violence inflicted on US troops abroad is the fault of the military
expansionists who put them there. The US military has no place outside its own easily defended borders, and the assumption that it
is normal for a government to circle the planet with military bases is a faulty premise.
But before even getting into such arguments, the other side of the debate must meet its burden of proof that this has even happened.
That burden is far from met. It is literally the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. The New York Times has an extensive
history of pushing for new wars at every opportunity,
including the unforgivable
Iraq invasion , which killed a million people, based on lies. A mountain of proof is required before such claims should be seriously
considered, and we are very, very far from that.
I will repeat myself: it is the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. I will repeat myself again: it is the US intelligence
community's job to lie to you. Don't treat these CIA press releases with anything but contempt.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of RT.
Rumors presented as fact: "This is beyond the pale. It's a betrayal of the most sacred duty in the
nation: to protect our troops when we send them into harm's way,
Notable quotes:
"... "Intelligence" is not evidence. ..."
"... A war was started based on "Intelligence" that was never supported by evidence. ..."
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany later denied that Trump and Vice President
Pence were briefed on the intelligence, but did not deny that the intelligence was
accurate.
The Russian government and Taliban officials have also denied the reports.
..."This is beyond the pale. It's a betrayal of the most sacred duty in the nation: to
protect our troops when we send them into harm's way," Biden said.
"Vlad! Vlad! You gotta give me something here! They're MY men! You want to kill MY MEN and I
don't get NOTHING? Vlad! I thought you were a businessman!"
Shut-up Biden, you old fart. Always criticizing every move Trump makes. I'm tired of hearing
you complain. You have no solutions other than criticize.
This Latino-Hispanic for Trump. section data-role="main" data-tracking-area="main"
There was "Intelligence" that Saddam Hussein was furnishing terrorists with chemical,
biological, and radiological weapons.....but of course there wasn't any evidence because
there can not be evidence of something that does not exist. A war was started based on
"Intelligence" that was never supported by evidence.
There was "Intelligence" that the North Vietnamese Navy attacked the USS Maddox in the
Gulf of Tonkin and a war was started but never was there evidence to support the claims of
"Intelligence".
Biden is the intelligence services' ideal candidate -- an easily manipulated empty suit.
There's a reason why charges of Biden wrongdoing are as easily dismissed as nonsensical
charges against Trump and Russia get fabricated. And that reason is that the media is as
happy to be manipulated as Biden.
Who's kidding who? Joe has early stage Alzheimer's. I know it. You know it. The people
running Joe's campaign know it. But they also realize Joe is the only candidate with a chance
to beat Trump.
So the plan is to run him, despite his failing memory and unfortunate mental disease, get
him elected, then use Amendment 25 to send him to Shady Grove Assisted Living and elevate his
VP to the Whote House.
The disgrace of course is the Dems running mentally handicapped man for strictly political
reasons
Follow RT on
All the riots, toppled statues and attacks on American history will not end in the Year Zero the
protesters want. It's going to achieve precisely the opposite, as the silent majority of Americans
will show in November.
The silent majority is one of the biggest X factors in American politics. Possibly even the biggest.
Not all Americans are the type to shout everything from the high heavens, even though we have a
reputation for being brash and loud. Many of us would rather let our actions do the talking than our
words.
With the presidential election less than 150 days away, the left needs to reconsider where
it's going and what it's enabling. And whether it wants the nation to dump Trump, as its supporters
say they're passionate about achieving.
The poll numbers are hardly surprising. Biden tends to range anywhere from 42 to 56, whereas Trump
is anywhere from 37 to 48 percent,
according to Five Thirty Eight
.This is no different to how it was in 2016, when the
polls
showed Hillary Clinton routinely holding double-digit leads over Trump.
After he won (albeit with a smaller number of votes than Clinton secured), there was a lot of
pondering about how exactly the polls got it wrong, and it all came down to the same conclusion: the
silent majority. That large swath of Americans who weren't vocal about who they were going to vote
for, but weren't pleased with how the country was going and let their actions speak for themselves.
During the course of the past four years, the political left in America has learnt zero lessons
from their loss in 2016. If anything, they've become even less. CNN personality Don Lemon
has even gone to bat for Antifa
.
There are constant statements in the liberal press that there's some sort of deep-seated racism
that's inherent to the United States. So much so that the Pulitzer Prize honoring journalism and the
arts went to The 1619 Project,
a historically inaccurate
and easily debunked piece about the history of slavery in the United
States. Then came the death of George Floyd.
Since that moment, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has been working to enact a sort of Year
Zero, targeting monuments across the country to deface or destroy them. This, of course, comes after
the mass riots agitated by Antifa that saw many cities in flames. And then there's the creation of the
CHAZ/CHOP autonomous area in Seattle, which is
reportedly
about to be shut down by the mayor.
Where is the condemnation from the Joe Biden camp? Where is the condemnation from the left in
general? Where is their support for the police? Why aren't any of them calling for BLM – an avowedly
Marxist group, the aims of which include the overthrowing of capitalism – to stop encouraging this or
for Antifa to be declared a terrorist group, or declaring how bad an idea an autonomous, police-free
zone is? The answer? They're nowhere. In fact, Nancy Pelosi tried to place the murder of George Floyd
at the feet of Republicans
.
Here is what the left does not understand. Its unwillingness to call out these Marxist groups and
their actions doesn't go unnoticed. There's a reason Trump rallies sell out the way they do. There's a
reason why he won in 2016 and could just as easily have a poll-defying victory again. That reason is
simple: Americans take notice of what's around them and realize who's in charge and who's failing.
It's been speculated that the 2016 election was an indictment of HIllary Clinton, but I'm not sure
I agree. I think it was an indictment of the left in general. During the Barack Obama presidency,
"flyover country" was constantly demeaned as being racist and backwards. With Hillary Clinton, it was
no different, and people were sick of it. Now, it's gone far beyond that. Not only are there groups
that actually believe America is a deeply racist and oppressive nation (the opposite of reality), but
they want to destroy it and create something new. If you look at CHAZ/CHOP, it's rather obvious that
they can't even plant a crop, let alone run a country.
The United States does not want a Year Zero. Ours is a nation with a heritage most Americans are
proud of, and we're proud of the oppression we've defeated over the years. Erasing that history only
means we'd be doomed to repeat it.
As such, the polls are likely going to remain the same until the election. At that point, the
silence will be deafening. Americans will pull the cord for Republicans, and we'll have another 2016
on our hands. All because the left would not stand up to the radicals who want to destroy the nation.
@Curmudgeon
Many people that voted Trump did not so much vote for Trump but against Hildabeast. Once
again we are faced with an election where Trump is the only logical candidate. Not because he
is so great but because the alternative is so awful.
I am of the opinion that if you are White and don't vote Trump you are a fool.
"... Once the FBI's malfeasance was uncovered, the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case after Attorney General William Barr tapped an outside prosecutor to examine the FBI's conduct. Judge Sullivan rejected the DOJ's request - instead calling on an outside lawyer to make arguments against the DOJ's move to drop the case. ..."
"... Shortly before the DOJ move to dismiss, former Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack suddenly withdrew from the case (and others). Flynn's new attorney, Sidney Powell, said that government documents revealed "further evidence of misconduct by Mr. Van Grack specifically." ..."
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/25/2020 - 04:12 Update (2135ET): Missouri appellate attorney John Reeves has weighed in
on today's decision by the US Court of Appeals for DC ordering Judge Emmett Sullivan to grant a
DOJ request to drop the case against Michael Flynn.
The opinion, authored by one of the three judges on the panel, Neomi J. Rao, " thoroughly
demolishes " a dissenting opinion by Judge Robert Wilkins - who Reeves thinks was so off-base
that he " shot himself in the foot " when it comes to any chance of an 'en-banc review' in
which the Flynn decision would be kicked back for a full review by the DC appellate court.
Reeves, who has written filings for US Supreme Court cases, unpacks Rao's "outstanding
opinion" in the below Twitter thread, conveniently adding which page you can find what he's
referring to ( condensed below after the first tweet, emphasis ours ):
THREAD re: Flynn mandamus opinion
1) Judge Rao's opinion--joined by Judge Henderson--granting Flynn mandamus is outstanding not
only for its legal reasoning, but also for how it COMPLETELY EVISCERATES Judge Wilkins'
dissenting opinion. https://t.co/LBqGihkrMH
In all my years of appellate practice, I don't think I've ever seen a non-US Supreme Court
appellate opinion that so thoroughly demolishes a dissenting opinion as this one. Judge Rao
could not have done better in writing the opinion , and it should be required law school
rdg.
In addition, Judge Wilkins' dissenting opinion is so off-the-mark that I believe he has shot
himself in the foot for purposes of en banc review --in other words, he has ensured that
otherwise-sympathetic judges on the DC Circuit will vote against en banc review.
Judge Rao comes out swinging by holding that its earlier opinion in Fokker "foreclose[s] the
district court's proposed scrutiny of the government's motion to dismiss the Flynn
prosecution." p. 7.
In relying on Fokker, Judge Rao explicitly rejects Judge Wilkinson's argument that Fokker's
holding is dicta (that is, non-binding) . She holds Fokker "is directly controlling here." p.
14.
Keep in mind that Fokker was written by Chief Judge Srinivasan, an OBAMA appointee. Judge
Srinivasan does NOT want Fokker's legitimacy undermined , no matter his politics.
Judge Wilkins' dissent implies that Fokker was wrongly decided , and that it conflicts with
other federal appellate courts. See p. 23 of 28. Judge Srinivasan will NOT be impressed by this
argument in deciding whether to grant en banc rehearing . Fokker does not create a split.
Judge Rao goes on to emphasize that while judicial inquiry MAY be justified in some
circumstances, Flynn's situation "is plainly not the rare case where further judicial inquiry
is warranted." p. 6.
Rao notes that Flynn agrees with the Govt.'s dismissal motion, so there's no risk of his
rights being violated. In addition, the Government has stated insufficient evidence exists to
convict Flynn . p. 6.
Rao also holds that " a hearing cannot be used as an occasion to superintend the
prosecution's charging decisions. " p. 7.
But by appointing amicus and attempting to hold a hearing on these matters, the district
court is inflicting irreparable harm on the Govt. because it is subjecting its prosecutorial
decisions to outside inquiry. p. 8
Thus, Judge Rao holds, it is NOT true that the district court has "yet to act" in this
matter, contrary to Judge Wilkins' assertions. p. 16.
" [T]he district court HAS acted here....[by appointing] one private citizen to argue that
another citizen should be deprived of his liberty regardless of whether the Executive Branch is
willing to pursue the charges. " p. 16. This justified mandamus being issued NOW.
Judge Rao also makes short work of Judge Wilkins' argument that the court may not consider
the harm to the Government in deciding whether to grant mandamus bc the Government never filed
a petition for mandamus. p. 17.
Judge Rao notes " [o]ur court has squarely rejected this argument, " and follows with a
plethora of supporting citations. p. 17.
Judge Rao also notes--contrary to what many legal commentators have misled the public to
believe--that it is "black letter law" that the Govt. can seek dismissal even after a guilty
plea is made . This does not justify greater scrutiny by the district court. p. 6, footnote
1.
As to Judge Wilkins' argument that a district court may conduct greater scrutiny where, as
here, the Govt. reverses its position in prosecuting a case, Judge Rao points out that " the
government NECESSARILY reverses its position whenever it moves to dismiss charges.... " p.
13
"Given the absence of any legitimate basis to question the presumption of regularity, there
is no justification to appoint a private citizen to oppose the government's motion to dismiss
Flynn's prosecution. " p. 13.
But Judge Rao saves her most stinging and brutal takedown of Judge Wilkins' dissent for the
end.....(cont)
Judge Rao writes that " the dissent swings for the fences--and misses--by analogizing a Rule
48(a) motion to dismiss with a selective prosecution claim. " p. 17. (cont)
While it is true that the Executive cannot selectively prosecute certain individuals "based
on impermissible considerations," p. 18, " the equal protection remedy is to dismiss the
prosecution, NOT to compel the Executive to bring another prosecution ." p. 18 (emph.
added).
And Judge Rao is just getting warmed up here....She then notes that " unwarranted judicial
scrutiny of a prosecutor's motion to dismiss puts the court in an entirely different position
[than selective prosecution caselaw assigns the court] ." p. 18 (cont)
"Rather than allow the Executive Branch to dismiss a problematic prosecution, the court [as
Judge Wilkins and Judge Sullivan would have it] assumes the role of inquisitor, prolonging a
prosecution deemed illegitimate by the Executive. " p. 18 (cont).
And now for Judge Rao's KO to Judge Wilkins and Judge Sullivan: " Judges assume that role in
some countries, but Article III gives no prosecutorial or inquisitional power to federal judges
." p. 18. (cont)
In other words, Judge Rao is likening Judge Wilkins' arguments, and Judge Sullivan's
actions, to what is done in non-democratic, third world countries . p. 18. Outstanding opinion.
No mercy . END
Like a liquid-metal terminator with half its head blown apart, the case against Michael
Flynn just won't die.
Hours after the US Court of Appeals for DC ordered Judge Emmett Sullivan to grant the DOJ's
request to drop the case, the retired 'resistance' judge hired to defend Sullivan's actions has
filed a motion requesting an extension to file his findings against Flynn .
The D.C. Appeals Court today vacated the lawless appointment of a left-wing shadow
prosecutor to go after Flynn.
Gleeson, the Resistance dead-ender hired by Sullivan, is ignoring the order and plowing
ahead with his illegal inquisition against Flynn. https://t.co/bOeG7pRJxv
In a major victory for Michael Flynn, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit has ordered Judge Emmet Sullivan to grant the Justice Department's request to
dismiss the case against the former Trump National Security Adviser.
"Upon consideration of the emergency petition for a writ of mandamus, the responses thereto,
and the reply, the briefs of amici curiae in support of the parties, and the argument by
counsel, it is ORDERED that Flynn's petition for a writ of mandamus be granted in part; the
District Court is directed to grant the government's Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss; nd the
District Court's order appointing an amicus is hereby vacated as moot , in accordance with the
opinion of the court filed herein this date," reads the order.
In their decision, the appeals court wrote: " Decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges
- no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring - lie
squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion . "
"The Judiciary's role under Rule 48 is thus confined to "extremely limited circumstances in
extraordinary cases.""
Hence, no dice for Judge Sullivan.
Great! Appeals Court Upholds Justice Departments Request To Drop Criminal Case Against
General Michael Flynn!
Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about his conversations with
former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, during the presidential transition
following the 2016 US election. He later withdrew his plea after securing new legal counsel,
while evidence emerged which revealed the FBI had laid a '
perjury trap ' - despite the fact that the agents who interviewed him in January, 2017 said
they thought he was telling the truth . Agents persisted hunting Flynn despite the FBI's
recommendation to
close the case.
Once the FBI's malfeasance was uncovered, the Justice Department moved to dismiss the case
after Attorney General William Barr tapped an outside prosecutor to examine the FBI's conduct.
Judge Sullivan rejected the DOJ's request - instead calling on an outside lawyer to make
arguments against the DOJ's move to drop the case.
In their Wednesday decision , the Appeals court noted that "the government's motion includes
an extensive discussion of newly discovered evidence casting Flynn's guilt into doubt."
Specifically, the government points to evidence that the FBI interview at which Flynn
allegedly made false statements was "untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI's
counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn." -US Court of Appeals
Shortly before the DOJ move to dismiss, former Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack suddenly
withdrew from the case (and others). Flynn's new attorney, Sidney Powell, said that government
documents revealed "further evidence of misconduct by Mr. Van Grack specifically."
Sullivan urged the federal appeals court to also reject Flynn's bid to bring an end to the
case, which has now ruled against the judge .
An appeals court in Washington, DC, ruled that the case against President Trump's one-time
national security adviser, Michael Flynn, must end. The Justice Department had dropped charges
against Flynn, but his case remained open. In a ruling issued on Wednesday, the Washington DC
Circuit Court of Appeals effectively ended the case against Flynn, ordering federal judge Emmet
Sullivan to heed the Justice Department's advice and close the case. Sullivan had attempted to
keep the case active, even though the Justice Department dropped its charges against Flynn last
month.
The appeals battle was a last-ditch showdown between Flynn and the Justice Department on one
side, and Sullivan on the other. Though reporters as recently as last week reckoned the appeals
court would side with Sullivan, they were proven wrong on Wednesday morning.
Pompeo is suggesting that Iran will spend tens of millions on planes, fly them unopposed
through the radar coverage of several countries, to let Iranian Kamikaze pilots crash them into
some temple in Nepal.
This does not make any sense. No foreign politician will be impressed by this 'argument'.
Pompeo's tweet is for consumption at home.
The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump introduced a long-awaited U.N. Security
Council (UNSC) draft resolution extending an arms embargo on Iran that is due to expire in
October, setting the stage for a great-power clash and likely veto in the U.N.'s principal
security body, according to a copy of the draft obtained by Foreign Policy .
...
If passed, the resolution would fall under Chapter VII of the U.N. charter, making it legally
binding and enforceable. But the U.S. measure, according to several U.N. Security Council
diplomats, stands little chance of being adopted by the 15-nation council.
...
Some council diplomats and other nonproliferation experts see the U.S. move as a way to score
political points at home , not to do anything about Iran's destabilizing activities in the
region.
"The skeptic in me says that the objective of this exercise is to go through the arms
embargo resolution, and when it fails, to use that as an excuse to get a snapback of the
embargo, and if and when that fails too, to use as a political talking point in the election
campaign ," said Mark Fitzpatrick, a former State Department nonproliferation official now at
the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Since China and Russia are almost certain
to ignore any U.N. arms embargo forced by U.S. maneuvers, the practical impact on Iran's
ability to cause mischief will be minimal, he said.
"It's not actually about stopping any arms from China and Russia, it's about winning a
political argument ," he said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the Chinese government's top diplomat, Wang Yi,
both wrote to the 15-member council and U.N. chief Antonio Guterres as the United States
threatens to spark a so-called sanctions snapback under the Iran nuclear deal, even though
Washington quit the accord in 2018.
Lavrov wrote in the May 27 letter, made public this week, that the United States was being
"ridiculous and irresponsible."
"This is absolutely unacceptable and serves only to recall the famous English proverb
about having one's cake and eating it," Lavrov wrote.
Washington has threatened to trigger a return of U.N. sanctions on Iran if the Security
Council does not extend an arms embargo due to expire in October under Tehran's deal with
world powers to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
...
Lavrov cited a 1971 International Court of Justice opinion, which found that a fundamental
principle governing international relationships was that "a party which disowns or does not
fulfill its own obligations cannot be recognized as retaining the rights which it claims to
derive from the relationship."
Despite the evident failure to convince others the U.S. continues make stupid
arguments :
Russia and China will be isolated at the United Nations if they continue down the "road to
dystopia" by blocking a U.S. bid to extend a weapons ban on Iran, U.S. Iran envoy Brian Hook
told Reuters ahead of his formal pitch of the embargo to the U.N. Security Council on
Wednesday.
...
"We see a widening gap between Russia and China and the international community," Hook said
in an interview with Reuters on Tuesday evening.
The U.S. has left the JCPoA deal and can not claim a right under that deal to snap back the
sanctions that the deal has lifted. It is the U.S. that is isolated. Even its allies do not
support the attempt:
"We firmly believe that any unilateral attempt to trigger UN sanctions snapback would have
serious adverse consequences in the UNSC," the foreign ministers of Britain, France, and
Germany said in a statement on June 19. "We would not support such a decision which would be
incompatible with our current efforts to preserve the JCPoA."
The Trump policy against Iran has failed. He has tried a 'maximum pressure' campaign to
blackmail Iran into more concessions. But despite sanctions and economic problems caused by
them Iran is not willing to talk with him. Its conditions for talks
are clear :
"We have no problem with talks with the U.S., but only if Washington fulfils its obligations
under the nuclear deal, apologies and compensates Tehran for its withdrawal from the 2015
deal," Rouhani said in a televised speech.
The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, including the new sanctions against Syria under
the 'Ceasar's Law', have been helping Iran to
strengthen its position :
Iran is reaping huge benefits, including more robust allies and resistant strongholds as a
result of the US's flawed Middle Eastern policies. Motivated by the threat of the
implementation of "Caesar' Law", Iran has prepared a series of steps to sell its oil and
finance its allies, bypassing depletion of its foreign currency reserves.
Iranian companies found in Syria a paradise for strategic investment and offered the
needed alternative to a Syrian economy crippled by sanctions and nine years of war. Iran
considers Syria a fertile ground to expand its commerce and business like never before.
With Iran's influence growing and Russia making
inroads even with once staunch U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia it seems that real U.S.
influence in the Middle East is on a decisive downturn.
Whatever Pompous Pompeo says or tweets will not change that. But there's a sucker born every
minute. Some of those may still fall for the stuff he says.
--- Twice a year I ask readers of this blog to support my effort. Please consider contributing
.
Posted by b on June 24, 2020 at 17:10 UTC | Permalink
The belated discovery of disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's January 2017 notes raises
troubling new questions about whether President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were
coordinating efforts during their final days in office to investigate Trump national security
adviser Michael Flynn -- even as the FBI wanted to shut down the case.
Investigators will need to secure testimony from Strzok, fired two years ago from the FBI,
to be certain of the exact meaning and intent of his one paragraph of notes, which were made
public in court on Wednesday.
But they appear to illuminate an extraordinary high-level effort by outgoing Obama-era
officials during the first weekend of January to find a way to sustain a counterintelligence
investigation of Flynn in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.
The Justice Department says the notes were written between Jan. 3-5, 2017, the very weekend
the FBI agent who had investigated Flynn's ties to Russia for five months recommended the case
be closed because there was "no derogatory" evidence that he committed a crime or posed a
counterintelligence threat. FBI supervisors overruled the agent's recommendation.
Strzok's notes appear to quote then-FBI Director James Comey as suggesting that Flynn's
intercepted calls with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak "appear legit," bolstering other
recently disclosed evidence showing the bureau saw nothing wrong with Flynn's behavior.
The notes also suggest Biden -- who once claimed he had no knowledge of the Flynn probe --
raised the issue of the Logan Act, an obscure, centuries-old law, as a possible avenue for
continuing to investigate Flynn.
And Strzok appears to quote Obama as suggesting the FBI assign "the right people" to pursue
the case.
You can read the notes here:
These conversations, if accurately portrayed in the Strzok notes, occurred during the same
three-day period in which FBI supervisors overruled their field agent's recommendation to shut
down the Flynn case and pivoted toward the strategy of luring Flynn into an FBI interview where
he might be caught lying.
Sidney Powell, Flynn's lawyer, laid out the potential ramifications of the notes in a court
filing on Wednesday, calling the new evidence "stunning and exculpatory."
"Mr. Obama himself directed that 'the right people' investigate General Flynn. This caused
former FBI Director Comey to acknowledge the obvious: General Flynn's phone calls with
Ambassador Kislyak 'appear legit,'" Powell argued in her new motion.
" According to Strzok's notes, it appears that Vice President Biden personally raised the
idea of the Logan Act. That became an admitted pretext to investigate General Flynn," she
added.
Even if the rebuked judge appeals the decision or the full appeals court reconsiders the
case, Flynn is likely on a path to being a free and innocent man.
The real impact of the notes may be on the Justice Department's ongoing investigation of the
Russia investigators, where U.S. Attorneys John Durham and Jeff Jensen are determining whether
the FBI or others committed crimes in deceiving the courts or Congress about the evidence in
the now-discredited Russia collusion allegations.
A former senior FBI official told Just the News that Strzok's notes about the White House
meeting are a red flag that the Comey-led bureau may have been involving itself illegitimately
in a political dispute between the outgoing Obama administration and incoming Trump
administration.
"It was a political meeting about a policy dispute, and the bureau had no business being
involved," Former Assistant Director for Intelligence Kevin Brock said. "No other FBI director
would ever have attended such a meeting.
"Comey is quoted in the notes as saying the Kislyak call appeared legit. At that point he
should have gotten up and left the room," Brock added.
"The FBI had no business being represented in that meeting. It did not have a
counterintelligence interest any longer."
A second impact of the notes could be on the campaign trail. A few months ago, Biden claimed
he was unaware of the Flynn probe as he was leaving the VP's office.
"I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn," he said.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/3Yrblo64caA
He then clarified his denial.
"I was aware that they asked for an investigation,"
Biden said. "But that's all I know about it, and I don't think anything else."
If Powell's interpretation of the notes is correct, Biden was knowledgeable enough to
suggest a possible pretext for continued investigation, the Logan Act. And he eventually
unmasked one of Flynn's intercepted phone calls a week later.
Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes told Just the News on Wednesday the
newly discovered notes affirm his long-held suspicion that the Obama White House was trying to
influence the FBI's Russia probe in untoward ways.
" Now we know both Obama and Biden were directly involved in planning the attack on Flynn
," Nunes said.
"The Obama administration exploited our intelligence community to spy on their political
opponents and engineer bogus investigations and prosecutions of them.
"This is the single biggest abuse of power I've seen in my lifetime," he added.
Giraldi's first paragraph is spot on. But after corona dealing the economy a heavy blow, I
don't think Trump will start a war before the election. I don't think he would have done that
otherwise either, though there was some risk. Trump has caved numerous times, he is an idioht
when it comes to hiring his enemies hoping to appease them, but there is no question that he
opposes mass immigration and invasions.
I suppose most people here know this, but let's look at how many of the pro-war names
mentioned belong to the 2.5 % "Chosen":
George Bush
Donald Rumsfeld
Hillary Clinton
Michael Ledeen (White, but studied history under *George Mosse, immigrated from Germany)
Reuel Gerecht
Dan Senor
*Richard Perle
*Paul Wolfowitz (The architect of the Afghan-Iraq invasions, who gathered support for them in
Congress and organized the pro-war communication)
*Douglas Feith (would have been the Sec. of Defense if people hadn't objected too much, as he
was infamous after the Iran-Contra affair)
*Eliot Abrams
*Lewish "Scooter" Libby of the dead eyes
*Robert Kagan
*Frederick Kagan
*Victoria Nuland
*Madeleine Albright (Half a million dead Iraqi children from starvation sanctions and bombing
the infrastructure for twelve years was "worth it")
That's six Whites and nine Tribe.
If those nine hadn't existed millions would have been alive today, there would have been
no flood of Somalis, Afghans, Iraqis and Syrians to Europe, and the U.S. and the Middle East
would have been far better off.
"... Of course ultimately you reach a point where no one truly understands what is real and what isn't any more. ..."
"... Boris Johnson PM of the UK? Surely not, Theresa May? I can barely wipe the smirk from my face. 4th and 5th rate politicians relying on SPADs to run the country. ..."
"... Reading his recent essay on the truths of WWII ( http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/63527 ) yet again sees him posting uncomfortable realities to a West knee deep in vassalage to a crumbling US. ..."
"... Change is coming whether we like it or not, with or without Putin, we'd best tend our own garden and stop worrying about an opposition that simply doesn't exist. ..."
Gerald says:
June 20, 2020 at 5:34 pm surely 'legitimacy' goes to the victor. Once you've won
you can build a sort of legitimacy that the majority will agree with (whether its real
or not) of course if you are a kind of despotic dictatorship (as appears to be
happening in terms of western neoliberal capitalism) then you will merely do as you
wish regardless until confronted with overwhelming opposition at which point you will
infiltrate and co-opt said opposition, pay lip service to their vague claim for
'rights' and continue on your merry way.
I always thought that the greatest thing that the capitalists did in the 20th
century was to get the slaves to love their slavery, its all advertising, hollywood, TV
that's all that politics has become, certainly in the West. Edward Bernays has a lot to
answer for.
Of course ultimately you reach a point where no one truly understands what is
real and what isn't any more.
Boris Johnson PM of the UK? Surely not, Theresa May? I can barely wipe the smirk
from my face. 4th and 5th rate politicians relying on SPADs to run the
country.
There is no wonder that Putin looks like the greatest 21st century leader, the last
of a dying breed. Reading his recent essay on the truths of WWII ( http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/63527
) yet again sees him posting uncomfortable realities to a West knee deep in vassalage
to a crumbling US.
Change is coming whether we like it or not, with or without Putin, we'd best
tend our own garden and stop worrying about an opposition that simply doesn't
exist.
"... From wiping out the ability of regular folks to declare bankruptcy (something supported by our founding fathers who were NOT socialists), to shipping our industrial base to communist China (which in less enlightened days would have been termed treason), to spending tens of trillions of dollars bailing out and subsiding the big banks (that's not a misprint), to supporting "surprise medical billing," to opening the borders to massive third-world immigration so that wages can be driven down and reset and profits up (As 2015 Bernie Sanders pointed out), Backstabbing Joe Biden is neoliberal scum pure and simple. ..."
"... It's astonishing that so many people will just blindly accept what they are told, that Biden is. "moderate." Biden is so far to the right, he makes Nixon look like Trotsky. ..."
"... Joe Biden is a crook and a con man. He has been lying his whole life. Claimed in his 1988 Campaign to have got 3 degrees at college and finished in top half of his class. Actually only got 1 degree & finished 76th out of 85 in his class. ..."
Yet another circus. The proles get to scream and holler, and when all is done, the oligarchy gets the policies it wants, the public
be damned. Our sham 'democracy' is a con to privatize power and socialize responsibility.
Although it is shocking to see such a disgusting piece of human garbage like Joe Biden get substantial numbers of people to
vote for him. Biden has never missed a chance to stab the working class in the back in service to his wealthy patrons.
The issue is not (for me) his creepiness (I wouldn't much mind if he was on my side), nor even his Alzheimer's, but his established
track record of betrayal and corruption.
From wiping out the ability of regular folks to declare bankruptcy (something supported by our founding fathers who were NOT
socialists), to shipping our industrial base to communist China (which in less enlightened days would have been termed treason),
to spending tens of trillions of dollars bailing out and subsiding the big banks (that's not a misprint), to supporting "surprise
medical billing," to opening the borders to massive third-world immigration so that wages can be driven down and reset and profits
up (As 2015 Bernie Sanders pointed out), Backstabbing Joe Biden is neoliberal scum pure and simple.
It's astonishing that so many people will just blindly accept what they are told, that Biden is. "moderate." Biden is so
far to the right, he makes Nixon look like Trotsky. Heck, he makes Calvin Coolidge look like Trotsky.
Joe Biden is a crook and a con man. He has been lying his whole life. Claimed in his 1988 Campaign to have got 3 degrees at college and finished in top half of his class. Actually only got 1 degree & finished 76th out of 85 in his class.
"... "Sheldon Adelson is the puppet master who is pulling the strings of Donald Trump, [Secretary of State] Mike Pompeo, and what's his name the ambassador, Greenberg, I think his name is," Waters said, and went on to describe Adelson as a "right-wing fascist racist bigot." ..."
"... Waters said Adelson, a major donor to Trump's Republican party and his election campaign, "believes that only Jews, only Jewish people, are completely human and everybody else on Earth is there to serve them." ..."
"... "Unfortunately this crazy, crazy, crazy guy is also incredibly rich and has the tiny little prick of Donald Trump in his pocket." ..."
Screen capture from video of Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters during an interview with
Hamas-affiliated Shehab News Agency, June 20, 2020. (Twitter) Musician Roger Waters has said
that US Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson is pulling the strings of the Trump administration,
and claimed that Israel is training US police forces how to kill black people using the
technique of kneeling on the necks of their victims, which he said was developed by the Israel
Defense Forces as it "murders Palestinians."
Rogers, a co-founder of Pink Floyd and an outspoken critic of Israel who has been branded an
anti-Semite by the ADL , told the Hamas terror group-affiliated Shehab News Agency on Saturday
that Adelson believes only Jews are "completely human" and referred to US Ambassador to Israel
David Friedman as "Greenberg."
Excerpts from the interview were published Sunday by the Washington-based Middle East Media
Research Institute watchdog.
"Sheldon Adelson is the puppet master who is pulling the strings of Donald Trump, [Secretary
of State] Mike Pompeo, and what's his name the ambassador, Greenberg, I think his name is,"
Waters said, and went on to describe Adelson as a "right-wing fascist racist
bigot."
US
President Donald Trump pats Las Vegas Sands Corporation Chief Executive and Republican mega
donor Sheldon Adelson on the arm before speaking at the Israeli American Council National
Summit in Hollywood, Florida, December 7, 2019. (Patrick Semansky/AP)
Waters said Adelson, a major donor to Trump's Republican party and his election campaign,
"believes that only Jews, only Jewish people, are completely human and everybody else on Earth
is there to serve them."
"I'm not saying Jewish people believe this; he does and he is pulling the strings," Waters
continued, and claimed Adelson further believes that "everything will be good with the world if
there is a Greater Israel which takes up the whole of historic Palestine and the Kingdom of
Jordan."
"Unfortunately this crazy, crazy, crazy guy is also incredibly rich and has the tiny little
prick of Donald Trump in his pocket."
Musician Roger Waters on Hamas-Affiliated News Agency: Crazy Puppet Master Adelson Has
Donald Trump's Tiny Little Pr*ck in His Pocket; Israelis Teach U.S. Police How to Murder
Blacks pic.twitter.com/0JUQuwsvhB
Turning to the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in Minneapolis when a police
officer kneeled on his neck after he was already in custody, Waters said it was "a technique
invented by the IDF."
"The Israelis invented (the method), 'let's kill people by kneeling on their necks'," he
claimed. "That is an Israeli technique taught to the militarized police forces of the USA by
Israeli experts who the Americans have been flying over to the United States to teach them how
to murder blacks because they've seen how efficient the Israelis have been at murdering
Palestinians in the occupied territories by using those techniques, and they are proud of it.
The Israelis are proud of it."
"Zionism is an ugly stain, and it needs to be gently removed by us," he said later during
the interview.
Floyd's death prompted anti-racism protests across the US.
Bassist and vocalist Waters is known for publicly harassing artists scheduled to visit
Israel or perform here. In 2013, the Anti-Defamation League branded
Waters an anti-Semite, having previously defended him from that characterization.
Responding to comments Water made in an interview with Counterpunch magazine comparing
Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to Nazi Germany, the ADL said "anti-Semitic conspiracy
theories" have "seeped into the totality" of the former Pink Floyd frontman's views.
"Judging by his remarks, Roger Waters has absorbed classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories,
and these have now seeped into the totality of his views," Abraham H. Foxman, the then-National
Director of the ADL, told The Times of Israel at the time. "His comments about Jews and Israel
have gotten progressively worse over time. It started with anti-Israel invective, and has now
morphed into conspiratorial anti-Semitism."
Added Foxman: "How sad that a creative genius could become so perverted by his own
narrow-minded bigotry."
Stuart Winer is a breaking news editor at The Times of Israel.
"... Bolton's account sheds light on how it happened: hawks in the administration, including Bolton himself, wanted U.S. forces in Syria fighting Russia and Iran. They saw the U.S.-Kurdish alliance against ISIS as a distraction -- and let the Turkish-Kurdish conflict fester until it spiralled out of control. ..."
The drama eventually ended with President Donald Trump pulling U.S. peacekeepers out of
Syria -- and then sending them
back in . One hundred thousand
Syrian civilians were displaced by an advancing Turkish army, and the Kurdish-led Syrian
Democratic Forces turned to Russia for help. But U.S. forces never fully withdrew -- they are
still stuck in Syria defending oil wells .
Bolton's account sheds light on how it happened: hawks in the administration, including
Bolton himself, wanted U.S. forces in Syria fighting Russia and Iran. They saw the U.S.-Kurdish
alliance against ISIS as a distraction -- and let the Turkish-Kurdish conflict fester until it
spiralled out of control.
Pompeo issued a statement on Thursday night denouncing Bolton's entire book as "a number of
lies, fully-spun half-truths, and outright falsehoods."
"... From wiping out the ability of regular folks to declare bankruptcy (something supported by our founding fathers who were NOT socialists), to shipping our industrial base to communist China (which in less enlightened days would have been termed treason), to spending tens of trillions of dollars bailing out and subsiding the big banks (that's not a misprint), to supporting "surprise medical billing," to opening the borders to massive third-world immigration so that wages can be driven down and reset and profits up (As 2015 Bernie Sanders pointed out), Backstabbing Joe Biden is neoliberal scum pure and simple. ..."
"... It's astonishing that so many people will just blindly accept what they are told, that Biden is. "moderate." Biden is so far to the right, he makes Nixon look like Trotsky. ..."
"... Joe Biden is a crook and a con man. He has been lying his whole life. Claimed in his 1988 Campaign to have got 3 degrees at college and finished in top half of his class. Actually only got 1 degree & finished 76th out of 85 in his class. ..."
Yet another circus. The proles get to scream and holler, and when all is done, the oligarchy gets the policies it wants, the public
be damned. Our sham 'democracy' is a con to privatize power and socialize responsibility.
Although it is shocking to see such a disgusting piece of human garbage like Joe Biden get substantial numbers of people to
vote for him. Biden has never missed a chance to stab the working class in the back in service to his wealthy patrons.
The issue is not (for me) his creepiness (I wouldn't much mind if he was on my side), nor even his Alzheimer's, but his established
track record of betrayal and corruption.
From wiping out the ability of regular folks to declare bankruptcy (something supported by our founding fathers who were NOT
socialists), to shipping our industrial base to communist China (which in less enlightened days would have been termed treason),
to spending tens of trillions of dollars bailing out and subsiding the big banks (that's not a misprint), to supporting "surprise
medical billing," to opening the borders to massive third-world immigration so that wages can be driven down and reset and profits
up (As 2015 Bernie Sanders pointed out), Backstabbing Joe Biden is neoliberal scum pure and simple.
It's astonishing that so many people will just blindly accept what they are told, that Biden is. "moderate." Biden is so
far to the right, he makes Nixon look like Trotsky. Heck, he makes Calvin Coolidge look like Trotsky.
Joe Biden is a crook and a con man. He has been lying his whole life. Claimed in his 1988 Campaign to have got 3 degrees at college and finished in top half of his class. Actually only got 1 degree & finished 76th out of 85 in his class.
Trump is at fault for hiring him to appease the Zionist lobby. We all knew the guy was a
warmonger and a scumbag. It's not a surprise. Trump surrounds himself with the worst
people
The self-appointed Deep State has pretty much thwarted him (Trump) and his voters.
Posted by: bob sykes | Jun 17 2020 20:55 utc | 11
Trump thwarted Trump. Before he got elected, Trump mentioned his admiration of Bolton more
than once. Voters of Trump elected a liar and an incoherent person -- at time,
incomprehensible, a nice bonus. But it is worth noticing that Trump never liked being binded
by agreement, like, say, an agreement to pay money back to creditors, or whatever
international agreement would restrict USA from doing what they damn please.
Superficially, it is mysterious why Trump made an impression that he wants to negotiate
with North Korea with some agreement at the end. Was he forced to make a mockery from the
negotiation by someone sticking knife to his back?
Some may remember that Trump promised to abolish Affordable Care Act and replace it with
"something marvelous". The latest version is that he will start thinking about it again after
re-election. If you believe that...
Granted, Trump is more sane than Bolton, but just a bit, unlike Bolton he has some moments
of lucidity.
In conclusion, I would advocate to vote for Biden. If you need a reason, that would be
that Biden never tweets, or if he does, it is forgettable before the typing is done. Unlike
the hideous Trumpian productions.
"men fit to be shaved," Tiberius, on Bolton and Friedman.
he is the best & brightest we have. when a dreadful mouth is called for. his insights
into the Trump WH are probably as deep as his knowledge of VZ, Iran, Cuba, etc. he's a useful
idiot, a willing fool. like Trump, he's the verbal equivalent of the cops on the street, in
foreign "policy." another abusive father figure
reading the imperial steak turds - an American form of reading the tea leaves or goat
livers or chicken flight or celestial what have you. an emperor craps out a big hairy one
like Bolton and the priests and hierophants and lawyers and scribes come for a long, close up
inspection and fact-gathering smell of another steaming pile of gmo-corn-and-downer-cow-fed,
colon cancer causing, Kansas feed-lot raised, grade A Murkin BEEF. guess what they in their
wisdom find? Trump stinks.
get rid of a very popular socialist leaning candidate with absolutely no consideration
about having a candidate better than Bernie.
Agree
I don't know why but no one takes the primary elections seriously, (except Circe) when in
reality it really is the most important one of all. Could it be Americans are just not ready
for what the rest of the world has? That is health care and education as a right?
How is it all you hear now is how there is no choice between these two pieces of boomer
poop when the opportunity to elect younger, more viable candidate's have come and gone, yet
again.
I read right here how Bernie was a socialist, Gabbard stood with Israel, Yang was bent
right, Warren was faux Native American, Buttigieg hails SCOTUS decision on LGBTQ workers "an
enormous step forward" and Harris make her career sleeping with powerful people and so
on.
No one wanted to get behind any of these or the others and push them into the White House.
It was just constant nit picking that got us Biden, the DNC default.
It's not hard to look back and say we blew it, again.
I should think when Joe Biden's brain starts flat-lining and only a cryogenic chamber can
keep him alive will he finally become the perfect candidate to contest the 2020 US
Presidential elections. One has to be brain-dead to even think of campaigning for a job where
the main job requirement is to park your brain at the door, irrespective of how much you
might earn and whether you get to have that little gadget with the red button (that sends all
the start-up codes to your nation's nuke missiles) in your desk.
Re: the Nuremberg trials , I became fascinated by the writings of Paul R. Pillar who
pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to
war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace' . This is when one country sets up an
environment for war against another country. I'll grant you that this is vague but if this is
applicable at all how is this not an accurate description of what we are doing against Iran
and Venezuela?
In both cases, we are imposing a full trade embargo (not sanctions) on basic civilian
necessities and infrastructures and threatening the use of military force. As for Iran, the
sustained and unfair demonization of Iranians is preparing the U.S. public to accept a
ruthless bombing campaign against them as long overdue. We are already attacking the civilian
population of their allies in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.
How Ironic that the country that boasts that it won WW2 is now guilty of the very crimes
that it condemned publicly in court.
"... The endless and extravagant election cycles, he said, are an example of politics without politics. ..."
"... "Instead of participating in power," he writes, "the virtual citizen is invited to have 'opinions': measurable responses to questions predesigned to elicit them." ..."
"... Political campaigns rarely discuss substantive issues. They center on manufactured political personalities, empty rhetoric, sophisticated public relations, slick advertising, propaganda and the constant use of focus groups and opinion polls to loop back to voters what they want to hear. Money has effectively replaced the vote. Every current presidential candidate -- including Bernie Sanders -- understands, to use Wolin's words, that "the subject of empire is taboo in electoral debates." The citizen is irrelevant. He or she is nothing more than a spectator, allowed to vote and then forgotten once the carnival of elections ends and corporations and their lobbyists get back to the business of ruling. ..."
"... "If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to shape, such a system deserves to be called 'misrepresentative or clientry government,' " Wolin writes. "It is, at one and the same time, a powerful contributing factor to the depoliticization of the citizenry, as well as reason for characterizing the system as one of antidemocracy." ..."
"... We are tolerated as citizens, Wolin warns, only as long as we participate in the illusion of a participatory democracy. The moment we rebel and refuse to take part in the illusion, the face of inverted totalitarianism will look like the face of past systems of totalitarianism. ..."
"... "The significance of the African-American prison population is political," ..."
...Inverted totalitarianism also "perpetuates politics all the time," Wolin said when we spoke,
"but a politics that is not political." The endless and extravagant election cycles, he said,
are an example of politics without politics.
"Instead of participating in power," he writes, "the virtual citizen is invited to have
'opinions': measurable responses to questions predesigned to elicit them."
Political campaigns rarely discuss substantive issues. They center on manufactured
political personalities, empty rhetoric, sophisticated public relations, slick advertising,
propaganda and the constant use of focus groups and opinion polls to loop back to voters what
they want to hear. Money has effectively replaced the vote. Every current presidential
candidate -- including Bernie Sanders -- understands, to use Wolin's words, that "the subject
of empire is taboo in electoral debates." The citizen is irrelevant. He or she is nothing more
than a spectator, allowed to vote and then forgotten once the carnival of elections ends and
corporations and their lobbyists get back to the business of ruling.
"If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to
shape, such a system deserves to be called 'misrepresentative or clientry government,' " Wolin
writes. "It is, at one and the same time, a powerful contributing factor to the
depoliticization of the citizenry, as well as reason for characterizing the system as one of
antidemocracy."
The result, he writes, is that the public is "denied the use of state power." Wolin deplores
the trivialization of political discourse, a tactic used to leave the public fragmented,
antagonistic and emotionally charged while leaving corporate power and empire unchallenged.
"Cultural wars might seem an indication of strong political involvements," he writes.
"Actually they are a substitute. The notoriety they receive from the media and from politicians
eager to take firm stands on nonsubstantive issues serves to distract attention and contribute
to a cant politics of the inconsequential."
"The ruling groups can now operate on the assumption that they don't need the traditional
notion of something called a public in the broad sense of a coherent whole," he said in our
meeting. "They now have the tools to deal with the very disparities and differences that they
have themselves helped to create. It's a game in which you manage to undermine the cohesiveness
that the public requires if they [the public] are to be politically effective. And at the same
time, you create these different, distinct groups that inevitably find themselves in tension or
at odds or in competition with other groups, so that it becomes more of a melee than it does
become a way of fashioning majorities."
In classical totalitarian regimes, such as those of Nazi fascism or Soviet communism,
economics was subordinate to politics. But "under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is
true," Wolin writes. "Economics dominates politics -- and with that domination comes different
forms of ruthlessness."He continues: "The United States has become the showcase of how
democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed."
The corporate state, Wolin told me, is "legitimated by elections it controls." To extinguish
democracy, it rewrites and distorts laws and legislation that once protected democracy. Basic
rights are, in essence, revoked by judicial and legislative fiat. Courts and legislative
bodies, in the service of corporate power, reinterpret laws to strip them of their original
meaning in order to strengthen corporate control and abolish corporate oversight.
He writes: "Why negate a constitution, as the Nazis did, if it is possible simultaneously to
exploit porosity and legitimate power by means of judicial interpretations that declare
huge campaign contributions to be protected speech under the First Amendment, or that treat
heavily financed and organized lobbying by large corporations as a simple application of the
people's right to petition their government?"
Our system of inverted totalitarianism will avoid harsh and violent measures of control "as
long as dissent remains ineffectual," he told me. "The government does not need to stamp out
dissent. The uniformity of imposed public opinion through the corporate media does a very
effective job."
And the elites, especially the intellectual class, have been bought off. "Through a
combination of governmental contracts, corporate and foundation funds, joint projects involving
university and corporate researchers, and wealthy individual donors, universities (especially
so-called research universities), intellectuals, scholars, and researchers have been seamlessly
integrated into the system," Wolin writes. "No books burned, no refugee Einsteins."
But, he warns, should the population -- steadily stripped of its most basic rights,
including the right to privacy, and increasingly impoverished and bereft of hope -- become
restive, inverted totalitarianism will become as brutal and violent as past totalitarian
states. "The war on terrorism, with its accompanying emphasis upon 'homeland security,'
presumes that state power, now inflated by doctrines
of preemptive war and released from treaty obligations and the potential constraints of
international judicial bodies, can turn inwards," he writes, "confident that in its domestic
pursuit of terrorists the powers it claimed, like the powers projected abroad, would be
measured, not by ordinary constitutional standards, but by the shadowy and ubiquitous character
of terrorism as officially defined."
The indiscriminate police violence in poor communities of color is an example of the ability
of the corporate state to "legally" harass and kill citizens with impunity. The cruder forms of
control -- from militarized police to wholesale surveillance, as well as police serving as
judge, jury and executioner, now a reality for the underclass -- will become a reality for all
of us should we begin to resist the continued funneling of power and wealth upward. We are
tolerated as citizens, Wolin warns, only as long as we participate in the illusion of a
participatory democracy. The moment we rebel and refuse to take part in the illusion, the face
of inverted totalitarianism will look like the face of past systems of totalitarianism.
"The significance of the African-American prison population is political," he writes. "What
is notable about the African-American population generally is that it is highly sophisticated
politically and by far the one group that throughout the twentieth century kept alive a spirit
of resistance and rebelliousness. In that context, criminal justice is as much a strategy of
political neutralization as it is a channel of instinctive racism."
Civil Rights Law Protects L.G.B.T. Workers, Supreme Court Rules
Landmark Decision on Workplace Discrimination Law
The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The vote was 6 to 3, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing the majority opinion. He was joined by
Chief Justice John Roberts.
By Adam Liptak
Likbez , June 17, 2020 12:57 am
@Anne June 15, 2020 10:56 am
The vote was 6 to 3, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing the majority opinion. He was
joined by Chief Justice John Roberts.
In a way, Gorsuch (appointed by Trump) might just helped to decide the November elections
in favor of neoliberal Dems.
Most analysts think that in no way Evangelicals and religious right in general will accept
this. A large part of conservatives (including all paleoconservatives ) also will view this
as a betrayal (and in a way it is; the decision dictated not by conservatism, but by
libertarian impulse, and the desire to protect big business)
In other words this might well signify the "end of Trump."
"... The objective of the elites was to wrest control of resources eg land and/or timber plus so-called royal warrants that controlled who was allowed to produce, sell export products to who, grab allocation out of the control of the mobs of greedy royal favorites, then into the hands of the new American elites. ..."
"... The bagmen & courtiers grew fat at the expense of the colonists and generally the bagman, who also spied on the locals for obvious reasons, would go back to England once he had made his stash. ..."
"... The American elites wanted and, after the revolution got, the power to control economic development for themselves.Hence the birth of lobbyists simultaneous with the birth of the American nation state. ..."
"... IMO the constitution was about as meaningful to the leaders of the revolution as campaign promises are to contemporary politicians.That is, something to be used as self protection without ever implementing. ..."
I'm always amused, nah that is a little harsh - dumbfounded is more reasonable, when
Americans express dismay that 'their' constitution is not being adhered to by the elites.
The minutiae of American political history hasn't greatly concerned me after a superficial
study at high school, when I realized that the political structure is corrupt and was
designed to facilitate corruption.
The seeming caring & sharing soundbites pushed out by the 'framers' scum such as
Thomas Jefferson was purely for show, an attempt to gather the cannon fodder to one side.
This was simple as the colonial media had been harping on about 'taxation without
representation' for decades.
It wasn't just taxes, in fact for the American based elites that was likely the least of
it. The objective of the elites was to wrest control of resources eg land and/or timber plus
so-called royal warrants that controlled who was allowed to produce, sell export products to
who, grab allocation out of the control of the mobs of greedy royal favorites, then into the
hands of the new American elites.
A well placed courtier would put a bagman into the regional center of a particular colony
(each colony becoming a 'state' post revolution), so that if someone wanted to, I dunno, say
export huge quantities of cotton, the courtier would charge that 'colonial' for getting the
initial warrant, then take a hefty % of the return on the product - all collected by the
on-site bagman then divvied up.
The bagmen & courtiers grew fat at the expense of the colonists and generally the
bagman, who also spied on the locals for obvious reasons, would go back to England once he
had made his stash.
The system was ponderous inaccurate & very expensive. Something had to be done, but
selling revolutionary change to the masses on the basis of the need to enrich the already
wealthy was not likely to be a winner. Consequently the high faulting blather.
The American elites wanted and, after the revolution got, the power to control economic
development for themselves.Hence the birth of lobbyists simultaneous with the birth of the American nation state.
IMO the constitution was about as meaningful to the leaders of the revolution as campaign
promises are to contemporary politicians.That is, something to be used as self protection without ever implementing.
"... Anti-racism as an ideology serves a perfect function for corporations that ultimately take workers for granted. ..."
"... Today, we find Lincoln statues desecrated . Neither has the memorial to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry , one of the first all-black units in the Civil War, survived the recent protests unscathed. To many on the left, history seems like the succession of one cruelty by the next. And so, justice may only be served if we scrap the past and start from a blank slate. As a result, Lincoln's appeal that we stand upright and enjoy our liberty gets lost to time. ..."
"... Ironically, this will only help the cause of Robert E. Lee -- and the modern corporations who rely on cheap, inhumane labor to keep themselves going. ..."
"... Before black slaves did this work, white indentured servants had. (An indentured servant is bound for a number of years to his master, i.e. he can't pack up and leave to find a new opportunity elsewhere.) ..."
"... But in the eyes of the Southern slavocracy, the white laboring poor of the North also weren't truly human. Such unholy antebellum figures as the social theorist George Fitzhugh or South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond urged that the condition of slavery be expanded to include poor whites, too. Their hunger for a cheap, subservient labor source did not stop at black people, after all. ..."
"... Always remember Barbara Fields's formula: The need for cheap labor comes first; ideologies like white supremacy only give this bleak reality a spiritual gloss. ..."
"... Michael Lind argues in his new book The New Class War that many powerful businesses in America today continue to rely on the work of quasi indentured servants. Hungry for unfree, cheap workers, corporations in Silicon Valley and beyond employ tens of thousands of foreign workers through the H-2B visa program. These workers are bound to the company that provided them with the visa. If they find conditions at their jobs unbearable, they can't switch employers -- they would get deported first. In turn, this source of cheap labor effectively underbids American workers who could do the same job, except that they would ask for higher pay. ..."
"... We're getting turned into rats. Naturally, this is no fertile soil for solidarity. And with so many jobs precarious and subcontracted out on a temporary basis, there is preciously little that most workers can do to fight back this insidious managerial control. Free labor looks different. ..."
"... It's hard to come out of the 2020 primaries without realizing that the corporations that run our mainstream media will do anything to protect their right to abuse cheap labor. ..."
"... At this point in history, to the extent that black people suffer any meaningful oppression at all, its down to disproportionate poverty rates, not their racial background. ..."
"... I agree one hundred percent with your take on Biden. Let me add something else: he is a war hawk who not only voted for the Iraq war but used his position as the chairman of an important committee to promote it. ..."
"... Because of slavery alot of bad political policy was incorporated in the founding documents. If a police officer is about to wrongly arrest you because you are black , you do not care if his hatred stems from 400 years of discrimination against blacks. Rather you care that he won't kill you in this encounter because of his racism. ..."
"... Baszak believes racism has no life of its own, it exists only as a tool of the bosses. This is vulgar Marxism. At least since the decades after Bacon's Rebellion ended in 1677, poor whites have invested in white supremacy as a way of boosting their social status. Most Southern families owned no slaves, yet most joined the Civil War cause. ..."
"... They made a movie that beautifully touches this in the 1970s with Harvey Keitel and Richard Pryor called " Blue Collar ." ..."
"... "That's exactly what the company wants: to keep you on their line," says Smokey, the coolest and most strategically minded of the crew. "They'll do anything to keep you on their line. They pit the lifers against the new boys, the old against the young, the black against the white -- everybody -- to keep us in our place." ..."
"... The core thesis in this piece is the animating foundation of The Hill's political talk show "Rising." Composed of a populist Bernie supporter (Krystal Ball) and populist conservative (Saagar Enjeti) as hosts, they frequently highlight the purpose of woke cultural battles is to distract everyone for their neoliberal economic models ..."
Anti-racism as an ideology serves a perfect function for corporations that ultimately take workers for granted.
Former injured Amazon employees join labor organizers and community activists to demonstrate and hold a press conference
outside of an Amazon Go store to express concerns about what they claim is the company's "alarming injury rate" among warehouse
workers on December 10, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
On April 2, 1865, in the dying days of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln wandered the streets of burnt out Richmond,
the former Confederate capital. All of a sudden, Lincoln found himself surrounded by scores of emancipated men and women. Here's
how the historian James McPherson describes the moving episode in his magisterial book
Battle Cry of Freedom :
Several freed slaves touched Lincoln to make sure he was real. "I know I am free," shouted an old woman, "for I have seen Father
Abraham and felt him." Overwhelmed by rare emotions, Lincoln said to one black man who fell on his knees in front of him: "Don't
kneel to me. That is not right. You must kneel to God only, and thank Him for the liberty you will enjoy hereafter."
Lincoln's legacy as the Great Emancipator has survived the century and a half since then largely intact. But there have been cracks
in this image, mostly caused by questioning academics who decried him as an overt white supremacist. This view eventually entered
the mainstream when Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote misleadingly in her
lead essay
to the "1619 Project" that Lincoln "opposed black equality."
Today, we find Lincoln statues
desecrated . Neither has the memorial
to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry , one of the first all-black units in the Civil War, survived the recent protests unscathed.
To many on the left, history seems like the succession of one cruelty by the next. And so, justice may only be served if we scrap
the past and start from a blank slate. As a result, Lincoln's appeal that we stand upright and enjoy our liberty gets lost to time.
Ironically, this will only help the cause of Robert E. Lee -- and the modern corporations who rely on cheap, inhumane labor
to keep themselves going.
***
The main idea driving the "1619 Project" and so much of recent scholarship is that the United States of America originated in
slavery and white supremacy. These were its true founding ideals. Racism, Hannah-Jones writes, is in our DNA.
Such arguments don't make any sense, as the historian Barbara Fields clairvoyantly argued in a
groundbreaking essay from 1990. Why would Virginia planters in the 17th century import black people purely out of hate? No, Fields
countered, the planters were driven by a real need for dependable workers who would toil on their cotton, rice, and tobacco fields
for little to no pay. Before black slaves did this work, white indentured servants had. (An indentured servant is bound for a number
of years to his master, i.e. he can't pack up and leave to find a new opportunity elsewhere.)
After 1776 everything changed. Suddenly the new republic claimed that "all men are created equal" -- and yet there were millions
of slaves who still couldn't enjoy this equality. Racism helped to square our founding ideals with the brute reality of continued
chattel slavery: Black people simply weren't men.
But in the eyes of the Southern slavocracy, the white laboring poor of the North also weren't truly human. Such unholy antebellum
figures as the social theorist George Fitzhugh or South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond
urged that the condition of slavery be expanded to include poor whites, too. Their hunger for a cheap, subservient labor source
did not stop at black people, after all.
Always remember Barbara Fields's formula: The need for cheap labor comes first; ideologies like white supremacy only give
this bleak reality a spiritual gloss.
The true cause of the Civil War -- and it bears constant
repeating for all the doubters -- was whether slavery would expand its reach or whether
"free labor" would reign supreme. The latter was the dominant
ideology of the North: Free laborers are independent, self-reliant, and eventually achieve economic security and independence by
the sweat of their brow. It's the American Dream. But if that is so, then the Civil War ended in a tie -- and its underlying conflict was never really settled.
***
Michael Lind argues in his new book The New Class War
that many powerful businesses in America today continue to rely on the work of quasi indentured servants. Hungry for unfree, cheap
workers, corporations in Silicon Valley and beyond employ tens of thousands of foreign workers through the H-2B visa program. These
workers are bound to the company that provided them with the visa. If they find conditions at their jobs unbearable, they can't switch
employers -- they would get deported first. In turn, this source of cheap labor effectively underbids American workers who could
do the same job, except that they would ask for higher pay.
America's wealth rests on this mutual competition between workers -- some nominally "free," others basically indentured -- whether
it be through unjust visa schemes or other unfair managerial practices.
Remember that the next time you read a public announcement by the Amazons of this world that they remain committed to "black lives
matter" and similar identitarian causes.
Fortunately, very few Americans hold the same racial resentments in their hearts as their ancestors did even just half a century
ago. Rarely did we agree as much than when the nation near unanimously condemned the death of George Floyd at the hands of a few
Minneapolis police officers. This is in keeping with another fortunate trend: Over the last 40 years, the rate of police killings
of young black men declined by 79% percent .
But anti-racism as an ideology serves a perfect function for our corporations, even despite the evidence that people in this country
have grown much less bigotted than they once were: As a management tool, anti-racism sows constant suspicion among workers who are
encouraged to detect white supremacist sentiments in everything that their fellow workers say or do.
We're getting turned into rats. Naturally, this is no fertile soil for solidarity. And with so many jobs precarious and subcontracted
out on a temporary basis, there is preciously little that most workers can do to fight back this insidious managerial control. Free
labor looks different.
And so, through a surprising back door, the true cause for which Robert E. Lee chose to betray his country might still be coming
out on top, whether we remove his statues or not -- namely, the steady supply to our ruling corporations of unfree workers willing
to hustle for scraps.
It's time to follow Abraham Lincoln's urging and get off our knees again. We should assert our rights as American citizens to
live free from economic insecurity and mutual resentment. The vast majority of us harbor no white supremacist views, period. Instead,
we have so many more things in common, and we know it.
Another anecdote from the last days of the Civil War, also taken from Battle Cry of Freedom, might prove instructive here: The
surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865 essentially ended the
Civil War. The ceremony was held with solemn respect for Lee, though one of Grant's adjutants couldn't help himself but have a subtle
dig at Lee's expense:
After signing the papers, Grant introduced Lee to his staff. As he shook hands with Grant's military secretary Ely Parker,
a Seneca Indian, Lee stared a moment at Parker's dark features and said, "I am glad to see one real American here." Parker responded,
"We are all Americans."
Gregor Baszak is a PhD Candidate in English at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a writer. His articles have appeared
in Los Angeles Review of Books, Public Books, Spectator USA, Spiked, and elsewhere. Follow Gregor on Twitter at @gregorbas1.
It's a bit off-topic but this is a big reason I supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Primary this year, he was the only
candidate talking about how businesses demand that cheap labor, illegal labor, replace American labor. For this, the corporate
media called him a racist, an anti-semite, a dangerous radical. None of his opponents aside from Elizabeth Warren had anything
to run on aside from pseudo-woke touchy-feely bs. And somehow, with the media insisting that Joe Biden was the only one who could
beat Trump, we ended up with the one candidate who was neither good on economics, good for American workers, or offering platitudes
about wokeness.
It's hard to come out of the 2020 primaries without realizing that the corporations that run our mainstream media will do anything
to protect their right to abuse cheap labor.
Racism is very real. If it weren't it couldn't be used to "divide and conquer" the working calss. we can walk and chew gum
and the same time: oppose racism, and also oppose exploitive labor practices.
What kind of polemic, unsupported statement is "black fast food workers are the ones who gave us the fight for $15"? How about
it was a broad coalition of progressives (of all colors)? Moreover, $15 minimum wage is a poor, one-size-fits-all band-aid that
I doubt even fits ONE scenario. Tackling the broader shareholder capitalism model of labor arbitrage (free trade/mass immigration),
deunionization, and monopolistic hurdles drafted by corporations is where it actually matters. And on that, we are seeing the
inklings of a populist left-right coalition -- if corporate-funded race hustlers could only get out of the way.
That's the problem. We CAN'T chew gum and walk at the same time. Every minute focusing on racial friction is a minute NOT talking
about neoliberal economics. What's the ratio of air time, social media discussion, or newspaper inches are devoted to race vis-a-vis
the economic system that has starved the working class -- which is disproportionately black and brown? 10 to 1? 100 to 1? 1000
to 1? If there are no decent working class jobs for young black and brown men, then it makes it nearly impossible to raise families.
Let's be clear: Systemic racism is real, but it is far less impactful than economic injustices and family dissolution.
Class really isn't the primary issue for black people.
That's a frankly ridiculous statement. At this point in history, to the extent that black people suffer any meaningful oppression
at all, its down to disproportionate poverty rates, not their racial background. No one--except a few neurotic, high-strung corporate
HR PMC types--cares about "microaggressions". Even unjust police shootings of blacks are likely down to class and not race--despite
the politically correct narrative saying otherwise.
Putting racial identity politics as an equal (or even greater) priority than class-based solidarity creates an absurd system
where an upper-middle class black woman attending Yale can act as if a working class white man is oppressing her by not acknowledging
his "white privilege", and not bowing to her every demand. It's utterly delusional to think that sort of culture is going to create
a more just or equal world.
Biden is a Rorschach test, people see whatever they want in a party apparatchik. Trump has been Shiva, the destroyer of the
traditional Republican party. How else do you explain the support among Multi-Billionaires for the Democratic party. Truly ironic.
I agree one hundred percent with your take on Biden. Let me add something else: he is a war hawk who not only voted for the
Iraq war but used his position as the chairman of an important committee to promote it. I understand that he still wants to divide
Iraq into three separate countries--a decision for Iraqis to make and not us. If we try to implement that policy, it would doubtless
lead to more American deaths--to say nothing of Iraqi deaths.
So not only is he not good for American workers, he is not good for the American soldier who is disproportionately likely not
to be from the elite classes but rather from the working and lower-middle class.
The only other Democratic candidate who opposed war-mongering besides Sanders was Tulsi Gabbard. I watched CNN commentary after
a debate in which she participated. While the other participants received lots of commentary from CNN talking heads. she got almost
nothing. She was featured in a video montage of candidates saying "Trump"; other than that, she was invisible in the post-debate
analysis.
I don't know how far it travelled outside of Democratic primary voters, but I recall Biden's campaign saying that they were
planning to be sort of a placeholder that would pass the torch to the next generation. He's insinuated that he only wants to serve
one term and saw jumping into the race as the only way to beat Trump. Not the most exciting platform for the Democrats to run
on.
As depressing as this primary was, it's good to see that the rising generation of Democrats was resistant to platitudes and demanded
actual policy proposals.
Shame the party elders fell for the same old tricks yet again. I just hope that once there are more of
us, we can have a serious policy debate in both major parties about free trade, immigration, inequality. The parties' voters aren't
all that far apart on economics, yet neither of us is being given what we want. Whichever party sincerely takes a stand for the
American working class stands to dominate American politics for a generation.
The problem with Biden's "placeholder" comments is that he specifically mentioned it for Pete Buttigeig, the McKinsey-trained
career opportunist who believes in his bones the same neoliberal economics and interventionist foreign policies as the last generation.
Same bad ideas, new woke packaging.
Kamala Harris and Susan Rice, both tops on the VP list, will do just fine in place of Buttigieg - he's slated to revive TPP
as the new USTR cabinet lead.
Because of slavery alot of bad political policy was incorporated in the founding documents. If a police officer is about to
wrongly arrest you because you are black , you do not care if his hatred stems from 400 years of discrimination against blacks.
Rather you care that he won't kill you in this encounter because of his racism.
To me, I have always thought that America's original sin was slavery. Its stain can not be completely wiped out.
And I further believe that if Native Americans would have enslaved the newly arrived Europeans, and remained the ruling majority,
white people would be discriminated against today.
So the problem is not that white people are inherently evil, or other races are inherently good. It is that because of slavery
black people are bad, white people are good.
As a nation we have never been able to wash out the stain completely. Never will. Getting closer to the promised land is the
best we are going to do. Probably take another 400 years.
In everyday encounters no one cares how discrimination began, just treat me like you want to be treated. Pretty simple.
"As a management tool, anti-racism sows constant suspicion among workers who are encouraged to detect white supremacist sentiments
in everything that their fellow workers say or do."
The author does not offer one smidgen of proof that any company uses antiracism to divide workers. It might be plausible that
it's happened, but Baszak has no data at all.
Over the last 40 years, the rate of police killings of young black men declined by 79% percent.
You think this is an accident? It came about through intense pressure on the police to stop killing Black people -- exactly
the sort of racial emphasis the author seems to be decrying. Important to note that the non-fatal mistreatment has remained high.
The need for cheap labor comes first; ideologies like white supremacy only give this bleak reality a spiritual gloss
Baszak believes racism has no life of its own, it exists only as a tool of the bosses. This is vulgar Marxism. At least since
the decades after Bacon's Rebellion ended in 1677, poor whites have invested in white supremacy as a way of boosting their social
status. Most Southern families owned no slaves, yet most joined the Civil War cause. The psychological draw of racism, its cultural
strength, are obviated by Barszak. And I bet Barbara Fields does not consider racism an epiphenomenon of economics.
They made a movie that beautifully touches this in the 1970s with Harvey Keitel and Richard Pryor called "Blue
Collar."
"That's exactly what the company wants: to keep you on their line," says Smokey, the coolest and most strategically minded
of the crew. "They'll do anything to keep you on their line. They pit the lifers against the new boys, the old against the young,
the black against the white -- everybody -- to keep us in our place."
The core thesis in this piece is the animating foundation of The Hill's political talk show "Rising." Composed of a populist
Bernie supporter (Krystal Ball) and populist conservative (Saagar Enjeti) as hosts, they frequently highlight the purpose of woke
cultural battles is to distract everyone for their neoliberal economic models -- a system that actually has greater deleterious
impact on black communities.
This video is one recent example of what you'll rarely see in mainstream media:
Just like Cornell West suggested, black faces in high places hasn't solved the problem. Obama is a vivid example.
Notable quotes:
"... It is Class Warfare. There are no "Democrats" or "Republicans" .. There are the "Rich and Powerful" and then the "Rest of Us" And when we stand up, they take aim... ..."
"... Dr. Cornel West, "We have tried Black Faces in high places ..." ..."
Krystal Ball calls out D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and the Dem establishment for surface level support of the Black Lives Matter
movement.
Crush Inverted Totalitarianism, 12 hours ago
Speaking of black faces in high places, the entire black caucus endorsed ELIOT ENGEL over a black educater (Jamaal
Bowman)...this is aclass war, not a race war
Robert Quin, 12 hours ago (edited)
THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF AMERICA! There is only Repugnican and Repugnican Lite. There is only hard right and soft right
in American politics. There is no left in power.
Electoralism is a scam. You're playing with an unplugged controller. Organise, unionize, protest, riot. If you want to vote,
you should vote third party. The Democratic party isn't part of the solution. They are playing good cop, bad cop with
republicans with both sides working for capital to impoverish the working class.
Krystal forgot one "innovation" Biden has suggested.
When talking to black community leaders in Wilmington, Joe Biden
said, "Instead of standing there and teaching a cop when there's an unarmed person coming at 'em with a knife or
something, shoot 'em in the leg instead of in the heart."
It
is Class Warfare. There are no "Democrats" or "Republicans" .. There are the "Rich and Powerful" and then the "Rest of Us" And
when we stand up, they take aim...
Editor-At-Large at the Jacobin David Sirota discusses the secretive tactics the Biden campaign is using to cover his potential
council of advisors from the public.
People who should not be listened to by anyone: Rahm Emmanuel, David Axlerod, Anyone from Goldman Sachs or Wall Street,
Obama, Clinton, hell any former Presidents, anyone in the DNC.... NO
Advising Joe? That's hilarious. They're not advising him or his 'team'. They advising his handlers. Joe is way too far gone to
make any rational decision on anything. When you vote for Joe, it is his handlers that you will be voting for. The Orange Man
or Senile Man? Our goose is cooked.
They gaslighted the whole nation. Amazing achievement. In other words, they are a real criminal gang, a mafia. No questions about it.
This is Nixon impeachment level staff. This are people that brought us Lybia, Syria: this senile Creepy Joe.
Saagar Enjeti blasts former President Obama after it was revealed in transcripts he was the
person who told then-deputy attorney general Sally Yates about Mike Flynn's intercepted phone
call with the Russian ambassador, Joe Biden responds to Flynn claims on Good Morning
America.
"I know nothing about those moves to investigate Flynn." "These documents clearly outline that you were in a meeting at a specific
time specifically about that." "OH! I'm sorry! I thought you asked if I was INVOLVED IN IT!"
The word is "entrapment" - Years ago, one of the officers in the investigations squad said to me, "How can you claim to be
better than them, if you break the law to catch 'em?" - Now I understand what he was saying.
CFR Members And Bilderberg Attendees Appointed By Donald Trump (Taken from the CFR membership and Bilderberg participant lists)
Published: Wednesday, May 31, 2017
CFR Members And Bilderberg Attendees Appointed By Donald Trump
John P. Abizaid, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (Individual CFR member)
Elliott Abrams, Special Envoy on Venezuela (Individual CFR member)
James H. Baker, Director of the Office of Net Assessment (Bilderberg attendee)
Barbara Barrett, Secretary of the Air Force (Individual CFR member, Bilderberg attendee)
David Bohigian, Executive Vice President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (Individual CFR member)
John Bolton, National Security Advisor (Individual CFR member)
Dan R. Brouillette, Secretary of Energy, Deputy Secretary of Energy (Individual CFR member)
Elaine Chao, United States Secretary of Transportation (CFR Individual member)
Richard Clarida, Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve (CFR Individual member)
Jay Clayton, Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (CFR corporate member)
Gary Cohn, Director of the National Economic Council (CFR corporate member)
Paul Dabbar, Under Secretary of Energy for Science, (Individual CFR member)
Jamie Dimon, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum (CFR corporate member)
Jim Donovan, Deputy Treasury Secretary (CFR corporate member)
Mark T. Esper, Acting Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army (Individual CFR member, CFR corporate member)
Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (CFR fellow traveler
and frequent speaker)
Larry Fink, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum (CFR corporate member)
Christopher A. Ford, Assistant Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation (Individual CFR member)
James S. Gilmore III, United States Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (Individual CFR
member)
Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, National Security Advisor (Individual CFR member, Bilderberg attendee)
Neil M. Gorsuch, Supreme Court Justice (Individual CFR member)
Harry B. Harris Jr., Ambassador to South Korea (Individual CFR member)
Vice Admiral Robert S. Harward, National Security Advisor (declined appointment) (CFR corporate member)
Kevin Hassett, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers (CFR fellow traveler)
Robert Wood "Woody" Johnson IV, United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom (Individual CFR member)
Kenneth I. Juster, Ambassador to India (Individual CFR member)
Robert Kadlec, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services (Preparedness and Response), (Individual CFR member)
Lawrence Kudlow, Director of the National Economic Council (Individual CFR member)
Jared Kushner, Senior Advisor to the President (Bilderberg attendee)
Christopher Landau, Ambassador to Mexico (Individual CFR member)
Robert Lighthizer, United States Trade Representative (Individual CFR member)
David R. Malpass, World Bank (Individual CFR member)
James Mattis, Secretary of Defense (Bilderberg attendee)
K.T. McFarland, Deputy National Security Adviser (Individual CFR member)
Brent McIntosh, Undersecretary for international affairs, Department of the Treasury and General Counsel of the Department
of the Treasury (Individual CFR member)
Linda McMahon, Administrator of the Small Business Administration (CFR corporate member)
Army Lt. General Herbert Raymond "H. R." McMaster, National Security Advisor (Individual CFR member, Bilderberg attendee)
Jim McNerney, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum (CFR corporate member)
Steve Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury (CFR corporate member)
Justin G. Muzinich, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury (Individual CFR member)
Denise Natali, Assistant Secretary of State for Conflict and Stabilization Operations (Individual CFR member)
Indra Nooyi, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum (CFR corporate member, Bilderberg attendee)
Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy (Bilderberg attendee)
Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (Bilderberg attendee)
Matthew Pottinger, Senior Director of the National Security Council (Bilderberg attendee)
Dina Powell, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy (CFR corporate member)
Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Federal Reserve (Individual CFR member)
Mira R. Ricardel, Deputy National Security Advisor (Individual CFR member)
Ginni Rometty, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum (CFR corporate member)
William B. Roper Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, Logistics (Individual CFR member)
Jeffrey A. Rosen, Deputy Secretary of Transportation and Deputy Attorney General (Individual CFR member)
Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce (Bilderberg attendee)
Anthony Scaramucci, Director of Communications (Individual CFR member)
Nadia Schadlow, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy (Bilderberg attendee)
Stephen Schwarzman, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum (CFR corporate member)
Patrick Shanahan, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Defense (CFR corporate member)
Susan A. Thornton Assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific affairs (Individual CFR member)
Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State (CFR corporate member)
Rick L. Waddell, National Security Advisor (Individual CFR member)
Elizabeth E. Walsh, Director General of the United States Commercial Service and Assistant Secretary of Commerce (Global Markets)
(Individual CFR member)
Ray Washburne, President and CEO of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (Individual CFR member)
Jack Welch, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum (CFR corporate member)
Owen West, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (Individual CFR member)
Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Individual CFR member)
Heather Ann Wilson, Secretary of the Air Force (Individual CFR member)
> Peter Dorman is correct about why Trump is in trouble, but there is still
more. Peter Dorman is correct about why Trump is in trouble, but there is still
more.
Won't these riots create a wave of revulsion among the silent majority and consolidate
Trump's support base?
That's what make me wondering: is the faction of the elite driving these BLM riots are
those who support Trump?
Terrify people and threaten the existence of police is a good way to get close to 100%
of elderly voters out of their Covid-19 lockdowns on election day.
Doesn't the fact that pallets of bricks and frozen bottles in large cans were
delivered to the places of protests suggests that Antifa and other groups operating
within the protest movement are actually linked to intelligence agencies?
Is not it easier now for Trump to offload all the destruction of the economy and
Coronavirus recession on Neoliberal Dems which are supporting the rioters?
Charlotte Russe Jun 13, 2020 1:21 PM CONTROLLED OPPOSITION
In the 20th Century approximately 30 world leaders were assassinated. I bet in most cases
those prosecuted for the crime were little more than Oswald-like patsies. And this list doesn't
even include government leaders killed in mysterious plane crashes.
One such political figure was Senator Paul Wellstone who died in a highly suspicious 2002
plane crash. "Wellstone's death comes almost two years to the day after a similar plane crash
killed another Democratic Senator locked in a tight election contest, and that was Missouri
Governor Mel Carnahan, on October 16, 2000.
Wellstone was in a hotly contested reelection campaign, but polls showed he was beginning to
pull ahead of Republican nominee Norm Coleman, the former mayor of St. Paul, in the wake of the
vote in the Senate to authorize President Bush to wage war against Iraq.
The liberal Democrat was a well-publicized opponent of the war resolution, the only Senator
in a tight race to vote against it. there are enormous financial stakes involved in control of
the Senate. Republican control of the Senate would make it possible to push through new tax
cuts for the wealthy and other perks for corporate America worth billions of dollars -- more
than enough of an incentive to commit murder." The death of US Senator Paul
Wellstone: accident or murder?
It would appear, politicians risk being murdered if they "genuinely" go against the grain
remaining true to their beliefs and principles by deliberately using their power to jeopardize
insidious ruling class lucrative schemes and scams. By the way, this is how you know ALL the
nonstop "resistance" against the orange buffoon is just utter bullshit. If Trump was a actually
a threat to the military/security/surveillance/corporate state he would have already been JFK'd
or Olof Palme'd.
The worldwide gangster ruling class is just like any other criminal organization which
regularly eliminates anyone who has the power to alter the status quo. The security state like
common mobsters use extortion or murder to get their way. We all know about J Edgar Hooverr and
his extortion files. Hoover maintained a special official and confidential file in his office.
The "secret files," as they became widely known, guaranteed Hoover's longevity as Director of
the FBI. In fact, today those intelligence agency "dirty files" are even more extensive given
the sophisticated and heightened nature of surveillance. Funny, that gives the term "controlled
opposition" a whole new meaning. Gezzah Potts Jun 13, 2020 1:57 PM Reply to
Charlotte Russe You hit the nail on the head Charlotte. If Trump really was a genuine
threat, they would've already got rid of him. It's all one giant charade.
A Punch and Judy Show for the masses.
Find it quite startling the divisiveness in the United States, and those that I often come
across who fervently believe that Trump or Qanon will save the United States and also lock up
Obama, the Clinton's, Soros, etc, etc. What can you say?
While reading your comment, four names popped into my head: Thomas Sankara, Patrice Lumumba,
Maurice Bishop and Salvador Allende.
And we know what happened in Chile after Allende's death. It became the test tube guinea pig
for Neoliberalism. 6 0 Reply Charlotte Ruse Jun 13, 2020 3:47 PM Reply to
Gezzah Potts Yes it's all showbiz ..
"... Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here in apathetic Australia. ..."
"... When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger - their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research... ..."
"... " We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008 ..."
Sky News Australia In this Special Investigation Sky News speaks to former spies, politicians and investigative journalists to
uncover whether US President Donald Trump is really at war with "unelected Deep State operatives who defy the voters".
George Soros, The clintons, The royal family, The Rothschild's, the Federal reserve as a whole, The modern Democrat, cia, fbi,
nsa, Facebook, Google, not to mention all the faceless unelected bureaucrats who create and push policies that impact our every
day lives. This, my lads, is the deep state. They run our world and get away with whatever they want until someone in their circle
loses their use (Epstein)
The Cabal owns the US intelligence agencies, the media, and Hollywood. That's how all these big name corrupted figure heads
aren't in prison for their crimes. The Clinton email scandal is a prime example. This is much bigger than the USA... it's effects
are world wide.
The Four Stages of Ideological Subversion: 1 - Demoralization 2 - Destabilization 3 - Crisis 4 - Normalization Are you not
entertained? The above is "their" roadmap. Learn what it means and spread this far & wide, as that will be the means by which
to end this.
President JFK on April 17, 1961: "Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared
in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching
troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat
conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of 'clear
and present danger,' then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman
or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of
elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted
vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic,
intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried,
not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.
It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match." thoughts: by saying,
'conducts the Cold War' did he directly call out the CIA???
Most troubling now it is known about the deep state: is Trump a double agent just another puppet just giving the appearance
of working against the deep state?
Thank you Australians for having rhe courage to speak out for us Patriots!!! We know the Deep State Cabal retaliated with the
fires. We love you guys from 💖💗
Well done Skynews. THE DEEP STATE IS REAL. I woke up 10+ years ago. Turn off the TV for 1-2 years to study and awaken. Make
a start on learning with David ickes Videos and books. WWG1 WGA
Before I go and pass this on to as many as I can get to follow it I just wanted to commend those that produced this and I hope
that it gets fuller dissemination because it is such a rare truth in such a time of utter deceit by most all of the MSM (Main
Stream Media) that this country I reside in uses to supposedly inform the American people ...what a crock! Thank You, Australia
for making this available (but beware, the Five Eyes are always very active in related matters to this) ... This has been welcome
confirmation of what many of us have known and attempted to tell others for about 5 years now. Sadly, I doubt that has or will
help very much, The System is so corrupted from top to bottom ... IMnsHO and E.
Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other
financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific
issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here
in apathetic Australia.
When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger -
their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research...
" We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will
be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008
14:20 I met a guy from Canada in the early
2000s, a telephone technician, told me about when he worked at the time for the government telephone company in the early 80s.
He was given a really strange job one day, to go do some work in the USA. Some kind of repair work that required someone with
experience and know-how, but apparently someone from out-of-country, he guesses, because there certainly must have been many people
in the USA who could have done it, he figured. He flew down to oregon, then was driven for hours out into the middle of nowhere
in navada, he said. They came to a small building that was surrounded by fencing etc. Nothing interesting. Nothing else around,
he said, as far as he could see. They went in, and pretty much all that was there was an elevator. They went in, and he said,
he didn't know how many floors down it went, or how fast it was moving, but seemed to take quite sometime, he figured about 8
stories down, was his guess, but he didn't know. He was astounded to see that there was telephone recording stuff in there about
the size of two football-fields. He said they were recording everything. He said, even at that time, it was all digital, but they
didn't have the capacity to record everything, so it was set up to monitor phone calls, and if any key words were spoken, it would
start recording, and of course it would record all phone calls at certain numbers. "So, who knows what they've got in there today,
he said" back in the early 2000s. So, imagine what they've got there today, in the 2020s. I didn't know whether or not to believe
this story, until I saw a doc about all of the telephone recording tapes they have in storage, rotting away, which were used to
record everyone's phone calls onto magnetic tape. Literally tonnes and tonnes of tapes, just sitting there in storage now, from
the 1970s, the pre-digital days. They've always been doing it. They're just much better at it today than ever. Now they can tell
who you are by your voice, your cadence, your intonation, etc. and record not just a call here and there, but everything.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing the world he didnt exist" Credit the --- Usual Suspects ---- That's
the playbook of the "Deep State"
The last guy (denying the deep state's existence) was lying. When someone shakes their head when talking in the affirmative
you can be 100% sure it is a lie (micro expressions 101).
Bitcoin Blockchain
1 day ago
1950–1953: Korean War United States (as part of the United Nations) and South Korea vs. North Korea and Communist China
1960–1975: Vietnam War United States and South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam
1961: Bay of Pigs Invasion United States vs. Cuba
1983: Grenada United States intervention
1989: U.S.Invasion of Panama United States vs. Panama
1990–1991: Persian Gulf War United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
1995–1996: Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina United States as part of NATO acted as peacekeepers in former Yugoslavia
2001–present: Invasion of Afghanistan United States and Coalition Forces vs. the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to fight terrorism
2003–2011: Invasion of Iraq The United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
2004–present: War in Northwest Pakistan United States vs. Pakistan, mainly drone attacks
2007–present: Somalia and Northeastern Kenya United States and Coalition forces vs. al-Shabaab militants
2009–2016: Operation Ocean Shield (Indian Ocean) NATO allies vs. Somali pirates
2011: Intervention in Libya U.S. and NATO allies vs. Libya
2011–2017: Lord's Resistance Army U.S. and allies against the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda
2014–2017: U.S.-led Intervention in Iraq U.S. and coalition forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
2014–present: U.S.-led intervention in Syria U.S. and coalition forces against al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Syria
2015–present: Yemeni Civil War Saudi-led coalition and the U.S., France, and Kingdom against the Houthi rebels, Supreme Political Council in Yemen, and allies
2015–present: U.S. intervention in Libya
Deep State is the "Wealthy Oligarchy", an "International Mafia" who controls the Central Bank (a privacy owned banking system
which controls the worlds currencies). The Wealthy Oligarchy "aka Deep State" controls most all Democratic countries, and controls
the International Media. In the United States, both the Republican and Democrat parties are controlled by the Wealthy Oligarchy
aka Deep State.
A beautifully crafted and delivered discourse, impressive! As a Londoner I have become increasingly interested in Sky News
Australia, you are a breath of fresh air and common sense in this world of ever growing liberal media hysteria!
I have to laugh at the people, including our supposedly unbiased and intelligent media, who said the Russia thing was the truth
when it was nothing but a conspiracy theory. Everything else was a conspiacy theory according to the dems ans the mainstream media..
Wall Street and the banksters control the CIA. One can imagine the ramifications of control of the world via the moneyed interests
backed by James Bond and the Green Berets, the latter, under control of the CIA.
Deep State Powers have been messing with your USA long before your War of Independence . Your Founding Fathers knew , why do
you think they wrote your Constitution that way. Now everyone is always crying about something but fail to realize you gave your
freedoms away over time . The Deep State never left it just disguised itself and continued to regain control under a new face
or ideaology. Follow the money . "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."― Edmund Burke
After the John F. Kennedy assassination the took full power,those who are in power now are the descendants of the criminals
who did it,some of their sons just have a different last name but they are the same family,like George Bush and John Kerry are
cousins but different last name and the list goes and goes.
Council on Foreign Relation is more Deep State than CIA and FBI . The two worked for CFR. CFR tel president whom to appoint
to what positions. Nixon got a list of 22 deep state candidates for top US position and all were hired. Obama appointed 11 from
the list. Kissinger is behind the scenes strings puller also.
Thanks Sky and Peter for bringing this to the mainstream attention, it really is time! Wished you had aired John Kiriakou,s
other claims off child sex trafficking to the elites which has been corroborated by so many other sources now and is the grossest
deformity of this deep state which you can see footage of trump talking about. I am amazed and greatful to see Trump has done
more about this than all other presidents in the last 20 years. Lets end this group. All we need to do is shine the light on them
The CIA are only an intelligence and operations functioning part of the deep state its much more complex and larger than just
the CIA. The British empire controls the deep state they always have it is just a modern version of the old East India Company
controlled by the same families with the same ideology.
https://theduran.com/the-origins-of-the-deep-state-in-north-america/
It's funny how for decades "the people" were crying on their knees about how bad every president was n how corrupt n controlled
they were. Now you've got a president with no special interest groups publicly calling out the deep state n ur still bitching.
U know you've got someone representing the people when the cia n fbi r out to get him. In 50 years trump will be looked back at
with the likes of Washington, Lincoln n jfk. Once the msm smear campaign is out of everyone's brain.
When they start spying on people within the United States and when they used in National Defense authorization act that gave
them a lot of power since after 911 to give them more power now they have Homeland Security which is the next biggest threat to
the United States it can be abused and some of these people have a higher security clearance than the president.... they're not
under control the NSA is one of them you don't mention in here either one is about the more that you don't even know about that
they don't have names are acronyms that we knew about that's why the American people have been blindsided by this overtime they've
been giving all this money to do things... allocation of money they gathered to do this and now Congress itself doesn't know temperature
of Schumer when you caught him saying to see I can get back at you three ways to Sunday I mean he's got some words in this saying
to the president of usa donald trump... basically threatening the President right there.. you can see it's alive and well when
Congress is immune from prosecution from anything or anyone....
"I think in light of all of the things going on, and you know what I mean by that: the fake news, the Comeys of the world,
all of the bad things that went on, it's called the swamp you know what I did," he asked. "A big favor. I caught the swamp. I
caught them all. Let's see what happens. Nobody else could have done that but me. I caught all of this corruption that was going
on and nobody else could have done it."
there is no big secret that CIA is deeply involved in drug smuggling operations...i remember interview with ex marine colonel
who said that he was indirectly involved in such operations in panama...
Attempting to infiltrate News rooms😆😅😂 all those faces you see in the MSM are all working for Cia. In 1967 one of the 3
letter agencys bragged about having a reporter working in 1 of the 3 letter news channel!
Wow this was really good. It's funny you showed a clip from abc of kouriakow and it reminded me how much the news in america
has been propagandized and just fake. I'm 38 and it's sad that these days the news is unpatriotic. Well most . Ty sky news Australia
Why no mention of what facilitates the surveilance? Telecom infrastructure is a nations nerve system and the powergrid its
bloodsystem. Who controls them? That is where you find the head of the deep state!
What people aren't aware of is that Facebook YouTube Twitter Instagram Google maps and Google search are all NSA CIA and DIA
creations and CEO's are only highly paid operatives who are not the creators but the face of a product and what better way to
collect all of your information is by you giving it to them
More please? A subject for another installment regarding the Deep State could be Banking, Federal Reserves and Fiat currencies.
Later, another video could be Russia's success at expelling the Deep State in 2000 after it took them over (for a 2nd time) in
1991. Be cognizant, the Deep State initially had for a short time from 1917 via 'it's' 'Bolshivics,' orchestrated the creation
of the Soviet Union through the Bolshivic take over of Russia from it's independence minded and Soveriegn Czarist led Eastern
Orthodox State. Now, President Trump is preventing a similar Deep State take-over by Intelligence agencies, Corporations and elected
political thugs as bad as Leon Trotsky and V I Lennin were to the Russian Czar. The Soviets soon after their (1917) take-over
went Rogue on the Deep State and therefore the Soviet Union was independent until The Deep State orchestrated it's downfall and
anexation of it's substantial wealth and some territory (1991). More, more, more please Sky News, this video was great!
Amazing, Sky News is the ONLY TV News Service in Australia Trying to deliver true news. Australia's ABC news are CIA Deep State
Shills and propagandists - Sarah Ferguson Especially - see her totally CIA scripted Four Corners Report on the Russia Hoax. John
Gantz IS a Deep State Operative Liar.
Isnt it time to see TERM LIMITS in Co gress and to realign our school education to teach the real history of these unites states?
End the control of Congress and watch the agencies fall in step with OUR Conatitution. No one should ever be allowed in Congress
or any other elected position of trust if they are not a devout Constitutionalist. Anyone who takes the oath to see w the people
and fails to so so should be charged with TREASON and removed immediately. Is there a DEEP STATE? Damn right there is and has
been for many decades. Where is our sovereignty? Where is the wealth of a capitalist nation? Why so much poverty and welfare and
why do communists and socialist get away with damaging our country, state or communities. Yes, there has been a deep state filled
with criminals who all need to be charged, tried and executed for TREASON.
The CIA and Australias Federal police have One main Job/activity to feed their Populations with Propaganda & Lies to give them
their Thoughts & Opinions on Everything using their psyOps through MSM News & Programming...you prolly beLIEve this informative
News Story as well. : (
These people denying a deep state with such straight faces are psychopaths. Unwittingly, or maybe not, Schumer made liars of
them with his comment to Maddow
President Trump is correct. He knows exactly what's going on. The 3 letter agencies are up to no good and work against the
fabric of our nation's founding fathers. It's despicable behavior. Just one example is John Brennan (CIA Director) and Barack
Hussein Obama's Terror Tuesdays. Read all about it on the internet now before it's permanently removed. Thank you for creating
this video.
When was the last time we ever witnessed an American President openly abused continually attacked over manufactured news treated
with absolutely no respect for him or the office his family unfairly attacked and misrepresented etc, etc, that's right never,
which proves he threatens the existence of the deep state as discussed. He should declare Martial Law Hang the consequences and
remove every single deep state player everywhere. Foreign influence? read Israel.
People are so fixated on trumps outspoken Sometimes outrageous demeanor which in my opinion it's just being really honest and
yes he can Be rude at times but when you look at the facts He's the only one that has gone against the deep state! those are the
real devils dressed up in sheep's clothing! Wake up!
You are missing the point. It goes further then intelligence agency working against the people. It's the ultra rich literally
trillionaires like the rothchilds that control the cia etc. That is who trump is fighting. The globalists line gates soros etc.
The former New York senator published her
thoughts on her on Medium blog , where she appeared to endorse the Black
Lives Matter movement, something she has previously stayed well clear of doing. "George Floyd's
life mattered. Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor's lives mattered. Black lives matter," she
began by stating.
"I promise to keep fighting alongside all of you to make the United States a place where all
men and all women are treated as equals, just as we are and just as we deserve to be," she
added, positioning herself on the same side as the protestors, many of whom are demanding the
abolition of the police. Clinton commended the amazing "power of solidarity" she had seen and
promised to "speak out against white supremacy in all its forms," declaring that America is
long overdue for "an honest reckoning" with its racism problem.
However, an honest reckoning with Clinton's past unearths a myriad of troubling incidents
and positions that are difficult to square with her newfound radical antiracist stance. She
supported her husband and Joe Biden's
1994 Crime Bill that led to an explosion in mass incarceration across the country.
"... From this point of view the current situation is a mixed bag for Neoliberal Dems: protest are partially genuine protests against the level of inequality caused by neoliberalism, partially are an attempt to exploit legitimate grievances in order to topple Trump (CHAZ in Seattle looks like a kind of a new Maidan and clearly were at least partially city council and the governor supported.) ..."
"... The USA version of Hongweibings toppling statues definitely play into Trump hand: radicalization of protests gives Trump an advantage to present himself now as the only "law and order" candidate, the "Silent majority" candidate, a la Nixon. ..."
"... The key weakness of Neoliberal Democrats is the level of hypocrisy in their support of protests: Pelosi (and Schumer) looks like a wolf in sheep clothing donning African scarves. Along with Bill Clinton they did a lot to deprive Afro Americans of the social security benefits they enjoyed under the New Deal Capitalism, and putting them in jails for minor infractions with the law (Biden was the key player here) ..."
"... I would assume that the 2020 election will be a choice between two platforms, not between two candidates. And Trump now represents "law and order" platform. While Biden is forced to represent "change we can believe in" platform. And Democrats already burned all the bridges. ..."
Trump is staggering. He's plunging in the polls, and his behavior has become erratic
and unhinged. I don't mean he's being crude, infantile and wrapped in a world of fantasy
-- he's always like that. Rather, I see him as suddenly incoherent, fumbling with threats
and catchphrases as if he were locked out of his house at night, frantically trying one
key after another to see if any will work.
I think the personalities of Trump and Biden no longer matter: the level of polarization
of the USA electorate is a more important factor now.
In other words, the reaction to the protests of independents will determine the results
on 2020 elections.
From this point of view the current situation is a mixed bag for Neoliberal Dems:
protest are partially genuine protests against the level of inequality caused by
neoliberalism, partially are an attempt to exploit legitimate grievances in order to topple
Trump (CHAZ in Seattle looks like a kind of a new Maidan and clearly were at least
partially city council and the governor supported.)
The USA version of Hongweibings toppling statues definitely play into Trump hand:
radicalization of protests gives Trump an advantage to present himself now as the only "law
and order" candidate, the "Silent majority" candidate, a la Nixon.
The key weakness of Neoliberal Democrats is the level of hypocrisy in their support of
protests: Pelosi (and Schumer) looks like a wolf in sheep clothing donning African scarves.
Along with Bill Clinton they did a lot to deprive Afro Americans of the social security
benefits they enjoyed under the New Deal Capitalism, and putting them in jails for minor
infractions with the law (Biden was the key player here)
One minor point: exaggerated threats is the way Trump operate. He like poker players use
bluffing as a part of the political strategy. It's like he is trying to determine some
limits for each situation and sense how far he can go, as well as putting the opponents off
balance provoking them to overreact,. Then he retreats to a more reasonable position.
I would assume that the 2020 election will be a choice between two platforms, not
between two candidates. And Trump now represents "law and order" platform. While Biden is
forced to represent "change we can believe in" platform. And Democrats already burned all
the bridges.
Please note that Biden political history is the history of a staunch neoliberal,
completely hostile to the interests of the majority of the USA population and, especially,
Afro Americans and white working class (aka deplorable). As such he will now look as
hypocrite no matter what he say.
The national security establishment does represent the actual government of dual "double
government". And it is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the elected branches of
government. Instead it controls them and is able to stage palace coups to remove "unacceptable"
Presidents like was the case with JFK, Nixon and Trump.
For them is are occupied country and then behave like real occuplers.
Notable quotes:
"... In Trumpian fashion, Kirkpatrick then goes on to warn Americans about the danger of an unaccountable "deep state" in foreign policy that is immune to popular pressures. ..."
"... She says that, no, "it has become more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our behalf be subject to the direction of and control of the people." ..."
"... She points out that because America had for much of the twentieth century assumed global responsibilities, our foreign policy elites had developed "distinctive views" that are different from those of the electorate. ..."
"... foreign policy elites "grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless resources and purposes . . . which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American interests . . . and eventually developed a globalist attitude." ..."
"... In support of Kirkpatrick's concern, Tufts professor Michael Glennon has more recently argued that the national security establishment has now become so "distinctive" in their separation from our constitutional processes that they represent one wing of a now "double government" that is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the popular branches of government. The Russiagate investigations and the attempt to disable the Trump presidency, aided by many in the establishment, would appear to confirm Kirkpatrick's warning that foreign policy elites want no part of the electoral preferences of voting Americans. ..."
"... Kirkpatrick died in 2006 and had, like many neoconservatives, evolved from a Humphrey Democrat into a member of the GOP establishment. With William Bennett and Jack Kemp, in 1993 she cofounded a neoconservative group, Empower America, which took a very aggressive stance against militant Islam after the 9/11 attacks. However, she was quite ambivalent about the invasion of Iraq and was quoted in The Economist ..."
Kirkpatrick's essay begins by insisting that, because of world events since 1939, America
has given to foreign affairs "an unnatural focus." Now in 1990, she says, the nation can turn
its attention to domestic concerns that are more important because "a good society is defined
not by its foreign policy but its internal qualities . . . by the relations among its citizens,
the kind of character nurtured, and the quality of life lived." She says unabashedly that
"there is no mystical American 'mission' or purposes to be 'found' independently of the U.S.
Constitution and government."
One cannot fail to notice that this perspective is precisely the opposite of George W.
Bush's in his second inauguration. According to Bush, America's post –Cold War purpose
was to follow our "deepest beliefs" by acting to "support the growth of democratic movements
and institutions in every nation and culture." For three decades neoconservative foreign policy
has revolved around "mystical" beliefs about America's mission in the world that are unmoored
from the actual Constitution.
In Trumpian fashion, Kirkpatrick then goes on to warn Americans about the danger of an
unaccountable "deep state" in foreign policy that is immune to popular pressures. She
rejects emphatically the views of some elitists who argue that foreign policy is a uniquely
esoteric and specialized discipline and must be cushioned from populism. She says that, no,
"it has become more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our
behalf be subject to the direction of and control of the people."
She points out that because America had for much of the twentieth century assumed global
responsibilities, our foreign policy elites had developed "distinctive views" that are
different from those of the electorate. Again, in Trumpian fashion, she argued that
foreign policy elites "grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless
resources and purposes . . . which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American
interests . . . and eventually developed a globalist attitude."
In support of Kirkpatrick's concern, Tufts professor Michael Glennon has more recently
argued
that the national security establishment has now become so "distinctive" in their separation
from our constitutional processes that they represent one wing of a now "double government"
that is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the popular branches of government. The
Russiagate investigations and the attempt to disable the Trump presidency, aided by many in the
establishment, would appear to confirm Kirkpatrick's warning that foreign policy elites want no
part of the electoral preferences of voting Americans.
Kirkpatrick concludes her essay with thoughts on "What should we do?" and "What we should
not do." Remarkably, her first recommendation is to negotiate better trade deals. These deals
should give the U.S. "fair access" to foreign markets while offering "foreign businesses no
better than fair access to U.S. markets." Next, she considered the promotion of democracy
around the world and, on this subject, she took the John Quincy Adams
position : that "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be
unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be." However, she insisted:
"it is not within the United States' power to democratize the world."
When Kirkpatrick goes on to discuss America's post –Cold War alliances, she makes
clear that she is advocating, quite simply, an America First foreign policy. Regarding the
future of the NATO alliance, a sacrosanct pillar of the American foreign policy establishment,
she argued that "the United States should not try to manage the balance of power in Europe."
Likewise, we should be humble about what we can accomplish in Eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union: "Any notion that the United States can manage the changes in that huge,
multinational, developing society is grandiose." Finally, with regard to Asia: "Our concern
with Japan should above all be with its trading practices vis-à-vis the United States.
We should not spend money protecting an affluent Japan, though a continuing alliance is
entirely appropriate."
She famously concludes her essay by making the plea for the United States to become "a
normal country in a normal time" and "to give up the dubious benefits of superpower status and
become again an unusually successful, open American republic."
Kirkpatrick became Ronald Reagan's United Nations ambassador because her 1979
article in Commentary , "Dictatorships and Double Standards," caught the eye of
the future president. In that article, she sensibly points out that authoritarian governments
that are allies of the United States should not be kicked to the curb because they are not free
and open democracies. The path to democracy is a long and perilous one, and nations without
republican traditions cannot be expected to make the transition overnight. Regarding the
world's oldest democracy, she remarked: "In Britain, the road from the Magna Carta to the Act
of Settlement, to the great Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, and 1885, took seven centuries to
traverse."
While at the time neoconservatives opportunistically embraced her for this position as a
tactic to fight the Cold War, the current foreign policy establishment would consider
Kirkpatrick's argument to be beyond the bounds of decent conversation, as it would lend itself
to an accommodation with authoritarian Russia as a counterweight to totalitarian China.
Kirkpatrick died in 2006 and had, like many neoconservatives, evolved from a Humphrey
Democrat into a member of the GOP establishment. With William Bennett and Jack Kemp, in 1993
she cofounded a neoconservative group, Empower America, which took a very aggressive stance
against militant Islam after the 9/11 attacks. However, she was quite ambivalent about the
invasion of Iraq and was quoted in The Economist as saying that George W.
Bush was "a bit too interventionist for my taste" and that Bush's brand of moral imperialism is
not "taken seriously anywhere outside a few places in Washington, DC."
The fact that Kirkpatrick's recommendations in her 1990 essay coincide with some of Donald
Trump's positions in the 2016 campaign (if not with many of his actual actions as president)
make her views, ipso facto, not serious. The foreign policy establishment gives something like
pariah status to arguments that we should negotiate better trade deals, reconsider our Cold War
alliances and, most especially, subject American foreign policy to popular preferences. If she
were alive today and were making the arguments she made in 1990, then she would be an outcast.
That a formidable intellectual like Kirkpatrick would be dismissed in such a fashion is a sign
of how obtuse our foreign policy debate has become.
William S. Smith is Senior Research Fellow and Managing Director of the Center for the
Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America. His recent book, Democracy
and Imperialism , is from the University of Michigan Press. He studied political philosophy
under Professor Jeane Kirkpatrick as an undergraduate at Georgetown University.
@Ashino Wolf Sushanti As far as I know BLM is also dead silent on the black slave markets
care of Obama and the EU in Libya.
There are also stories that money contributed to BLM will end up going to the DNC.
This is looking like another 1960's type insurrection that will end up the same way: it
will be used by the rich and powerful elites (notice how the corporate controlled media has
gone on one knee for BLM and has gone outright anti-white?), there will be a back lash that
will crush it (right after the election), and its leaders will be either absorbed into the
establishment or offed.
America looks like a hybrid of Stephen King, Brave New World, and 1984, and the rich and
powerful US elites and intel agencies stroke it and love it. Notice that the US super rich
have been raking it in since January 2020? While at the same time Trump is busy making the US
a vassal state of Israel and accelerating the roll-out of Cold War v2 which is just fine with
US elites that will not change with the election of moron Biden (if the people elect Biden
they are electing his VP as Biden will not last long; he is a lot like Yeltsin that was
pumped up on mental stimulants and nutriments to perform for short periods until the next
treatment). What a country, what a ship of fools.
North Korea is likely to time the announced tests in a way that creates maximum damage for
Trump's reelection campaign.
It matter little which flavor of the establishment a US President hails from.
All Presidents are portrayed as 'peacemakers'. Only peacemakers can claim to fight 'just'
wars.
USA is effectively at war with Syria (via dubious legality of occupying Syrian oilfields),
Venezuela (having seized Venezuelan State assets with the pretense that Juan Guaidó is
the true head of State), and Yemen (via support for Saudi and UAE war on Yemen). And USA
leads/forces its allies in a Cold War with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Then there
is the backstabbing of the Palestinians and the US-backed coup in Peru. Trump is merely
spokesperson for all this belligerence. When he's gone, whether that occurs in 4 months or 4
years, TPTB/Deep State will turn the page and start again.
The Korean Armistice Agreement was a ceasefire, but no peace treaty was ever signed. In
effect the Korean war never ended.
DPRK will not give up her nukes, but that's not where its strength lies. Japan and South
Korea are within range of regular ballistic missiles, where US personnel are just sitting
duck. All this talk about nukes is hooey.
Aside from China, let's not forget Russia, which has a skin in this game. It has an 11
mile border, and 15 mile maritime border with DPRK. It will do it's utmost for North not
become South.
Here's my 2 cents. North Korea should never denuclearize. The US is never going to remove
itself from South Korea. The only reason it won't ever be attacked, is if the cost of
attacking it is too great to justify. Timing this announcement to damage Trump isn't smart.
Yes, Trump gets sabotaged by Pompeo, Bolton when he was around and many others, but at the
end of the day the attack order is still his call and it's been obvious Trump doesn't want a
war with them. He's mostly just bluffing with his threats towards others. If you get Biden in
there, he won't be running the show. Youll have the Pentagon and the neoliberals in charge.
They will be less tough talk on Twitter, but definitely more of a threat to start a major war
It's important to speculate that the relations between the USA and South Korea have their
contradictions.
The South Korean elite certainly would like a complete victory over the North under their
terms (unconditional surrender to the South). That would allow the dream scenario for South
Korea: ransacking their infrastructure (by the chaebols ) and absorbing their 25
million population as cheap workforce.
The South Korean military would also love this scenario, as an enlarged Korea, bordering
both China (in a very favorable terrain for a terrestrial invasion in collaboration with the
Americans) and Russia, with 75 million inhabitants, could rival Japan as the favorite vassal
of the USA in the northwestern Pacific. This would embolden the nationalists at home, open
space to crush the center-left (social-democrats) and add fuel to the melting pot of East
Asia.
A unified Korea under capitalist hegemony would also enable the Korean military to charge
the Americans for much more money, military equipment and other infrastructure in exchange
for keeping their occupation. It would also absorb the North's nuclear weapon technology,
know-how and infrastructure, so it would automatically be a nuclear power. It could even rise
above Japan in geopolitical importance in the American eyes for this reason - it could
essentially be an Israel in East Asia, directly threatening China in the name of the USA.
For that reason I think the USA doesn't want a unified and strengthened Korea - even one
unified under the South's terms.
The American are already bleeding money and resources on Israel, NATO, Japan and the
already existing South Korea. To have another emboldened vassal would bleed the American
fiscus even more.
Besides, the Americans see themselves as the owners of South Korea, in the sense that
South Korea owes their own existence to American occupation. If the North is to fall, I don't
think the USA will allow the South Korean bourgeoisie to simply grab the North Korean
resources and nuclear know-how. I don't think they will make the same mistake they did with
Germany (by allowing the Western elite to absorb the East entirely, which opened the gates to
the creation of the EU and then to the German conquest of Central Europe).
My bet is the North resources would mainly fall to American capital if it was to be
conquered. Maybe the American won't even allow a unified Korea - at least not de facto
.
Kim Jong Un is more than a match for the dope Trump and his class of '86 wargamers. With this
particular agreement the USA confirmed in everyone's eyes that it remains incapable of making
and keeping a deal between nations. It would have been cheap and easy for Trump to walk away
with a deal to give himself security in his second term runup. He cheated, he lied, and he
bragged and so now that very agreement is a lance that the North Korean people can torment
and bleed Trump with for the next six months and more.
Let's be clear about how important and sane the original deal was: relax the oppressive
sanctions, diminish nuclear threats, remove invasion threats in exchange for repatriated
human remains, and NK to destroy its nuclear production facility. That ignorant Pompeo nixed
the deal on his very next visit and proved to Kim on his first round with the USA that the
president was a puppet and the USA incapable of being trusted.
It was easy, it was inexpensive, it was painless and the USA could not do it.
And so Trump handed a weapon to Kim to stab at him throughout his own re-election. No
brains in Kushner or Ivanka's heads as they too have handed a golden opportunity to the North
Korean fox. Fools all.
The North Koreans have only their liberty and nation to lose and they would not lose it back
in the 1950's and they sure wont lose it now. All the more so to a scabrous pack of greedy
Chaebol mafia from the south. Do not forget that the USA bombed the North Koreans
continuously, almost every village was bombed in a free fire zone approach that was repeated
in Vietnam a decade or so later. Koreans were slaughtered in their millions by this grubby
little USA mendacity and it is remembered through the generations. Korea had only just
repulsed the Japanese occupation. They remember - and they wont be suckered by some clown
nation in the Pacific.
DPRK is an ally of both China and Russia, US enemies which are currently besting the US by
undermining its influence. .. from the Senate 2021 proposed budget summary:
Two years ago, the National Defense Strategy (NDS) outlined our nation's preeminent
challenge: strategic competition with authoritarian adversaries that stand firmly against
our shared American values of freedom, democracy, and peace -- namely, China and
Russia.These adversaries seek to shift the global order in their favor, at our expense. In
pursuit of this goal, these nations have increased military and economic aggression, worked
to develop advanced technologies, expanded their influence around the world, and undermined
our own influence. . . here
Posted by: vk | Jun 12 2020 17:54 utc | 7 use its 25 million inhabitants as a brand-new cheap
labor resources with which the chaebols could start a new cycle of capitalist accumulation is
closing.
Not to mention the estimated *6-10 trillion dollars* in natural resources that North Korea
has.
From another article: "An estimate from 2012 by a South Korean research institute values
the North's mineral wealth at $10 trillion, 20-odd times larger than that of the South."
Heck US aircraft carriers used to visit HK quite often until recently, even after the hand
over. They anchored in the harbor while thousands of sailors headed to the Wanchai bars,
although after the hand over they anchored in a less visible part of the harbor. China didn't
have a problem.
I doubt China sweats a couple of aircraft carriers when we have large bases in Japan and
South Korea, not to mention Guam.
False conflicts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are needed to keep support for
MIC and Security State which cost 1.2 trillion a year.
If the US were serious about confronting China there would be sanctions and not tariffs.
China and US are partners. We sell them chips that they put in our electronics and sell to
us, so we can spy on our people, and they test out our social control technology on their own
people. They clothe us, sell cheap API's for drugs and they invest in treasuries and other US
assets and we educate their young talent and give them access to our research and technology
and fund some of their own research and share numerous patents
Since this nothing-burger appears to have kicked off with an article in the NYT, it looks to
me as though someone reminded The Swamp that Iran hasn't been disarmed and is thus not the
kind of soft target that can be pushed around with impunity by AmeriKKKa. Imo, Iran is a lot
closer to the top of the Military Genius pecking order than AmeriKKKa. i.e. Iran has made it
quite clear that "Israel" will cop the blowback if Iran is attacked, and has also
demonstrated its ability to conduct high-precision strikes on US bases & bunkers in the
region. Iran is also quite good at swapping insults with AmeriKKKa and Iran's insults are
usually funnier than AmeriKKKa's...
Threatening North Korea probably seemed like a better/safer idea than threatening Iran but
only until China's diplomatic comedians start ripping into AmeriKKKa's loud-mouthed dorks and
daydreamers.
Surprise, surprise. The Trump/Kim Jong-un love affair was about as long as one of Elizabeth
Taylor's romances. Kim Jong-un wrote him beautiful letters and they fell in love, yet just as
quickly they fell out of love. That's the way it is with Trump. He's a male version of
Elizabeth Taylor. Melania was smart to renegotiate her prenup. It appears Kim Jong-un
neglected to insist on a prenup.
The case of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn is inevitably heading toward
its conclusion. While the presiding district judge, Emmet Sullivan , is trying to keep it
going, there's only so much he can do, chiefly because there's nobody left to prosecute the
case after the Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped it
last month .
In the latest developments, the District of Columbia appeals court set a hearing in the case
for tomorrow (June 12), while the DOJ's solicitor general himself, as well as five of his
deputies, urged the court to order the lower-court judge to accept the case dismissal.
"I cannot overstate how big of a deal this is," commented appellate attorney John Reeves,
former assistant Missouri attorney general, in a series of tweets on June
1 .
Personal involvement of the solicitor general "is highly unusual and rare," he said .
" Unusual " seems a fitting euphemism for the Flynn case, which has been filled with
contradictions, falsehoods, apparent blunders, extraordinary moves, and strange
coincidences.
The Epoch Times has so far counted 85 such instances.
Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the Obama administration and
former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty on Dec. 1, 2017, to
one count of lying to FBI agents during a Jan. 24, 2017, interview.
The FBI officially opened an investigation on Flynn on Aug. 16, 2016, based on a suspicion
that he "may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian
Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security."
What activity? The case was opened under a broader investigation into whether the Trump 2016
presidential campaign conspired with Russia to steal emails from the Democratic National
Committee and release them through Wikileaks.
The bureau learned from the Australian government that its then-ambassador to the UK,
Alexander Downer, spoke with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos, who "suggested" that the
campaign received "some kind of suggestion" that Russia could help it by anonymously releasing
some information damaging to Trump's opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The FBI didn't know what Papadopoulos actually said or what he was talking about.
Officially, this information was used by the FBI to comb through its databases for
information on people associated with the Trump campaign and open investigations on four
individuals supposedly linked to Russia.
Because Flynn's paid speaking engagements in years past included some for Russian companies
-- one for Kaspersky Lab and one for RT television in Moscow -- the FBI decided to open a
counterintelligence investigation on the retired three-star general.
But the FBI seemed to have trouble getting its story straight.
1. Comey
Contradiction
The FBI officially opened the four individual cases in mid-August 2016.
But former FBI Director James Comey testified to Congress that he was
briefed already "at the end of July that the FBI had opened counterintelligence investigations
of four individuals to see if there was a connection between any of those four and the Russian
effort."
2. Unlikely Target
Suspecting a man with patriotic bona fides of Flynn's caliber of having colluded with Russia
based on two speaking engagements seemed particularly unusual.
Flynn's command of military intelligence to aid American troops in combat has earned him
great praise.
"Mike Flynn's impact on the nation's War on Terror probably trumps any other single person,"
wrote then-Brig. Gen. John Mulholland in Flynn's
2007 performance review .
Mulholland went as far as calling Flynn "easily the best intelligence professional of any
service serving today."
Flynn was driven out of his post in 2014 after he repeatedly embarrassed President Barack
Obama by insisting, contrary to the administration's official stance, that a resurgence of
Islamic terrorism in the Middle East was imminent.
Two months after his resignation, the rise of ISIS proved him right.
3. A Name for the
Spotlight
The Russia probe was titled "Crossfire Hurricane" (CH), and Flynn was given the code name
"Crossfire Razor."
This was unusual, according to Marc Ruskin, a 27-year veteran of the FBI and an Epoch Times
contributor.
Rank-and-file agents would never pick a name like this, he told The Epoch Times in a
previous interview.
"They would mock it as being overly dramatic," he said.
4. Snooping During
Briefing
The day after opening the Flynn case, the FBI participated in a strategic intelligence
briefing given to Donald Trump and two of his advisers by the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence.
Because Flynn was to be present, the FBI took the extraordinary step of sending in
supervisory special agent Joe Pientka to collect intel on Flynn for the investigation. Pientka
was to assess Flynn's "overall mannerisms" and listen for "any kind of admission" that could be
used by the bureau, the DOJ's inspector general (IG) said in a Dec. 9 report on the CH
investigation ( pdf ).
The IG raised the question of whether snooping on officials the FBI is supposed to brief
could have a "chilling effect" on any such intelligence briefings in the future.
5.
Dossier Coincidence
The FBI directly targeted four Trump campaign aides, opening cases on three of them --
Papadopoulos, Carter Page, and Paul Manafort -- on Aug. 10, 2016. The IG never received an
explanation for why the Flynn case was opened later. Incidentally, Page and Manafort had
already been mentioned in the infamous Steele dossier since July 28, 2016. Flynn's name,
however, was only mentioned in the dossier report dated Aug. 10, 2016.
The dossier, which drummed up unsubstantiated allegations of a Trump–Russia
conspiracy, was being spread to the media, the FBI, the State Department, the DOJ, and Congress
by operatives funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
One of the CH case agents, Stephen Somma, happened to have a longstanding relationship with
Stephan Halper, a Cambridge professor who was also a longtime political operative and FBI
informant.
Somma and another agent met with Halper on Aug. 11, 2016, and learned that, in a stunning
coincidence, Halper was already in contact with Page, had known Manafort for years, and "had
been previously acquainted with Michael Flynn," the IG report said
The CH team "couldn't believe [their] luck," Somma told the IG.
7. Halper's Story
Halper was accused of spreading rumors, starting in late 2016, that Flynn had an affair with
a Russian woman while visiting the UK in 2014 for a dinner hosted by the Cambridge Intelligence
Seminar co-convened at the time by Halper.
An "established" FBI informant told the CH team that the woman jumped in a cab with Flynn
after the dinner and joined him for a train ride to London (
pdf ).
She said Halper was the one spreading the rumor to the media and the FBI, even though he
didn't actually attend the event. She unsuccessfully
sued Halper for defamation in May 2019.
Somehow, Steele also became privy to the rumor and
shared it with Adam Kramer , an aide to the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Kramer
testified to Congress that he was in regular contact with Steele between Nov. 28, 2016, and
early March 2017.
8. Unmasking
The names of Americans are normally masked -- that is, replaced with generic names -- in
foreign intelligence reports. Many senior government officials have the authority to ask for
names to be unmasked for various reasons, such as to understand the intelligence. There were
dozens of unmasking requests for reports related to Flynn, between Nov. 8, 2016, and Jan. 31,
2017 (
pdf ). The number of unmasking requests has been described as alarming by some
commentators, while others described it as routine.
9. Non-masking
There are also indications that Flynn's name was never masked in summaries or
transcripts of his calls with then-Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak
on Dec. 29, 2016, and in the following days. FBI leaders were distributing the documents to top
Obama officials. Even President Barack Obama himself was briefed on them on or before Jan. 5,
2017.
10. Who Briefed Obama?
Comey testified to Congress that it was then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
who briefed Obama on the Flynn–Kislyak calls (
pdf ). Clapper, however, denied this to Congress.
11. 'Unusual'
Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, memorialized a Jan. 5, 2017, meeting with
Obama, Comey, and then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates . Rice wrote in an email to
herself that Obama asked Comey whether he should withhold any Russia-related information from
the incoming administration and from Flynn in particular.
"Potentially," Comey replied, adding that "the level of communication" between Flynn and
Kislyak was "unusual,"
she wrote . There's no indication Flynn was talking to Kislyak unusually often. He was at
the time responsible for laying the groundwork for Trump's foreign relations as president and
was frequently on the phone with foreign dignitaries.
12. Late Memo
Rice's memo itself is unusual. She emailed it to herself more than two weeks after the
meeting took place, on the day of Trump's inauguration.
13. Strzok Intervention
On Jan. 4, the FBI was already in the process of closing Flynn's case. But the bureau's
counterintelligence operations head at the time, Peter Strzok,
scrambled to keep it open , noting that the "7th floor," meaning the FBI's top leadership,
was involved.
14. McCabe–Comey Contradiction
Comey testified that he authorized the Flynn case "to be closed at the end of December,
beginning of January."
"I don't think a closure would have been soon," he said.
15. Shaky Theory
FBI documents and Comey's testimony indicate that the
bureau kept the Flynn case open solely based on a legal theory that he may have violated
the Logan Act, even though the DOJ made clear that such charges wouldn't pass muster in court
-- nobody has ever been successfully prosecuted for a Logan Act violation and the government
last tried in 1852.
The law prohibits private citizens from engaging in diplomacy on their own with countries
the United States is in dispute with. Not only have questions been raised as to whether the law
would pass today's constitutional scrutiny, which places greater emphasis on First Amendment
protections, but also there's no indication the law was conceived to apply to a
president-elect's incoming top adviser.
16. Call Leaks
In early January, information about Flynn's calls with Kislyak was leaked to then-Washington
Post reporter Adam Entous. He said there was a discussion at the paper about what to do with
the information, as it would have been expected of Flynn, given his position, to talk to
Kislyak (
pdf ). In the end, the paper
ran a column on Jan. 12 by David Ignatius speculating that Flynn may have violated the
Logan Act if he discussed fresh sanctions imposed on Russia during the calls.
Obama imposed the sanctions on Russian entities, including its intelligence services, on
Dec. 29, 2016. At the same time, he also expelled 35 Russian intelligence officers.
17.
Denial
The calls "had nothing whatsoever to do with the sanctions," incoming Vice President Mike
Pence told CBS News on Jan. 15, 2017, in an interview the network almost wholly dedicated to
questions about Russia.
This wasn't completely true.
Kislyak did bring up the issue of sanctions during the call, though Flynn didn't engage him
in a conversation on the topic.
Flynn raised the issue of the expulsions, which is technically a separate issue from
sanctions, though both were announced at the same time. He asked for "cool heads to prevail"
and for Russia to only respond reciprocally, as further escalation into a "tit for tat" could
lead to the countries shutting down each other's embassies, complicating future
diplomacy.
18. 'Blackmailable'
Yates said she wanted to inform Trump's White House about the Kislyak calls as Russia would
know that what Pence said wasn't true and could thus blackmail Flynn with the information,
according to an Aug. 15, 2017, FBI report from her interview
with the Mueller team.
According to Ruskin, this was hardly a blackmail situation, which ordinarily involves
serious compromising information, such as evidence of bribery or sexual misconduct.
Comey acknowledged to Congress in March 2017 that the idea that Flynn was compromised struck
him "as a bit of a reach."
19. Comey Blocked Information
Despite issues with Yates's argument, informing the White House may have indeed cleared up
the situation. However, Comey blocked it, saying it could have interfered with the
investigation of Flynn -- despite that it appears there was nothing for the bureau to
investigate. At that point, the DOJ already had disapproved of the Logan Act idea. In any case,
the probe was supposed to be about Russian collusion. The bureau could have closed it and
opened a new one on the Logan Act, if it indeed had had sufficient predication. But it never
opened such an investigation, the DOJ noted in its motion to dismiss Flynn's case.
20.
Another Comey–McCabe Contradiction
In the days before Jan. 24, 2017, top FBI officials were discussing plans to interview
Flynn. Comey said the point of the interview was to find out why Flynn didn't tell Pence that
sanctions were discussed during the call (even though Flynn wasn't actually the one talking
about sanctions).
"My judgment was we could not close the investigation of Mr. Flynn without asking him what
is the deal here. That was the purpose," Comey testified.
McCabe, however, told a different story when then-Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) asked him, "Was
[Flynn] interviewed because the Vice President relied upon information from him in a national
interview?"
"No. I don't remember that being a motivating factor behind the interview," McCabe
said.
21. No Mention of Pence
During the interview, the agents didn't ask Flynn about what he did or didn't tell Pence --
an unusual approach if the point, as Comey said, was to find out why Flynn hadn't "been candid"
with Pence. The FBI, in fact, had no idea what Flynn did or didn't tell Pence.
22.
Slipped-In Warning
Agents regularly warn interviewees that lying to federal officers is a crime. Before the
Flynn interview, however, McCabe's special counsel Lisa Page emailed another FBI lawyer asking
how the warning should be given and whether there was a way "to just casually slip that
in."
23. No Warning
In the end, the agents never gave Flynn any such warning.
24. 'Get Him to Lie Get Him
Fired?'
The FBI officials agreed that the agents wouldn't show Flynn the transcripts of the calls.
If he said something that diverged from them, they would ask again, slipping in some words from
the transcript. If that didn't jog his memory, they were not to confront him about it.
On the day of the interview, then-FBI head of counterintelligence
Bill Priestap wrote a note saying he told other officials to "rethink" the approach.
"What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him
fired?" he wrote, noting, "We regularly show subjects evidence."
Apparently, his concerns were ignored.
25. Discouraging Having a Lawyer Present
On the day of the interview, McCabe spoke with Flynn on the phone to ask him for the
interview. McCabe said he told Flynn he wanted the interview done "as quickly, quietly, and
discreetly as possible." If Flynn wanted anybody to sit in, such as one of the White House
lawyers, the DOJ would have to be involved, McCabe told him.
According to Ruskin, that was "egregious" behavior akin to discouraging a subject of an
investigation from having a lawyer present for an interview.
26. No White House
Notice
An FBI interview of a president's national security adviser is a big deal. Normally, it
would warrant a back-and-forth between the White House and the bureau on the scope, content,
purpose, and other parameters. Most likely, multiple White House lawyers would sit in.
Comey, however, said in a public forum
that he just sent the agents in, taking advantage of the fact that it was "early enough" --
only four days after the inauguration.
27. No Notice Given to DOJ
According to Yates, Comey didn't consult the DOJ about his intention to interview Flynn,
even though the department would usually be involved in such decisions.
28. Not Quite a
Denial From Flynn
After the interview, in which Strzok and supervisory special agent Pientka extensively
questioned Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak, Comey said that Flynn denied talking to
the ambassador about the sanctions. But the agents' notes indicate that though Flynn denied it
at first, he seemed unsure when the agents asked again.
"Not really. I don't remember. It wasn't, 'Don't do anything,'" he said, according to the
notes.
"I told the agents that 'tit-for-tat' is a phrase I use, which suggests that the topic of
sanctions could have been raised," he
said .
29. UN Vote Denial
Based on the agent's notes, Flynn did deny asking for Russia to delay a U.N. vote in Israeli
settlements. One of the call transcripts indicates he in fact made such a request.
Flynn told the agents he was calling multiple countries regarding the vote, but it was more
an exercise of how quickly he could get foreign officials on the phone since there was no way
the transition team could convince enough countries to actually change the outcome. Indeed, the
vote passed with only the United States abstaining.
30. No Indication of Deception
The agents came back with the impression "that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was
lying," according to Strzok.
Comey seemed on the fence.
"I don't know. I think there is an argument to be made that he lied. It is a close one," he
testified.
31. Flynn Knew They Knew
According to McCabe, Flynn expressed awareness before the interview that the FBI knew
exactly what he said during the Kislyak calls.
"You listen to everything they [Russian representatives] say," Flynn told him, according to
McCabe's notes from that day.
32. Belated Report
The FBI interview summary, form FD-302, is required to be completed within five days of the
interview. Flynn's, however, took more than two weeks.
33. Rewritten 302
Strzok texted Page on Feb. 10, 2017, he was "trying to not completely rewrite" the 302 "so
as to save [redacted] voice." The redacted name was most likely Pientka's.
34. Missing
Original
Flynn was ultimately provided two draft versions of the 302 -- one from Feb. 10, 2016, and
one from the day after. But based on Strzok's texts, there should have been at least two draft
versions produced on Feb. 10, 2016, or before.
In fact, Judge Sullivan said in a Dec. 17, 2018, minute order that the 302 "was drafted
immediately after Mr. Flynn's FBI interview." It's not clear what the judge was basing this
assertion on or what happened to the early draft.
Flynn's current attorney, former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell , later said she'd found a
witness who saw an earlier draft and that it said "that Flynn was honest with the agents
and did not lie."
35. No Reinterview
It is common that when the FBI has questions after an interview about the candor of the
subject, it would question the person again. But in this case, the FBI showed no interest in
doing so.
36. Still Investigating What?
After the interview, Comey promptly agreed to Yates informing the White House about the call
transcripts. Flynn was fired two weeks later. But, somehow, the investigation was still not
over.
Comey said in his March 2, 2017, testimony that the bureau wasn't investigating any possible
Logan Act violation by Flynn and wouldn't do so unless the DOJ directed it.
But he said the investigation was "obviously" still ongoing and "criminal in nature."
McCabe said that "even following the interview on the 24th, we had a lot of work left to do
in that investigation."
By mid-February, the status of the probe wouldn't have "changed materially" in his belief,
he said.
"Like we were pursuing phone records and toll records at that time," he said. "There were
all kinds of really very basic foundational investigative activity that had to take place and
we were committed to getting that done."
It's unclear what the point of the investigation was.
37. FARA Papers
Around Christmas 2016, Flynn found in the office of his defunct consultancy, Flynn Intel
Group (FIG), a letter from the DOJ telling him he may need to file foreign lobbying disclosures
under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
The DOJ's National Security Division (NSD) wanted to know about a job FIG did earlier that
year for Turkish businessman Kamil Ekim Alptekin.
It should have been a routine procedure. Washington lobbyists commonly flunk FARA rules and
the NSD usually just asks them to register retrospectively because FARA cases are difficult to
prosecute. Flynn hired a team from Covington and Burling led by Robert Kelner, a
"never-Trumper" and an expert on FARA, to prepare the paperwork.
This time, the NSD was unusually eager. Heather Hunt, then-FARA unit chief herself, was
repeatedly prompting the lawyers to expeditiously file the papers.
Comey's leaking the content of this and other memos to the media served as a catalyst for
then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointing former FBI head Robert Mueller as a
special counsel to take over the CH probe.
39. Rosenstein's Scope Memo Still Alludes to
Logan Act
Even though Comey said in March 2017 that the FBI wasn't investigating Flynn for a Logan Act
violation, Mueller received in August 2017 a mandate from Rosenstein ( pdf
) to probe whether Flynn "committed a crime or crimes by engaging in conversations with Russian
government officials during the period of the Trump transition." That appears to be an allusion
to the Logan Act.
Rosenstein testified
to Congress that he simply put in the scope of Mueller's mandate whatever the CH team was
investigating at the time.
The scope memo also tasked Mueller with probing whether Flynn lied to the FBI during the
interview, whether he failed to report foreign contacts or income on his national security
disclosure forms, and whether the Turkey job by his firm meant that he "committed a crime or
crimes by acting as an unregistered agent for the government of Turkey."
40. Lawyers
Delay Informing Flynn?
By mid-August 2017, Covington learned that prosecutors were looking at Flynn's FARA filings.
But the lawyers didn't inform Flynn until weeks later, according to his current lawyer,
Powell.
41. Conflict of Interest
Convington faced a conflict of interest in Flynn's case, because it was in their interest to
say any problems with the FARA papers were Flynn's fault, while it was in Flynn's interest to
say the lawyers were responsible.
Covington and the Mueller team agreed the firm can continue to represent Flynn if they tell
him about the conflict and he consents to it. Powell said the conflict was so serious bar rules
required the lawyers to withdraw.
42. Lawyers Don't Take Responsibility
In Flynn's situation, it would have been the ethical thing to do for the lawyers to take
responsibility for any problems with the FARA papers, according to Powell. But they didn't do
that.
43. Lawyers Express Apprehension About Being Targeted Themselves
The Covington lawyers on several occasions expressed concern that Mueller may target them
with a crime-fraud order, a measure that allows prosecutors to break through the
attorney-client privilege if they get a judge to agree that the client was conferring with
lawyers to further a crime or some misconduct. The lawyers were aware Mueller's team had
already used the order against Manafort.
Facing a crime-fraud order would cause bad publicity for Covington, Powell noted. Leading
Flynn into the plea allowed the firm to avoid it.
44. Perilous Interviews
In early November 2016, Mueller prosecutors, led by Brandon Van Grack, told Covington that
Flynn was facing charges for lying to the FBI and lying on the FARA papers. They asked for
Flynn's cooperation with the broader Russia probe, particularly regarding any communications he
or other Trump people had with foreign officials.
Van Grack wanted Flynn to sit down for a series of interviews. He offered Flynn limited
immunity, but acknowledged that Flynn could still be charged for lying during the
interviews.
The lawyers noted that this could have been dangerous for Flynn, even if he was completely
honest.
"To ask someone about meetings and calls during an incredibly busy period of his life as an
evaluation of candor is not a particularly attractive option," Kelner told the prosecutors
during a conference call (
pdf ).
Yet ultimately the Covington lawyers agreed to make Flynn available for the
questioning.
45. Belated Consent
Covington only asked Flynn for consent with their conflict of interest in writing on Nov.
19, 2017, after Flynn had already been through two days of interviews with the
prosecutors.
46. Wrong Standard
The consent request, sent via email, cited the wrong bar rule for handling of conflicts. The
correct rule "creates a much lower threshold at which a lawyer must bow out," Powell said in a
court filing.
47. Innocent but Guilty
The Covington lawyers repeatedly told the prosecutors that they didn't think Flynn was
guilty of a felony. They were also told that Strzok and Pientka "saw no indication of
deception" on Flynn's part and had the impression after the interview that he wasn't lying or
didn't think he was lying. But the lawyers still convinced Flynn that he should plead guilty to
the felony charge.
48. Threat to Son
According to Flynn's declaration, the Covington lawyers told him that if he didn't plead,
the prosecutors would charge his son (who had a four-month-old baby at the time) with a FARA
violation, because the son worked for Flynn's firm and was involved in the Turkey project. If
he did plead, however, his son "would be left in peace," Flynn said.
The pressure campaign, it seems, was also reflected in media leaks.
"If the elder Flynn is willing to cooperate with investigators in order to help his son it
could also change his own fate, potentially limiting any legal consequences,"
NBC News reported on Nov. 5, 2017, referring to "sources familiar with the
investigation."
"To twist the father's arm with regard to his child is a pretty low thing to do," Ruskin
commented.
49. 302 Not Shared
The prosecutors refused to share with Flynn the 302 from his January interview until shortly
before he agreed to plead. Also, they only shared the final version of the report, which was
significantly different from its previous drafts, Flynn later learned.
50. Strzok Texts
Understatement
Shortly before Flynn signed his plea, the prosecutors disclosed to his lawyers that one of
the agents who interviewed Flynn (Strzok) was being investigated by the IG for potential
misconduct. They also disclosed that the agent expressed in electronic communications "a
preference for one of the candidates for President."
This was far from covering the bombshell the Strzok texts actually were, Powell noted.
Strzok not only voiced preference for Clinton, but cursed at and repeatedly derided Trump.
In one 2016 text, he argued that the FBI needed to take action akin to an "insurance policy" in
case Trump won. Strzok later said he was referring to proceeding in the CH probe more
aggressively out of a worry that Trump may interfere with it if elected.
51. Lawyers
Never Told Flynn?
Flynn said the Convington lawyers never told him that the FBI agents didn't think he lied.
Even after he specifically asked about the agents' impression, the lawyers didn't disclose the
information and instead told him that "the agents stood by their statement."
"I then understood them to be telling me that the FBI agents believed that I had lied,"
Flynn said, explaining that had he known, he wouldn't have signed the plea.
52. Statement
of Offense Inaccurate
As part of his statement of offense, Flynn affirmed that FIG's FARA papers contained three
false statements and one omission. Yet, on all four points the statement of offense was
inaccurate, Powell demonstrated (
pdf ).
"The prosecutors concocted the alleged 'false statements' by their own misrepresentations,
deceit, and omissions," she said in a court filing (
pdf ).
The FARA papers were "substantially correct" and any deficiencies were the fault of
Covington, she said.
53. Lawyers Knew
In an internal email three days before Flynn signed his plea, one of the Covington lawyers
pointed out that some of the "false statements" attributed to Flynn in the statement of offense
regarding the FARA filings were "contradicted by the caveats or qualifications in the
filing."
It seems the lawyers failed to correct the issue, since the statement of offense remained
inaccurate. They also never informed Flynn of the issue, according to Powell.
54. Judge
Recusal
Flynn entered his plea on Dec. 1, 2017. Shortly after, the judge who accepted the plea,
Rudolph Contreras, recused himself from the case. The apparent but undisclosed reason was
likely his personal relationship with Strzok.
55. Strzok Texts Media Coincidence
While the IG had found Strzok's texts already in June 2017, their first disclosure in the
media came from The Washington Post the day after Flynn entered his guilty plea. Powell noted
how convenient the timing was for the prosecutors.
56. Side Deal
The prosecutors conveyed to Covington an "unofficial understanding" that they were
"unlikely" to charge Flynn's son in light of Flynn's agreement to continue to cooperate with
the Mueller probe, one of the lawyers said in an internal email.
Such an under-the-table deal is "unethical," Ruskin said.
57. Avoiding Giglio
Disclosure
Another internal Covington email suggests the prosecutors intentionally kept the deal
regarding Flynn's son unofficial to make future prosecutions easier.
"The government took pains not to give a promise to MTF [Michael T. Flynn] regarding Michael
[Flynn] Jr., so as to limit how much of a 'benefit' it would have to disclose as part of its
Giglio disclosures to any defendant against whom MTF may one day testify," the email reads.
"Giglio" refers to a 1972 Supreme Court opinion that requires prosecutors to disclose to the
defense that a witness used by the prosecutors has been promised an escape from prosecution in
exchange for cooperation.
58. Questionable Disclosures
After the case was assigned to Judge Sullivan, he entered an order for the DOJ to give Flynn
all exculpatory information it had, as the judge does in all cases.
The prosecutors, however, weren't prompt in revealing the information. The Strzok texts, for
instance, were only provided to Flynn after they were released publicly.
59. Business
Partner Coincidence
One day before Flynn's sentencing hearing, his former business partner, Bijan Rafiekian, was
charged with a failure to register as a foreign agent in relation to FIG's Turkey job.
Powell called it a "shot across the bow" which the Mueller team wanted to "leverage" against
Flynn.
"Mr. Van Grack used the possibility of indicting Flynn in the Rafiekian case at the
sentencing hearing to raise the specter of all the threats he had made to secure the plea a
year earlier -- including the indictment of Mr. Flynn's son," she said in a court filing (
pdf ).
60. Judge Makes False Accusations, Backtracks
During a Dec. 18, 2018, sentencing hearing, Sullivan questioned the prosecutors about
whether they considered charging Flynn with treason.
"Arguably, you sold your country out," he told Flynn, saying that he acted as an agent of
Turkey while in the White House.
That was wrong on multiple levels. Not only does treason not apply to unregistered lobbying,
but the Turkey job had virtually no impact on American interests. It prepared a plan to lobby
for the extradition of an Islamic cleric, Fethullah Gülen, who lives in exile in the
United States, and whom Ankara blamed for instigating a coup attempt in 2016. Almost none of
the plan materialized. Most importantly, Flynn shuttered his firm shortly after the election to
comply with Trump's promise of no lobbyists in his administration.
Sullivan corrected himself later in the hearing, but many media outlets still put his
original remarks in headlines.
61. MSNBC Coincidence
While Sullivan's question about treason and his gaffe about the Turkey job seemed to come
out of left field, they mirrored MSNBC talking points from days prior.
The day before Flynn's sentencing hearing, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow claimed Flynn and Rafiekian "disguised" the
origins of payments for the Turkey job so they could "secretly work in the interest of a
foreign country without anybody knowing it while they were also working high-level jobs in
intelligence inside the U.S. government."
"Flynn really thought he could be a national security adviser, the national security adviser
in the White House, and a secret foreign agent at the same time," Maddow said .
Three days before Flynn's sentencing hearing, Malcolm Nance, a counterterrorism commentator,
said on MSNBC that Flynn "may have been one step away from treason" and "pulled back by
cooperating" with Mueller.
62. Judge Fails to Satisfy Plea Rules
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure state in Rule 11 that "before entering judgment on a
guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea."
As such, Sullivan was required to check that Flynn's alleged lies to the FBI were
"material," meaning relevant enough to potentially affect an FBI investigation.
But the judge acknowledged during the sentencing hearing that he hadn't done so.
"It probably won't surprise you that I had many, many, many more questions. such as, you
know, how the government's investigation was impeded? What was the material impact of the
criminality? Things like that," he said at the conclusion of the hearing.
There's no indication Sullivan has asked those questions since.
63. Unacceptable
Plea
Not only could Sullivan not have accepted Flynn's plea before determining materiality,
there's evidence he was in fact required to refuse it.
Rule 11 requires the court to "determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from
force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement)."
In Flynn's case, there actually was a threat and a promise left out of the deal -- the
"unofficial understanding" that his son was "unlikely" to be charged if Flynn
cooperated.
64. Lawyers Insisted Flynn 'Stay on the Path'
Before the sentencing hearing, the Covington lawyers told Flynn to "stay on the path" and to
refuse if Sullivan offered him to take his plea back, Flynn said in his court declaration.
"If the judge offers you a chance to withdraw your plea, he is giving you the rope to hang
yourself. Don't do it," the lawyers said, according to Powell.
65. Unprepared
Flynn said the lawyers only prepared him for a "simple hearing" and not for the extended
questioning Sullivan engaged in.
"I was not prepared for this court's plea colloquy, much less to decide, on the spot,
whether I should withdraw my plea, consult with independent counsel, or continue to follow my
existing lawyers' advice," he said.
In the end, he affirmed his plea during the hearing.
66. Prosecutors Asked for False
Testimony?
Flynn was expected to testify against Rafiekian in 2019, but when the moment was to come,
prosecutors asked him to say that he signed FIG's FARA papers knowing there were lies in them.
Flynn, who had already fired Convington and hired Powell by that point, refused. He said he
only acknowledged in hindsight that the FARA papers were inaccurate, but didn't know it at the
time.
67. Prosecutors Knew?
Powell has argued that the prosecutors knew they were asking for a false testimony. She
filed with the court a draft of Flynn's statement of offense, which shows that the words "FLYNN
then and there knew" (pertaining to the FARA registration) were cut from the final version.
Moreover, Powell submitted emails that indicate the words were cut by the prosecutors
themselves after the Covington lawyers raised some objections to the draft.
68.
Retaliation?
Flynn's refusal to say what prosecutors wanted angered Van Grack, contemporaneous notes show
(
pdf ). Shortly after, prosecutors tried to label Flynn as a co-conspirator in the Rafiekian
case and put Flynn's son on the list of witnesses for the prosecution. According to Powell,
this was retaliation for Flynn's refusal to lie.
69. Rafiekian Case Collapses
Prosecutors in the Rafiekian case tried to argue that anybody who does something political
at the request of a foreign official and fails to disclose it to the DOJ is an "agent of a
foreign government" and can be put in prison for up to 10 years.
The presiding judge, Anthony Trenga, rejected the theory, ruling that an "agent" -- as used
in that context -- needs to have a tighter relationship with the foreign government, a
relationship that includes "the power of the principal to give directions and the duty of the
agent to obey those directions."
Starting in August, Powell started to bombard the prosecutors with demands for exculpatory
evidence she was convinced the DOJ possessed. But the prosecutors repeatedly claimed the
government already provided all it had and had no more.
The main issue was, Powell noted, that the DOJ had a very narrow view of what is
exculpatory.
"If something appears on its face to be favorable to the defense the government will claim
it was said 'with a wink and a nod,' and therefore it showed the defendant's guilt after all,"
she complained in an Aug. 30, 2019, filing (
pdf ).
As it later turned out, the FBI was sitting on a number of documents favorable to the
defense.
71. Contradicting Notes
When Flynn finally obtained the hand-written notes Strzok and Pientka took during the
interview, it turned out they didn't quite match the final 302.
The 302, for instance, says that Flynn remembered making four to five phone calls to Kislyak
on Dec. 29, 2016. Both sets of notes indicate that Flynn didn't remember that.
Also, the 302 says that Flynn denied that Kislyak got back to him with the Russian response
a few days later. There's no mention of a Russian response in the notes.
72. Notes
Mixup
It took the prosecutors until November 2019 to find out and tell Flynn that the notes they
said belonged to Strzok were actually Pientka's and vice versa.
73. No Date, Name
The notes mixup wasn't that easy to spot because neither set of notes was signed or dated,
even though they should have been, according to Powell.
74. Harsher Sentence
Since his sentencing hearing, Flynn was expected to receive a light sentence, possibly
probation. In January 2020, however, the prosecutors indicated that Flynn should be treated
more harshly because he reneged on his promise to cooperate on the Rafiekian case.
This was part of the retaliation for Flynn's refusal to lie for the prosecutors, according
to Powell.
Shortly after that, Flynn asked the court to let him withdraw his plea.
Any limitation the court puts on how the attorney-client information can be used shouldn't
"preclude the government from prosecuting the defendant for perjury if any information that he
provided to counsel were proof of perjury in this proceeding," they said.
It's not clear what specifically they were referring to.
76. Thousands More
Documents
In April, Covington told Flynn they
found thousands more documents related to his case that they failed to give to Powell due
to "an unintentional miscommunication involving the firm's information technology
personnel."
77. Van Grack Out
On May 7, 2020, Van Grack withdrew from Flynn's case as well as others. The reason is not
clear.
The same day, the DOJ moved to withdraw the Flynn case.
78. Judge Delays
A government motion to withdraw a case usually marks the end of the case. The court still
needs to accept the motion, but there's not much it can do, since there's nobody left to
prosecute the case.
Sullivan, however, didn't accept it.
79. Appointing Amicus
On May 13, 2020, Sullivan appointed former federal Judge John Gleeson as an amicus curiae
(friend of court) "to present arguments in opposition to the government's Motion to Dismiss" as
well as to "address" whether the court should make the defense explain why "Flynn should not be
held in criminal contempt for perjury."
This was an unusual move. Amici are normally only appointed in civil or higher court cases.
Powell has said Sullivan doesn't have authority to do so.
80. Another Washington Post
Coincidence
Just two days earlier, Gleeson co-authored an op-ed in The Washington Post where he accused
the DOJ of "impropriety," "corruption," and "improper political influence" for dropping the
Flynn case.
81. More Delays
On May 19, 2020, Sullivan issued a scheduling order that set an oral argument for July 16,
when third parties invited by the judge would get a chance to voice their opinions. As such,
the judge
set to prolong the case for about two more months and possibly beyond.
In a rare move , the appeals court
ordered Sullivan to respond to Flynn's petition within 10 days. Usually, the court would
appoint an amicus curiae to argue the case on behalf of the judge. Sometimes, the court would
invite the judge to respond. Ordering a response is "very rare," Reeves commented.
Wilkinson has in the past represented major corporations such as Pfizer, Microsoft, and
Phillip Morris, as well as Hillary Clinton aides during the FBI's investigation of Clinton's
use of a private email server. She also assisted then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in
preparing his 2018 defense against a sexual assault allegation.
Wilkinson is married to CNN analyst David Gregory, the former host of the NBC News' "Meet
the Press."
84. DOJ Brings Big Guns
In another unusual move, the DOJ's Solicitor General and five of his deputies responded to
the appeals court in support of Flynn's petition. The Solicitor General usually argues cases on
behalf of the DOJ before the Supreme Court. His personal involvement in an appeals court
petition "is highly unusual and rare," Reeves said.
"For non-lawyers, a ten day notice for oral argument may seem like a long time, but it
isn't. It's an increidibly [sic] short amount of time," he said, noting that a call for a
hearing "shows that the DC Circuit is gravely concerned about this matter."
President Donald Trump's campaign is demanding CNN retract and apologize for a recent poll
that showed him well behind presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
The demand, coming in the form of a cease and desist letter to CNN President Jeff Zucker
that contained numerous incorrect and misleading claims, was immediately rejected by the
network.
"We stand by our poll," said Matt Dornic, a CNN spokesman.
The CNN poll conducted by SSRS and released on Monday shows Trump trailing the former vice
president by 14 points, 55%-41%, among registered voters. It also finds the President's
approval rating at 38% -- his worst mark since January 2019, and roughly on par with approval
ratings for one-term Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush at this point in their
reelection years -- and his disapproval rating at 57%.
In the letter to Zucker, the Trump campaign argued that the CNN poll is "designed to mislead
American voters through a biased questionnaire and skewed sampling."
"... No one has benefited from the new rules more than the state of Israel, whose hundreds of support organizations and principal billionaire funders euphemized as the "Israel Lobby" have entrenched pro-Israel donors as the principal financial resources of both major political parties. ..."
The nearly complete corruption of the U.S. republican form of government has largely come
about due to the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court in January 2010 that basically
permitted unlimited donor-spending on political campaigns based on the principle that
providing money, normally through a political action committee (PAC), is a form of free
speech. The decision paved the way for agenda-driven plutocrats and corporations to largely
seize control of the formulation process for certain policies being promoted by the two
national parties.
No one has benefited from the new rules more than the state of Israel, whose hundreds of
support organizations and principal billionaire funders euphemized as the "Israel Lobby" have
entrenched pro-Israel donors as the principal financial resources of both major political
parties.
ori Schake
objects to Biden's foreign policy record on the grounds that he is not hawkish enough and
too skeptical of military intervention. She restates a bankrupt hawkish view of U.S. military
action:
This half-in-half-out approach to military intervention also strips U.S. foreign policy of
its moral element of making the world a better place. It is inadequate to the cause of
advancing democracy and human rights [bold mine-DL].
The belief that military intervention is an expression of the "moral element" of U.S.
foreign policy is deeply wrong, but it is unfortunately just as deeply-ingrained among many
foreign policy professionals. Military intervention has typically been disastrous for the cause
of advancing democracy and human rights. First, by linking this cause with armed aggression,
regime change, and chaos, it tends to bring discredit on that cause in the eyes of the people
that suffer during the war. Military interventions have usually worsened conditions in the
targeted countries, and in the upheaval and violence that result there have been many hundreds
of thousands of deaths and countless other violations of human rights.
Destabilizing other countries, displacing millions of people, and wrecking their
infrastructure and economy obviously do not make anything better. As a rule, our wars of choice
have not been moral or just, and they have inflicted tremendous death and destruction on other
nations. When we look at the wreckage created by just the last twenty years of U.S. foreign
policy, we have to reject the fantasy that military action has something to do with moral
leadership. Each time that the U.S. has gone to war unnecessarily, that is a moral failure.
Each time that the U.S. has attacked another country when it was not threatened, that is a
moral abomination.
Schake continues:
Biden claims that the U.S. has a moral obligation to respond with military force to
genocide or chemical-weapons use, but was skeptical of intervention in Syria. The former vice
president's rhetoric doesn't match his policies on American values.
If Biden's rhetoric doesn't match his policies here, we should be glad that the presumptive
Democratic nominee for president isn't such an ideological zealot that he would insist on
waging wars that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. If there is a
mismatch, the problem lies with the expansive rhetoric and not with the skepticism about
intervention. That is particularly true in the Syria debate, where interventionists kept
demanding more aggressive policies without even bothering to show how escalation wouldn't make
things worse. Biden's skepticism about intervention in Syria of all places is supposed to be
held against him as proof of his poor judgment? That criticism speaks volumes about the
discredited hawkish crowd in Washington that wanted to sink the U.S. even more deeply into that
morass of conflict.
One of the chief problems with U.S. foreign policy for the last several decades is that it
has been far too militarized. To justify the constant resort to the threat and use of force,
supporters have insisted on portraying military action as if it were beneficent. They have
managed to trick a lot of Americans into thinking that "doing something" to another country is
the same thing as doing good. Interventionists emphasize the goodness of their intentions while
ignoring or minimizing the horrors that result from the policies they advocate, and they have
been able to co-opt the rhetoric of morality to mislead the public into thinking that attacking
other countries is legitimate and even obligatory. This has had the effect of degrading and
distorting our foreign policy debates by framing every argument over war in terms of righteous
"action" vs. squalid "inaction." This turns everything on its head. It treats aggression as
virtue and violence as salutary. Even a bog-standard hawk like Biden gets criticized for
lacking moral conviction if he isn't gung-ho for every unnecessary war.
As for Mr. Biden's "but was skeptical of intervention in Syria", maybe he was aware of
the actual perpetrators of the gas attacks (as several OPCW whistle-blowers testified) and
was maybe uncomfortable being again the spearhead for another war, like he was with Iraq as
the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Biden has been out of office for four years now. If I recall correctly, he didn't say jack
to support Trump's two failed attempts to pull out from Syria.
Kori Schake writes for the British neocon IISS, which has been secretly funded by the Sunni
dictator in Bahrain, who holds down the Shia majority with imported Pakistanis as soldiers
and police. Ordinary Bahrainis are like occupied prisoners in their own country. Everything
is for the small Sunni elite. Though there are also ordinary Sunnis who oppose them.
Kori Schake is simply paid to promote neocon interests, which the Bahraini dictator is
closely aligned with. The Sunni king dissolved parliament and took all the power, aided by
Saudi tanks crushing protesters, who were tortured and had their lives destroyed. The
dictator even destroyed Bahrain's famous Pearl Monument, near which the protesters had
camped out, so it wouldn't be a symbol of resistance. (Forever making it a symbol of
resistance.) The tower was on all the postcards from Bahrain and it appeared on the coins.
It's like destroying the Eiffel Tower. Kori's Sunni paymasters want Shia Iran destroyed as
it speaks up for the oppressed Shias in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen and the
UAE.
Biden is and for over four decades always was an example of all that is worst in
militarized US foreign policy. The idea that he isn't hawkish enough is itself crazy.
I agree with you that Trump's presidency has been exceptional when you factor in the
Russia Collusion Delusion Meuller investigations(2-3 years in length,) the Shampeachment
resulting in acquittal, PanDEMic and the resulting chaos, Trump has weathered it all. Prior
to the Covid 19 shutdown, minority unemployment was at record lows unseen in the last 3
decades. 1st Step Act Prison reform helped release folks from harsh sentencing mandates put
in place by....... Senator Joe Biden, who is out there ringing the bell that he is the best
choice for people of color.
POTUS Trump's setting up Opportunity Zones in economically depressed areas to benefit the
disadvantaged folks whose very neighborhoods have now been destroyed by riots.
The millions of dollars wasted by Democrats on investigations, delaying release of
transcripts, Shampeachment, all that $40+ million dollars could've been spent on education,
Veteran benefits, Infrastructure, Healthcare, but no, Dems continued charade after charade to
take down a duly elected President because of their hatred.
I abhor Police brutality whenever and wherever it occurs, and it occurs to folks of every
race and color. That said, the overwhelming majority of Law Enforcement Officers are good
people, who take seriously their oath "To Serve and Protect."
I worked as a volunteer AEMT-CC for 15 years and had many encounters with LEO's at
domestic disturbance calls and motor vehicle accidents. I never once witnessed anything other
than extremely professional behavior from the Police community, and sometimes in
exceptionally challenging environments.
I pray daily for their safety and for the fine men & women who serve in our Armed
Forces. They are 99.99% professional folks who place themselves in harm's way to protect We
The People, and I am grateful for their service.
This is all political theater and part of a massive disinformation campaign being used by
the left as a Trojan horse ...
All of their claims are demonstrably false, it's textbook Alinsky via the weaponization of
social media and has 0bama's hoof prints all over it. America got suckered BIG TIME when that
duplicitous creep got elected and if we allow it to happen again with this sick malarkey
there just might not be any turning back.
Never in a billion years thought I would ever think or say such a thing but Trump now has my
vote. And I essentially detest the man, his family and so much else, but the country has gone
stark raving mad. Did you see the battle cry two days ago in Manhattan? "Black trans lives
matter!" Shouted in unison by hundreds on the march, mostly college student age to thirty.
"Black trans lives matter!"
So, OK Donald Trump you string of unprintable expletives - you have my vote, not that as a
resident of NY state it matters one bit.
Some interesting thought, but if you compare the USA situation with the situation in Ukraine, the ruling elite still have a long
way to go undisturbed...
I doubt the United States can change. There are agencies whose purpose are to destroy popular movements seeking change. Most
people also don't want to admit it, but when a government can launch dozens of wars, killing millions of people, it's obvious
that government would kill it's citizens to keep power. The wrong people are blamed for 911.
"The nation that neglects social inequality, mischievously increases military budgets, and then uses its power internally to
suppress the citizens on the pretext of invasion by an external enemy is on the road to extinction." - Yang Wenli, Legend of
the Galactic Heroes.
Stop calling them ELITE, they are THE POLITICAL CRIMINAL CLASS, and as long as we cook their meals, drive their limos, tailor
their suits, and guard them while they sleep, they are not untouchable. None of them.
Right now, the puppet masters are laughing, pitting one puppet against the other, white vs. black, man vs. woman, worker
vs. unemployed, police vs. citizens, while they rob you blind and enslave your children in debt and austerity...
Now "Horrible Lisa" re-surfaced in MSNBC. Not surprising one bit. This is a deep state retirement package...
Notable quotes:
"... Barack Obama wanted to 'know everything' the FBI was 'doing' according to newly released text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ..."
Barack Obama wanted to 'know everything' the FBI was 'doing' according to newly released text messages between FBI lovers
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ; reaction and analysis on 'The Five.'
Slime, slime and more slime. Obama headed up the whole thing. Zero integrity there.
The leaders of the Democratic Party, Barrak
Obama, Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, Chuck Schummer, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Shiff and his sisters father-in-law
George Soros.
Here is what this all boils down to. Hillary Clinton email to Donna Brazile, Oct., 17, 2016. "If that f*cking ba*tard
wins, we're all going to hang from nooses! You better fix this sh*t!"
"In decades past the scenes of arson and looting that followed the Floyd protests in many
cities would have driven voters to a Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan..."
The protesters who took to the streets after
the killing of George Floyd have something in common with Donald Trump : they share an interest in
his re-election.
Trump's re-election prospects [now] are better than his lackluster poll numbers suggest.
Yes, Biden
leads in most national polls. But recent state-level polling shows a tight contest, which
is all the more telling in light of the great burden that the COVID crisis and Floyd protests have imposed
on Trump in recent weeks.
... ... ...
Campus America is the political ideal of a generation. And the college-educated
professionals who subscribe to this ideal may have little to fear and much to gain from it. The
losers will be, as always, the less well-off, especially black Americans, whose lives are
significantly more threatened by criminals than by police officers. "Black Lives Matter" is a
slogan that doesn't apply to black-on-black crime, certainly not with anything like the force
it applies to the rarer instances of white-on-black crime and police abuse. This doesn't matter
to the socially awakened young elite of today -- how many of them ever plan to set foot in a
place like Ferguson,
Missouri? See no evil, hear no evil.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review, and
Editor-at-Large of The American Conservative.
But even among those who justified the unrest, there was a sense that it, particularly the
video of looting and violence, could result in a sense of "white backlash" and play into
President Trump's reelection effort. This is a president who used his inaugural address to
promise to fight "American Carnage" and has successfully appealed to "white backlash"
throughout his career.
The history of urban unrest – starting with the 1967-68 riots,
but extending through 1992 and 2014 – was consistent with the belief that Trump could
benefit politically. Indeed, the 1968 riots helped both George Wallace and Richard Nixon run on
"law and order" platforms, the 1992 riots arguably helped lead to the 1994 "Super Predators"
crime bill, and the 2014 protests clearly, in the end, benefited Trump politically.
Indeed, many assumed that the response would help Trump successfully benefit from the 2020
unrest. Among those was Trump himself, who came out strongly arguing for "law and order"
–criticizing governors who were not dealing sufficiently harshly with protesters, sending
the U.S. military into Washington, D.C., and suggesting he was going to send them into other
cities as well.
But so far, it hasn't worked out politically as some expected. Trump's poll numbers continue
to decline – Biden currently leads him by eight points in the RealClearPolitics
average
Trump reacted by calling up the military and a myriad of federal police forces to
'dominate the battlespace' of Washington DC and other cities.
Trump did NOT call up the military in any US city out side of Washington DC, which is a
district, so not a state, controlled by the federal government.
Nor are federal police out on the streets in the protests outside of Washington DC.
Right, there are quite possibly special forces units acting as agent provocateurs--sort of
akin to the US Army sniper team that was the back-up when the Memphis PD killed MLK in
1968.
Right, that Biden line is racist dog whistle crap. Telling many people to "vote Trump or
stay home in November".
While the White House propagandists were making that video, Tucker Carlson was, well,
reading the riot act to Trump on his program. Here is his entire 26-minute monologue. Carlson
is disgusted by the leadership class in this country, which includes Trump's weakness:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/3n5_D59lSjc
Trump's weakness does not necessarily consist of his not sending in troops to shoot looters.
It consists of him having no idea what to do other than create a pathetic propaganda moment
that is so transparently cheap that it makes you throw up a little bit in your mouth.
Trollope's lines are a fitting epitaph for the MAGA dream, which died last night in front of
St. John's Church:
But the glory has been the glory of pasteboard, and the wealth has been a wealth of
tinsel. The wit has been the wit of hairdressers, and the enterprise has been the enterprise
of mountebanks.
To be fair, the crises that have hit the United States in 2020 would have challenged the
most able chief executive. Trump's weaknesses -- in particular, his disinterest in mastering
details and his habit of confusing bluster for substance -- have made a difficult situation
much worse. It is undoubtedly the case that the Democrats and the media are a serious threat to
the kinds of things conservatives value, and it is certainly true that the press is dishonest.
All of these things can be true, and at the same time , Trump's incompetence and
unfitness for the high office he holds made intolerably manifest.
Not only did they fire tear gas and flashbangs and rubber bullets at peaceful protesters in
Lafayette Square, they fired them at a priest and a seminarian on the grounds of the church
to make way for his photo op. Every day this profoundly sick man plumbs new depths of
depravity.
https://religionnews.com/20...
This was all very good and correct, except for one item:
"The Minneapolis Police Department has been under the control of Democratic mayors for
decades."
If the events of the past week have shown anything, it would be that municipal law
enforcement is under the effective control of no one but themselves.
They are under control of the police union. It is extremely difficult to get rid of bad
cops. I'm in favor of commercial unions when membership is voluntary but police unions (and
some teachers unions and other public employee unions) have really steamrollered local
government to the extent that the public interest is not served.
Even in Atlanta, where the police seem to be handling this better than most other cities,
six cops have been charged with harassing an African-American couple stuck in traffic. The
video is disgusting.
Curiously, the two ringleader cops (who've been fired) are themselves Black. This is not
just a racial issue but a police culture problem.
Yahoo Finance analyzed the Wharton Model's projections of GDP declines for all 50 states
and the District of Columbia under each of three scenarios: lockdown, partial reopening,
and fully reopening with and without social distancing. The analysis also calculated the
percentage boost each state is forecasted to experience if they reopened their state with
social distancing in place compared to remaining under lockdown.
Currently, most states have decided to fully or partially reopen, with New Jersey,
Illinois, Michigan, and Delaware as the remaining holdouts in lockdown. They all plan to
open by June 1.
But even if all states were to reopen, Republican states will find the GDP losses they
face as a result of the coronavirus pandemic are less than the ones facing their Democratic
counterparts.
IT IS A cruel twist that America, which is already strongly polarised between Republicans
and Democrats, should suffer a health crisis that splits the country deeper along those
lines. That, so far, is what covid-19 has done. By mid-May the official mortality rate was
three times higher, on average, in states won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 than in those won
by Donald Trump. President Trump has often insinuated that this is because of incompetence
by local politicians, whom he also holds responsible for the economic harm wrought on their
constituents. He tweeted on April 27th: "Why should the people and taxpayers of America be
bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat
run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help?"
Data gathered by Opportunity Insights, a research institution based at Harvard
University, confirm that the pandemic has affected workers and companies more severely in
blue (Democratic) states than in red (Republican) ones. Between January 15th and April 9th,
the number of weekly unemployment claims per 100 workers in Trump-supporting states
increased from 1.1 to 12.7. That is a big rise, but smaller than that in Clinton-supporting
states, where the number jumped from 1.9 to 16. The divergence in consumer spending is even
starker.
The US should dissolve like Ex-Yugoslavia or rather like Czechoslovakia - that's the more
peaceful solution.
He pretends America is strong and healthy and we pretend to believe him. The more we
unravel, the more we need to believe that we have the strongest economy and greatest
military.
"... The irony is that Biden is a lowlife who inflames hatred and reinforces divisions while holding up a moral shield. He has always chosen expedient lies over the truth to get elected. Support for him shows a desperate hate of Trump. ..."
I don't think the Dems want to win. Nobody wants the next four years. Hell, nobody wants the
next eight years or twelve or sixteen. Except the criminally insane autocrats.
Not that I think the Dems in control of the executive and legislative branches would
change the course of events. The collapse is in full swing. It's a steam roller at this
point. A freight train. An avalanche. There's no more blood to squeeze from the rocks. Game
over. Except it and manage the decline as humanely and constructively and equitably as
possible or else let chaos reign and lead which is an existential gambit for sure but one the
extractive elites appear to have chosen.
The individual states need to realize they are on their own. Trump and Congressional gopers
and dems have abandoned them in favor of working full time for FIRE (very new and revealing
term for me) and various other elite interests. Each state will need to form various
alliances with other states to develop proverbial out of the box solutions including
developing independent import and trade agreements with China and the EU among others.
If Trump is as smart as he claims to be he will...
He doesn't need to be smart per se. He just needs to be **smarter** than Joe Biden. Just
like he was smarter than Hillary + all the legacy media in 2016 to such an extent that to
deny they had been outsmarted... #Russiagate was born lol
The irony is that Biden is a lowlife who inflames hatred and reinforces divisions
while holding up a moral shield. He has always chosen expedient lies over the truth to get
elected. Support for him shows a desperate hate of Trump.
Writing Trump's political obituary has become something of a global cottage industry over the
last four years.
Also true is he is looking isolated, sad and lonely right now.
Best wait and see. We have all underestimated him before.
Democrats wait for Republicans to act, then position themselves a hair's width to the
left. Then they wring their hands and shed lots of crocodile tears about Republicans'
proposals before signing off on whatever Republicans want.
I liken the Democrats to the Washington Generals, who lost almost every game to the Harlem
Globetrotters. When they won, it was accidental. Bubba won in '92 due to Perot's presence.
Obama won only because of the financial crisis. Though they are committed losers, there could
be no game without them.
Democrats are totally pathetic.
Now there are lots pundits are praising the new Joe Biden, whose makeover will
disappear the day after the election.
In any event, the publication of the Mueller report has cleared things up for me. I get it now. The investigation was never about
Trump colluding with Russia. It was always about Trump obstructing the investigation of the collusion with Russia that the investigation
was not about. Mueller was never looking for collusion. It was not his job to look for collusion.
His job was to look for obstruction of his investigation of alleged obstruction of his investigation of non-collusion, which he
found, and detailed at length in his report, and which qualifies as an impeachable offense.
... ... ...
In other words, his investigation was launched in order to investigate the obstruction of his investigation. And, on those terms,
it was a huge success. The fact that it didn't prove "collusion" means nothing -- that's just a straw man argument that Trump and
his Russian handlers make. The goal all along was to prove that Trump obstructed an investigation of his obstruction of that investigation,
not that he was "colluding" with Putin, or any of the other paranoid nonsense that the corporate media were forced to report on,
once an investigation into his obstruction of the investigation was launched.
"... The Democrats are fielding as candidates a roster of middle-school clowns and unflavored tapioca. Are they secretly in Trump's pay? Like Clinton with her "Deplorables" suicide line? ..."
They're going to do it, I tell you: The whole touchy-feely do-gooding ratpack of Microaggression worriers, reparations freaks,
weird sexual curiosities, race hustlers, bat.-Antifa psychos, and egalitarian enstupidators of universities. They are going to elect
Trump. Again.
Washington, where I shortly will be for a bit, is crazy. It has not the slightest, wan, etiolated idea of what is going on in
America. The Democrats are fielding as candidates a roster of middle-school clowns and unflavored tapioca. Are they secretly in Trump's
pay? Like Clinton with her "Deplorables" suicide line?
2016 a Russia-Trump campaign collusion conspiracy was afoot and unfolding right before our eyes, we were told, as during his roll-out
foreign
policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., then candidate Trump said [ gasp! ]:
" Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries.
Some say the Russians won't be reasonable. I intend to find out."
NPR and others had breathlessly
reported at the time, "Sergey Kislyak, then the Russian ambassador to the U.S., was sitting in the front row" [ more gasps! ].
This 'suspicious'
"coincidence or something more?" event and of course the infamous
Steele 'Dodgy Dossier' were
followed by over two more years of the following connect-the-dots mere tiny sampling of unrestrained theorizing and avalanche of
accusations...
2019, Wired: Trump Must Be
A Russian Agent... (where we were told...ahem: " It would be rather embarrassing ... if Robert Mueller were to declare that
the president isn't an agent of Russian intelligence." )
It's especially worth noting that a
July 2018 New York Times
op-ed argued that President Trump -- dubbed a "treasonous traitor" for meeting with Putin in Helsinki -- should "be directing
all resources at his disposal to punish Russia."
Fast-forward to a July 2019 NY Times Editorial Board piece entitled
"What's America's Winning Hand if Russia
Plays the China Card?" How dizzying fast all of the above has been wiped from America's collective memory! Or at least the Times
is engaged in hastily pushing it all down the memory hole Orwell-style in order to cover its own dastardly tracks which contributed
in no small measure to non-stop national Russiagate hype and hysteria, with this astounding line:
That's right, The Times' pundits have already pivoted to the new bogeyman while stating they agree with Trump
on Russian relations :
"Given its economic, military and technological trajectory, together with its authoritarian model, China, not Russia , represents
by far the greater challenge to American objectives over the long term . That means President Trump is correct to try to establish
a sounder relationship with Russia and peel it away from China ."
It's 2019, and we've now come full circle . This is The New York Times editorial board continuing their call for Trump to establish
"sounder" ties and "cooperation" with
Russia :
"Even during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union often made progress in one facet of their relationship while
they remained in conflict over other aspects. The United States and Russia could expand their cooperation in space . They could
also continue to work closely in the Arctic And they could revive cooperation on arms control."
Could we imagine if a mere six months ago Trump himself had uttered these same words? Now the mainstream media apparently agrees
that peace is better than war with Russia.
With 'Russiagate' now effectively dead, the NY Times' new criticism appears to be that Trump-Kremlin relations are not close enough
, as Trump's "approach has been ham-handed " - the 'paper of record' now tells us.
Or imagine if Trump had called for peaceful existence with Russia almost four years ago? Oh wait...
" Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries."
-- Then candidate Trump on
April 27, 2016
...If you bomb Syria, do not admit you did it to install your puppet regime or to lay a
pipeline. Say you did it to save the Aleppo kids gassed by Assad the Butcher. If you occupy
Afghanistan, do not admit you make a handsome profit smuggling heroin; say you came to protect
the women. If you want to put your people under total surveillance, say you did it to prevent
hate groups target the powerless and diverse.
Remember: you do not need to ask children, women or immigrants whether they want your
protection. If pushed, you can always find a few suitable profiles to look at the cameras and
repeat a short text. With all my dislike for R2P (Responsibility to Protect) hypocrisy, I can't
possibly blame the allegedly protected for the disaster caused by the unwanted protectors.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Agent Smith, you testified that the Russians hacked the DNC computers, is that correct?
FBI AGENT JOHN SMITH: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Upon what information did you base your testimony?
AGENT: Information found in reports analyzing the breach of the computers.
DEF ATT: So, the FBI prepared these reports?
AGENT: (cough) . (shift in seat) No, a cyber security contractor with the FBI.
DEF ATT: Pardon me, why would a contractor be preparing these reports? Do these contractors run the FBI laboratories where
the server was examined?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: No? No what? These contractors don't run the FBI Laboratories?
AGENT: No. The laboratories are staffed by FBI personnel.
DEF ATT: Well I don't understand. Why would contractors be writing reports about computers that are forensically examined in
FBI laboratories?
AGENT: Well, the servers were not examined in the FBI laboratory.
(silence)
DEF ATT: Oh, so the FBI examined the servers on site to determine who had hacked them and what was taken?
AGENT: Uh .. no.
DEF ATT: They didn't examine them on site?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Well, where did they examine them?
AGENT: Well, uh .. the FBI did not examine them.
DEF ATT: What?
AGENT: The FBI did not directly examine the servers.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, the FBI has presented to the Grand Jury and to this court and SWORN AS FACT that the Russians hacked
the DNC computers. You are basing your SWORN testimony on a report given to you by a contractor, while the FBI has NEVER actually
examined the computer hardware?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, who prepared the analysis reports that the FBI relied on to give this sworn testimony?
AGENT: Crowdstrike, Inc.
DEF ATT: So, which Crowdstrike employee gave you the report?
AGENT: We didn't receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: What?
AGENT: We did not receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: Well, where did you find this report?
AGENT: It was given to us by the people who hired Crowdstrike to examine and secure their computer network and hardware.
DEF ATT: Oh, so the report was given to you by the technical employees for the company that hired Crowdstrike to examine their
servers?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Well, who gave you the report?
AGENT: Legal counsel for the company that hired Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: Why would legal counsel be the ones giving you the report?
AGENT: I don't know.
DEF ATT: Well, what company hired Crowdstrike?
AGENT: The Democratic National Committee.
DEF ATT: Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You are giving SWORN testimony to this court that Russia hacked the servers
of the Democratic National Committee. And you are basing that testimony on a report given to you by the LAWYERS for the Democratic
National Committee. And you, the FBI, never actually saw or examined the computer servers?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Well, can you provide a copy of the technical report produced by Crowdstrike for the Democratic National Committee?
AGENT: No, I cannot.
DEF ATT: Well, can you go back to your office and get a copy of the report?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why? Are you locked out of your office?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: I don't understand. Why can you not provide a copy of this report?
AGENT: Because I do not have a copy of the report.
DEF ATT: Did you lose it?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why do you not have a copy of the report?
AGENT: Because we were never given a final copy of the report.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, if you didn't get a copy of the report, upon what information are you basing your testimony?
AGENT: On a draft copy of the report.
DEF ATT: A draft copy?
AGENT: Yes.
DEF ATT: Was a final report ever delivered to the FBI?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, did you get to read the entire report?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why not?
AGENT: Because large portions were redacted.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, let me get this straight. The FBI is claiming that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. But the FBI never
actually saw the computer hardware, nor examined it? Is that correct?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: And the FBI never actually examined the log files or computer email or any aspect of the data from the servers? Is
that correct?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: And you are basing your testimony on the word of Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, the people who provided
you with a REDACTED copy of a DRAFT report, not on the actual technical personnel who supposedly examined the servers?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Your honor, I have a few motions I would like to make at this time.
PRESIDING JUDGE: I'm sure you do, Counselor. (as he turns toward the prosecutors) And I feel like I am in a mood to grant them.
Brilliant! that sums it up nicely. of course, if the servers were not hacked and were instead "thumbnailed" that leads to a
whole pile of other questions (including asking wiileaks for their source and about the murder of seth rich).
Former Vice President Joe Biden has released
a video statement telling the American people that the
accusations he is now facing
of touching women in inappropriate ways without their consent is the product of changing "social norms", assuring everyone that
he will indeed be adjusting to those changes.
And thank goodness. For a minute there, I was worried Biden might cave under the pressure of a looming scandal and decline to
run for president on the grounds that it could cripple his campaign and leave America facing another four years of Donald Trump.
Here are nine good reasons why I hope Joe Biden runs for president, and why you should support him too:
1. It's his turn.
It's Biden's turn to be president. He's spent years playing second fiddle while other leading Democrats hogged all the limelight,
and that's not fair. He's been waiting very patiently. Come on.
2. Most Qualified Candidate Ever.
If Joe Biden secures the Democratic Party nomination for president, he would be the Most Qualified Candidate Ever to run for
office. His service as a US Senator and a Vice President has given him unparalleled experience priming him for the most powerful
elected office in the world. Everything Biden has done throughout his entire career proves that he'd make a great Commander-in-Chief.
3. He's closely associated with a popular Democratic president.
You think Biden, you think Obama. You think Obama, you think greatness. You can't spend that much time with a great Democratic
president without absorbing his greatness yourself. It's called osmosis.
4. You liked Obama, didn't you?
Biden was part of the Obama administration. Remember the Obama administration? It was magical, right? If you want more of that,
vote Biden.
5. But Trump!
Do you want Trump to win the next election? You know he'll shatter all our norms and literally end the world if he does, right?
You should be terrified of the possibility of Trump winning in 2020, and if you are, you should want him running against Joe Biden.
What's the alternative? Nominating some crazy unelectable socialist like Bernie Sanders? Might as well just hand Trump the victory
now, then. Anyone who wants to beat Trump must fall in line behind the Most Qualified Candidate Ever.
6. Iraq wasn't so bad.
Okay, maybe some of his past foreign policy positions look bad in hindsight, but come on. Pushing for the Iraq war was what
everyone was doing back in those days. It was all the rage. We all made it through, right? I mean, most of us?
7. This is happening whether you like it or not.
We're doing this. We're going to push Joe Biden through whether you like it or not, and we can do it the easy way or the hard
way. Just relax, take deep breaths, and think about a nice place far away from here. Don't struggle. This will be over before
you know it. We'll use plenty of lube.
8. Just vote for him.
Just vote for him, you insolent little shits. Who the fuck do you think you are, anyway? You think you're entitled to a bunch
of ponies and unicorns like healthcare and drinkable water? You only think that because you're a bunch of racist, sexist homophobes.
You will vote for who we tell you to or we'll spend the next four years calling you all Russian agents and screaming about Susan
Sarandon.
9. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Honestly, what could possibly go wrong? It's not like the Most Qualified Candidate Ever could manage to lose an election to
some oafish reality TV star. Hell, Biden could beat Trump in his sleep. He could even skip campaigning in Michigan, Wisconsin
and Pennsylvania and still win by a landslide, because those states are in the bag. There's no way he could fail, barring some
unprecedented and completely unforeseeable freak occurrences from way out of left field that nobody could possibly have anticipated.
Neoliberal MSM just “got it wrong,” again … exactly like was the case
with those Iraqi WMDs ;-).
So many neocons and neolibs seem so disappointed to find out that the President is not a
Russian asset that it looks they’d secretly wish be ruled by Putin :-).
But in reality there well might be a credible "Trump copllition with the foreign power". Only
with a different foreign power. Looks like Trump traded American foreign policy for Zionist
money, not Russian money. That means that "the best-Congress-that-AIPAC-money-can-buy" will never
impeach him for that.
And BTW as long as Schiff remains the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee the witch
hunt is not over. So the leash remains strong.
Notable quotes:
"... it appears that hundreds of millions of Americans have, once again, been woefully bamboozled . Weird, how this just keeps on happening. At this point, Americans have to be the most frequently woefully bamboozled people in the entire history of woeful bamboozlement. ..."
"... That's right, as I'm sure you're aware by now, it turns out President Donald Trump, a pompous former reality TV star who can barely string three sentences together without totally losing his train of thought and barking like an elephant seal, is not, in fact, a secret agent conspiring with the Russian intelligence services to destroy the fabric of Western democracy. ..."
"... Paranoid collusion-obsessives will continue to obsess about redactions and cover-ups , but the long and short of the matter is, there will be no perp walks for any of the Trumps. No treason tribunals. No televised hangings. No detachment of Secret Service agents marching Hillary into the White House. ..."
So the Mueller report is finally in, and it appears that hundreds of millions of
Americans have, once again, been woefully bamboozled . Weird, how this just keeps on happening.
At this point, Americans have to be the most frequently woefully bamboozled people in the
entire history of woeful bamboozlement.
If you didn't know better, you'd think we were all a bunch of hopelessly credulous imbeciles
that you could con into believing almost anything, or that our brains had been bombarded with
so much propaganda from the time we were born that we couldn't really even think anymore.
That's right, as I'm sure you're aware by now, it turns out President Donald Trump, a
pompous former reality TV star who can barely string three sentences together without totally
losing his train of thought and barking like an elephant seal, is not, in fact, a secret agent
conspiring with the Russian intelligence services to destroy the fabric of Western
democracy.
After two long years of bug-eyed hysteria, Inspector Mueller came up with squat. Zip. Zero.
Nichts. Nada. Or, all right, he indicted a bunch of Russians that will never see the inside of
a courtroom, and a few of Trump's professional sleazebags for lying and assorted other
sleazebag activities (so I guess that was worth the $25 million of taxpayers' money that was
spent on this circus).
Notwithstanding those historic accomplishments, the entire Mueller investigation now appears
to have been another wild goose chase (like the "search" for those non-existent WMDs that we
invaded and destabilized the Middle East and murdered hundreds of thousands of people
pretending to conduct in 2003). Paranoid collusion-obsessives will continue to obsess about
redactions and
cover-ups , but the long and short of the matter is, there will be no perp walks for any of
the Trumps. No treason tribunals. No televised hangings. No detachment of Secret Service agents
marching Hillary into the White House.
The jig, as they say, is up.
But let's try to look on the bright side, shall we?
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity
in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into
the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite
power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes
sense
Trump's threat to deploy the military here
is an excessive and dangerous one. Mark Perry reports on the reaction from military officers to
the president's threat:
Senior military officer on Trump statement: "So we're going to tell our soldiers that we're
redeploying them from the Middle East to the midwest? What do we think they're going to say,
'yeah, sure, no problem?' Guess again."
According to the standards set by the Trump administration when the Guaido coup first launched,
the video footage of these protests is full justification for a foreign nation to directly
intervene and remove Trump from office by force right now.
It would hardly surprise me if the regime change obsession has come home and now the US is
"enjoying" all of the democracy building color revolutions they love so much. No matter how
this end it will not end well for 99% of Americans
"... All this race hatred, discrimination and societal engineering should have been over in the 60s and 70s , but the USG always needs to have an enemy . In fact it pays to have several , ask the Pentagon and the Law Enforcement Agencies, in regards to wages, benefits, kickbacks, cash theft, and pensions , these days. ..."
"... You want the Trump you voted for? You got him. A liar with all the integrity of a corona virus. You indirectly voted for Bibi too. Don't try to claim you didn't know for heavens sake. Kushners and Trumps are openly in Bibi's pocket. It was in plain sight and you voted accordingly. ..."
"... Trump was always a weak coward who believes in nothing, save the ego of Trump. Events have simply caught up to him. If the Republicans stick with this useless coward, not only are they committing suicide as a Party, they are dooming the nation as well. ..."
Trump is a narcissistic windbag clown, that lied his way into Bill Clinton's Oral Office.
I know, personally, how evil he is.
Total JooStooge and he deserves nothing less than complete rejection by those he fooled honest law-abiding working Christian
Americans.
Good riddance.
Of course Hillary is worse. Of course Biden is worse.
But until real Americans finally realize that we can't wait for a saviour, but have to save ourselves, Trump and his kind will
continue to drag us deeper into the bog of Joogoo.
All this race hatred, discrimination and societal engineering should have been over in the 60s and 70s , but the USG always
needs to have an enemy . In fact it pays to have several , ask the Pentagon and the Law Enforcement Agencies, in regards to wages,
benefits, kickbacks, cash theft, and pensions , these days.
But the Owners knew, that keeping the populace fighting, is like money in the Banks { literally } so those folks breaking through
for Peace in the 60s, had to be silenced, bought off, run off or assassinated. It's been one evil social game after another –
and its more visible today , than it was 50 yrs ago- I won't get started on what or who put the nail in the coffin, with the 1965
Open, Unlimited, Unvetted Immigration changes.
You want the Trump you voted for? You got him. A liar with all the integrity of a corona virus. You indirectly voted for Bibi
too. Don't try to claim you didn't know for heavens sake. Kushners and Trumps are openly in Bibi's pocket. It was in plain sight
and you voted accordingly.
Where were all these voters weeping into their coffee when the primaries were held?. The best
choice was Rand Paul – got nowhere – as all these now weeping cupcakes voted for Trump – a man with such an appalling record of
honesty and integrity and an insult to any decent person.
You voted for Trump. And have voted for Hillary for years too. Probably the worlds biggest financial criminal and a war criminal
without parallel even by US standards.. You also voted for Bush one and two. Obama twice. And one of the most corrupt and hideous
candidates – Bill Clinton also Twice. And you imposed this roll of lies and dishonour onto the entire planet.
No wonder America and its people are being seen as depraved and stupid, lacking in simple understanding of international law
and any decency and honour.
And now all set to vote for Biden are you? A rapist and vilely corrupt, outstandingly so in a bed of of corruption misnamed Washington.
So you will vote for a man who has so far refused to arrest and put on trial the group of men and women who would appear
to be guilty of sedition and treason against your country?
Wow!. Traitors going to walk – so it seems.. Vote for a man so devoid of respect for America, its people, its rule of law and
its constitution. A band of absolute traitors to the state – laughing..
The day you see indictments of Comey, Brennan, McCabe and the rest of the nest of vipers – then consider your vote – but to
vote for a man who refuses – so far and its now years – to take action against those guilty of trying to overthrow the governance
of the United States – is not a man fit for the office of President. You need an outstanding third party candidate and the brains
to vote for them
Dream on. Biden ot Trump – are you mad or just brainwashed psychos. Its makes Xi look good.
Trump was always a weak coward who believes in nothing, save the ego of Trump. Events have simply caught up to him. If
the Republicans stick with this useless coward, not only are they committing suicide as a Party, they are dooming the nation as
well.
The current situation is nothing new. In '92 Mayor Bradley publicly announced no police would intervene in the LA riots because
it was too dangerous–thereby guaranteeing widespread arson and looting. Same thing in Baltimore a few years ago, it's okay 'we
just need to let the rioters blow off some steam'.
And why wasn't Antifa declared a terrorist organization three years ago? Why did they get a free pass all this time?
I guess nothing will happen until Netanyahu picks up the phone and tells Trump what to do.
@Herald Don't believe for a second that Joe Biden is being helped by any of this. Trump is a weak blowhard, but naming Antifa
a terrorist organization will be very important over the next three months.
Trump will win, but it'll be a vapid and lukewarm next four years of him trying to develop a "legacy" of sweetness and liberality.
Someone will come along, then, who will make him look like a pussy.
Trump has one weakness that he can't overcome even if his life depended on it. the love of money which is the driving force
behind his decisions and not the jingoistic hogwash about the love for America!
That weakness is one that is shared by those that rule this country. It is called avarice avarice for wealth and power. Trump
is a minion of the Deep State. Today in spite of all the shit the stock is up in pre market trading. If the market were valued
realistically it would have been down at least 30% from here before the recent bullshit.
@Anonymous Kirkpatrick was declaring Trump in freefall, a fool who abandoned his early promises, etc., as early as the 2016
Wisconsin primary. He has been writing variations on this theme for four years, and I don't know why anyone takes him seriously.
Do I want Trump to declare martial law, round up every last BLM and Antifa member, and start telling everyone that Floyd got what
was coming to him? Of course. Do I expect him to do it? Of course not. A lot of people don't seem able to understand that Trump
is not playing to us, or to the blacks, when he tries to take the middle road when dealing with situations like this; he's playing
to the enormous amount of middle-class suburban Boomers and Evangelicals out there, who unfortunately he can't get elected without,
and who will never be willing to accept the truth about vibrancy and its effects. To them, black folks are still sacred objects,
and they will freak out in large numbers if the President starts mouthing "white nationalist" rhetoric and having "protesters"
gunned down in the streets. I love Trump and appreciate what he's been able to do, but he can't save people who aren't willing
to be saved–and since that includes a majority of the "conservative" citizens, America is ultimately unsalvageable, regardless
of what Trump does or doesn't do.
This riots in no way represent a danger to Trump other then in PR. They have zero
organization and most rioters soon iether be arrested or gone home. In a way "Occupy Wall Street"
was a more dangerous for the elite movement. This is just a nuisance.
As for elections on one side Trump again demonstrated upper incompetence and inability to act
with some nuance, on t he other it discredited Democrats identity politics.
Notable quotes:
"... Live Updates, George Floyd Protests Continue ..."
"... Twitter changed its profile to honor Black Lives Matter amid George Floyd protests ..."
"... Business Insider, ..."
"... Looter shot dead by pawn shop owner,' during George Floyd riots ..."
"... Family identifies federal officer shot, killed in connection with George Floyd protest in Oakland ..."
"... Woman Found Dead Inside Car In North Minneapolis Amid 2 nd Of Looting ..."
"... , Fires, CBS Minnesota, ..."
"... Separate shootings leave 3 dead in Indianapolis overnight ..."
"... Attorney General William P. Barr's Statement on Riots and Domestic Terrorism ..."
"... , Department of Justice, ..."
"... Tim Walz Blames Riots On 'Outsiders,' Cartels And White Supremacists -- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Joy Reid Join in ..."
"... St. Paul police rebut social media theory that officer instigated Minneapolis unrest ..."
"... Right-Wing Conspiracists Pull From Old Playbook: Blame George Soros For Riots ..."
"... LA appeals for National Guard as looting spreads, ..."
"... George Floyd's brother says Trump 'kept pushing me off' during call ..."
"... Advantage Biden, with risks; Trump disapproval grows: POLL ..."
"... Bush Wins Points for Speech on L.A. Riots ..."
"... The Christian Science Monitor, ..."
"... When trump spoke at AIPAC before the 2016 election, I already wrote him off. I was 1000% on the money. ..."
"... Trump was always the Pied Piper, following Hillary's orders while leading foolish populists off the cliff. If you're still expecting anything else from him, you're deluded. ..."
"... A true opponent of Deepstate would have spent the first month firing and jailing thousands of bureaucrats. Trump didn't fire anyone at all. ..."
"... Trump is finished. Unfortunately, his opponents are just as corrupt and criminal. ..."
"... I see a lot of whites among the protesters. How much of that is anger over Floyd and how much is pent up rage over the senseless lockdowns I cant say. ..."
"... As in 2016, people will again vote Trump as a giant FU to the Left, which they'll perceive as having caused, if not instigated this crisis. Disaffected Trump supporters who might not have bothered this time, are rethinking that as we speak. At this point, a Trump landslide is a very real possibility. ..."
"... the unholy and fragile Democrat alliance that includes white-hating blacks, left-indoctrinated students, hysterical femmes, radical queers, antifa terrorists, disaffected POC, and white 'moderates' constitutes an arranged political marriage that will not endure ..."
"... On the other hand, Trump now gets to advocate for political stability, cultural continuity, and even physical safety. The unhinged, far-too-left looters now seen on TV are actually a Godsend for Trump. Watch him amass most of what's left of America's silent (white, middle class) majority on election-day. Regular folks will reemerge as a unified block in the wake of these despicable acts of lawlessness and greed. ..."
"... It would take more then a department store and a police precinct to make a point: "We want leadership, not profiteering", "Bust the bulb" add focus. Corporate headquarters, gated communities, the White House, Capitol Hill, Millionaire communities, airports, bridges, paralysing the hardware farms of Google, Facebook and Twitter, spreading to cities as London, Amsterdam, Paris, great opportunities there. "No borders, no castles". Disruption is a start and a means to an end. Explaining comes later. Only going that direction would cause any effects that last. ..."
President Donald Trump ran on a Law And Order platform
in 2016 but he's currently presiding over the most widespread civil disorder of this
generation. The obvious reality: these riots are simply an excuse for
blacks to loot without fear of punishment. Without an immediate policy of
ruthless coercion directed and executed by the federal government, most Americans will
correctly assume that Trump is unwilling or incapable of defending their lives and property. If
so, his re-election campaign is probably finished -- and America along with it.
Link Bookmark It's hard to overstate the extent of the violence, with riots, arson and
looting in Scottsdale, Dallas,
New York , Ferguson, St. Louis, Richmond and countless other cities [
Live Updates, George Floyd Protests Continue, by Tony Lee,
Breitbart, May 30, 2020]. In Minneapolis, where the riots began, Mayor Jacob Frey
blamed riots on " white
supremacists ," an insane conspiracy theory which went completely unchecked by Twitter's
"fact checkers." Twitter itself, showing utter contempt for President Trump's
executive order alleging political bias, changed its profile to show solidarity with Black
Lives Matter [ Twitter
changed its profile to honor Black Lives Matter amid George Floyd protests,
by Ellen Cranley, Business Insider, May 31, 2020].
It is useless to try to find all the examples, they are incalculable, as is the number of
businesses destroyed or the amount of property damage.
President Trump said Sunday morning the government would declare Antifa a
terrorist organization. Attorney General William Barr said violence "instigated and carried out
by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and
will be treated accordingly" [ Attorney General William P. Barr's Statement on Riots and Domestic Terrorism,
Department of Justice, May 31, 2020].
We'll know that this is serious if these Leftist networks, which raise money and operate
openly, are arrested using the RICO statutes and other prosecutorial tools.
President Trump has avoided addressing the nation, reportedly because
First Son-In-Law Jared Kushner thinks
it will make things worse [ LA appeals for National
Guard as looting spreads, by Ella Torres, William Mansell, and Christina Carrega,
ABC News, May 31, 2020]. But, as with his handling of the coronavirus, Trump is
suffering politically not because he is being too forceful, but because he is being too
weak.
Trump called George Floyd's family, but the family is condemning him for it, not praising
his compassion [ George Floyd's brother says Trump 'kept pushing me off' during call, by
Martin Pengelly, The Guardian, May 31, 2020]. He now heavily trails Joe Biden in the
polls and is once again falling into his signature trap: saying tough things that infuriate
Leftists without backing up his words with action that rallies the Right [ Advantage Biden, with risks; Trump disapproval grows: POLL, by Gary
Langer, ABC News, May 31, 2020].
During the Los Angeles Riots, even
President George H.W. Bush eventually sent in the Marines and then addressed
the nation, simultaneously displaying leadership and paternal concern for the American people [
Bush Wins Points
for Speech on L.A. Riots, by Linda Feldmann, The Christian Science
Monitor, May 4, 1992].
President Trump thus far is limited to vague tweets about "STRENGTH!' without much tangible
proof of it.
Even worse, in the case of this "STRENGTH" tweet, Twitter once again instantly suspended the
account of the person President Trump quote-tweeted.
The company knows the White House won't do anything. This situation is becoming increasingly
humiliating not just for the president, but for his supporters.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump seemed to have remarkable luck, with extraordinary events
breaking in his favor. In the run-up to this election, he hasn't had great luck, but he has had
a series of crises that any competent nationalist politician could have easily exploited:
He
had a
foreign pandemic and huge public support for enacting at least a
temporary immigration moratorium or more creative economic
populist policies . Instead, he disastrously tried to downplay the pandemic to try to
appease the stock market in the short term. He has Twitter revealing its bias to the entire
world, giving him a sure-fire rationale for protecting the free speech of his supporters. This
would dramatically ease his task of fighting the Main Stream Media/ Democrat cartel during the
re-election campaign. However, the president has done nothing substantive, once again coming
off as weak and feckless and leaving his supporters isolated. Now, he has nationwide riots and
videos of businesses being burned to the ground, all being essentially cheered on by his
MSM/Dem opponents. America is begging for a crackdown. Instead, President Trump is blaming
Democratic state and local elected officials rather than taking action himself.
If he doesn't, he can't be surprised if Leftists simply become more emboldened, and if
demoralized patriots stay away from the polls.
This is President Trump's one last chance not to let his voters down. If he blows it, I
think the 2020 campaign will be irredeemable -- and unlike Republicans, Democrats will have no
problem in using government power to
crush their political enemies once they are in the White House again.
Why doesn't Trump realize Jared is a viper at the heart of his family and administration? He
absolutely needs to address the nation. Jared might be setting up another style of coup
attempt.
You're four years late. Trump was always the Pied Piper, following Hillary's orders while
leading foolish populists off the cliff. If you're still expecting anything else from him,
you're deluded.
There's one small point of forgiveness for fools. Obama showed his Deepstate loyalty
BEFORE the 2008 election, so there was no reason for any honest observer to vote for him.
Trump didn't show his hand until just AFTER the 2016 election. After the first week it was
amply clear that he had no intentions of "draining the swamp". A true opponent of
Deepstate would have spent the first month firing and jailing thousands of bureaucrats. Trump
didn't fire anyone at all.
Another white supremacist trash piece. You guys never learn. Trump is finished.
Unfortunately, his opponents are just as corrupt and criminal. This country is doomed
and it will not be able to redeem itself, and deserves what's coming to it. Especially, not
with the moronic and insensitive example of articles, authors and a blind culture that is
portrayed above.
I see a lot of whites among the protesters. How much of that is anger over Floyd and how
much is pent up rage over the senseless lockdowns I cant say.
If you look back to last year Barr developed his precrime program, Trump pushed HARPA/SAFE
HOME, bills for Domestic Terrorism were proposed, FBI issues memo that conspiracy theories
(question official narratives) promote terrorism , etc. This all happening while Crimson
Contagion exercises, Urban Outbreak Exercises and Event 201 simulation are happening.
Coincidence?
The Rockefeller Lockstep Report in 2010 predicted pushback
After Lockdowns over the virus , conditions were ripe for an explosion that would allow
the pre-crime/domestic terrorism agendas to get political support. Just needed a trigger and
I think the Floyd killing was an operation intended to be that trigger. Push back begins. The
protests gone violent with a convenient supply of bricks may be due to agent provocateurs.
Contract tracing apps issued before the protests will certainly be put to good use. Contract
tracers will be given another job.
Trump now declares antifa a Terrorist Group. Basically anyone opposed to fascism and
authoritarianism can be suspected of being antifa and a terrorist. How convenient for
fascists and authoritarians.
At this point people have to be considering the fact that Trump is more of a hindrance than a
help. He appears to be nothing more than a lullaby used to put his supporters to sleep,
secure in their delusions that they have a viable political future as long as they vote hard
enough.
If it takes a president Stacy Abrams to wake them up, then why not now? In the extremely
unlikely event that Trump pulls off another victory, what will be the purpose? He's clearly
demonstrated that he is incapable of any action beyond nominating a SC justice and tweeting.
4 more years of having to listen to delusional MAGA people is too much to stomach for no
payoff.
I'd rather have an obese gap toothed woman of color ordering the construction of all POC
settlements in white neighboorhoods. Maybe then the MAGA folks would wake up. Of course it's
more likely that they would start cheering Marco Rubio by claiming that he only wants to
build 10 apartments per un-diverse town instead of 30.
I'll preface this with I'm no fan of Donald Trump.
That said, I believe the soon-to-be-wrath of the people will fall mainly on state
governors and city mayors rather than on Trump. Polls mean nothing these days. 2016 proved
that one. What's right in front of many people today is that they've not only lost wages to
CV-19, but now, just as they're gearing up to return, their workplace is gone -- either
burned down, or indefinitely closed due to the riots and related damage to public
infrastructure.
Meanwhile in flyover country, people look on in horror at what, rightly or wrongly, is
associated in their minds with BLM and ANTIFA. That is to say The Left. Cartoonish, yes, but
that's what they see.
As in 2016, people will again vote Trump as a giant FU to the Left, which they'll
perceive as having caused, if not instigated this crisis. Disaffected Trump supporters who
might not have bothered this time, are rethinking that as we speak. At this point, a Trump
landslide is a very real possibility.
This is not the outcome I want -- that doesn't actually exist at this time -- but FWIW,
it's the way I see it playing out. I know history doesn't always repeat, but this looks a lot
like 1968 to me.
Trump is hiding in a bunker . Hope he stays there for good.
Yes. It's why some of us stayed home in 2016. A choice between Hillary, a lifelong flake,
and yet another third-rate actor. Did everyone forget that the other third-rate actor,
Reagan, gave the country away?
It's fitting for Trump to tweet and hide. He has successfully updated hit and run.
Welcome back, James Kirkpatrick! Trump has disappointed, and he may be down in the polls, but
he's not out.
This Mau Mau power grab (and the media's role in promoting it) is actually winning votes
for Trump. The President represents the rule of law. Civilization. This is a winning ticket.
And people are fed up with all the slick media favoritism. It's toxic.
Meanwhile, the unholy and fragile Democrat alliance that includes white-hating blacks,
left-indoctrinated students, hysterical femmes, radical queers, antifa terrorists,
disaffected POC, and white 'moderates' constitutes an arranged political marriage that
will not endure . Most of these assorted malcontents have only one thing that unites
them: hatred of Trump and his base. This is not a winning platform. Plus, sleepy Joe will
have to repudiate all this liberal violence and looting if he's to maintain his (allegedly)
leading position in the polls. BLM may not like this, nor will the uber-progressive wing of
the Democrat party. Expect fireworks.
On the other hand, Trump now gets to advocate for political stability, cultural
continuity, and even physical safety. The unhinged, far-too-left looters now seen on TV are
actually a Godsend for Trump. Watch him amass most of what's left of America's silent (white,
middle class) majority on election-day. Regular folks will reemerge as a unified block in the
wake of these despicable acts of lawlessness and greed.
After Trump chews up sleepy Joe in the debates, watch this race flip into a Trump
landslide. It happened for Nixon. Maybe then, Trump the two-term President will revisit the
agenda that got him elected as a candidate in 2016. This final scenario might not be likely,
but stranger things have happened.
@Pft Even all this arson may be of benefit the business community. Weren't we reading
endless comments how the lockdown has badly affected small businesses, many of which would go
bankrupt due to lack of customers? Perhaps the best thing for them is to get burnt down so
they can claim the insurance as many of them would probably have had to close shop anyway.
@Anon show me one single pick of his admin. who ended up beneficial for him or his
reelection: Jared is the personification of Netanyahu in the White House: clusterfuck nation
will be his signature at the court of History.
Where Have You Gone, Donald Trump? A Nation Turns Its Yearning Eyes to You
James Kirkpatrick • May 31, 2020
Out of context, the whole of the elites bulb is irrecoverable. The "bend" to turn it into
politics, is going to be little of a patch, won´t last the next round.
The "ramble" in the streets is way exaggerated, nothing will come of it if all
semi-organized groups that have ambitions do not add to the noise, and get some pertinent
rusults: bargaining power. It is a dream opportunity to "vote" with one´s feet. Real
disorder cannot be worse, when the asserted elites are morally corrupt and have no
ethics.
It would take more then a department store and a police precinct to make a point: "We
want leadership, not profiteering", "Bust the bulb" add focus. Corporate headquarters, gated
communities, the White House, Capitol Hill, Millionaire communities, airports, bridges,
paralysing the hardware farms of Google, Facebook and Twitter, spreading to cities as London,
Amsterdam, Paris, great opportunities there. "No borders, no castles". Disruption is a start
and a means to an end. Explaining comes later. Only going that direction would cause any
effects that last.
These are few things that come to mind. When historically, "real" leaders can have a
chance to re-assert and reorganize, effectively stump out the "rot at the top", there must be
some serious rioting first.
There is not much of an alternative, and outside the US forces, Russia, China, Iran,
Venezuela, people up to dumps as Bangladesh, Libya, will gladly stomp the US obese
backside.
These above are thoughts that come to mind, regarding a minor overblown bush-fire for now.
The thing is a fizzle.
Trump's threat
to deploy the military here is an excessive and dangerous one. Mark Perry reports on the reaction
from military officers to the president's threat:
Senior military officer on Trump statement: "So we're going to tell our soldiers that we're
redeploying them from the Middle East to the midwest? What do we think they're going to say,
'yeah, sure, no problem?' Guess again."
Earlier in the day yesterday, audio has leaked in which the Secretary of Defense
referred to U.S. cities as the "battlespace." Separately, Sen. Tom Cotton was
making vile remarks about using the military to give "no quarter" to looters. This is the
language of militarism.
It is a consequence of decades of endless war and the government's
tendency to rely on militarized options as their answer for every problem. Endless war has had a
deeply corrosive effect on this country's political system: presidential overreach, the
normalization of illegal uses of force, a lack of legal accountability for crimes committed in
the wars, and a lack of political accountability for the leaders that continue to wage pointless
and illegal wars. Now we see new abuses committed and encouraged by a lawless president, but this
time it is Americans that are on the receiving end. Trump hasn't ended any of the foreign wars he
inherited, and now it seems that he will use the military in an llegal mission here at home.
The military is the only American institution that young people still have any real degree of
faith in, it will be interesting to see the polls when this is all over with.
On this reading, the Republican Party can't just have a positive strategy of attracting
and mobilizing white voters. There has to be a supplementary tactic. Republicans must also
drive voters away from the Democrats by using wedge issues and shrewd rhetoric to aggravate
the inevitable fault lines in the Democrats' unwieldy coalition.
Even if this doesn't convert anyone to the GOP, it would lower turnout among potential
voters who lean Democrat.
In 2008, McCain let Obama position himself to blacks as the black candidate, to other
nonwhites as the nonwhite candidate, and to whites as the postracial candidate. Yet, unless
treated as timidly as McCain handled his opponent in 2008, a black-led four-race coalition is
an inherently fragile thing.
The good news for the GOP about black voters: it really can't get much worse than 2008.
McCain ran as gingerly as imaginable on topics even remotely related to race, and still lost
95-4 among blacks.
The more important question is: What about the growing immigrant groups, the Hispanics and
the Asians, who, together, cast 9.9 percent of the vote in 2008?
Karl Rove labored mightily to convert Hispanics into Republicans, with minimal success and
catastrophic side effects. There simply are fundamental reasons why a low-income group will
always be more attracted to the Democrats, with their proud tax-and-spend tradition. (Asians
might be a different story, but there's no evidence of it as yet and anyway nobody has paid
them much attention.)
A more plausible Republican strategy, one with much history on its side, is to work to
make Hispanics and Asians less enthusiastic about voting Democrat.
Maybe they could get so disgusted with the Democrats that they convert to Republicans. Or
maybe not. Maybe they'll just vote less. Half a loaf (or a non-cast vote from your opponent's
base constituency) is better than none.
But let's be realistic. Being, in essence, the white party makes the GOP uncool. And
that's only going to get worse as the impact of decades of indoctrination in the uncoolness
of white people by the school system and Main Stream Media continue to pile up.
Further, contra Karl Rove, the GOP will never be able to shake its white party image. It
will either increase its share of the white vote or it will go out of business as a party
capable of winning national power.
My suggestion: the only long-term option for the Republicans, the de facto white party, is
to rebrand the Democrats as the de facto black party.
Not the Minority Party or the Cool, Hip, Multicultural Party -- but the Black Party. Go
with the flow of the fundamental Manichaeism of American thought: Black versus White.
Sure, it's kind of retarded, but Americans, especially American intellectuals and pundits,
aren't good at thinking in terms of shades of brown. You can't beat it, so use it.
Hispanics and Asians certainly will never be terribly happy with the idea of being junior
partners in the white party. (Indeed, lots of white people have an allergy to belonging to
the white party.) Hence, the alternative must be framed that if Hispanics and Asians don't
want to be junior partners in the white party, they get [to] be junior partners in the black
party.
Black or white: choose one.
Or they can not choose and stay home on Election Day.
The subtle cunning of the tactic of rebranding the Democrats as the black party is not to
criticize the Democrats for being the vehicle of African-American political activism, but to
praise them for it, over and over, in the most offhand "everybody-knows" ways.
Republicans can hurry along the coming Democratic train wreck by, for example, lauding
blacks as the "moral core" of the Democratic Party. Respectfully point out that the
Democratic Party is the rightful agent for the assertion of African-American racial
interests, and that advancing black interests is central to the nature of the Democratic
Party. Note that, while individual blacks wishing to vote for the good of the country are
more than welcome in the GOP, black racial activists have their natural home in the
Democratic Party. That's what the Democrats are there for.
Don't argue it. Just treat it as a given.
Moreover, Republican rhetoric should encourage feelings of proprietariness among blacks
toward their Democratic Party. It's not all that hard to get blacks to feel that they morally
deserve something, such as, for example, predominance in the Democratic Party.
African-Americans are good at feeling that others owe them deference.
This kind of subtle language, casually repeated, puts Democrats in a delicate spot. Either
they insult blacks by denying this presumption, or they alarm their Asian, Hispanic, and
white supporters by not denying it. As everybody knows, but seldom says, black political
control hasn't worked out well for places as far apart as Detroit and Zimbabwe.
For instance, 2016 on the Democratic side will be interesting. If Obama wins re-election
in 2012, blacks will argue, not unreasonably, that they've brought the Democrats political
prosperity and therefore a black deserves a spot on the 2016 national ticket. If Obama loses
re-election, the media will relentlessly blame it on white racism, and blacks in 2016 will
demand a black candidate to fight the scourge of anti-black feelings.
Even if blacks are rebuffed by the Democrats in the 2016 nominating process, they aren't
going to vote Republican in the fall. But without a black on the ballot, they won't show up
to vote in quite the huge numbers seen in 2008.
Conversely, if the Democrats pander to blacks in 2016, thus establishing a precedent of a
permanent black spot on the national ticket, that will raise severe questions in the rest of
this awkward alliance.
As the black sense of rightful ascendancy in the Democratic Party becomes more pronounced,
Hispanics will be demanding that their burgeoning numbers mean that it's now their turn.
Meanwhile, more Asians will wonder why they are supporting an agglomeration dominated by
blacks who don't share their values. And white Democrats will wonder how exactly they can
prosper in a party where everybody else is allowed to speak out in internal disputes as
representatives of a legitimately aggrieved racial group, but they aren't.
The GOP faces a daunting future of their own making. Then, again, so do the Democrats. All
Democrats should be helpfully assisted to confront this.
Of course, practically no Republican tried to implement this strategy, but it is clearly
happening anyway among Democrats: black megalomania and white Democrats' myth-making combine to
privilege blacks as the moral core of the Democratic Party. Which would be fine for the
Democrats, except that blacks tend to behave badly far more often than any other group.
So, Democrats have self-inflicted this Sailer Strategy Supplement on themselves.
Communist police state is trying to deflect blame from the FBI's antifa and blacks. Now
they are just outright lying, falsely claiming somehow "white supremacists" are behind it
all. We have video and picture evidence, but suddenly the police state is saying that people
didn't actually see what they thought they saw.
Q: In Animal Farm, why does Napoleon blame Snowball for the fall of the windmill when it
had actually been destroyed in a storm?
A: Napoleon's purpose is to demonize Snowball as much as he possibly can. He can use
Snowball as the scapegoat for everything that goes wrong on the farm. In so doing, he can
present himself as a foil to Snowball's evil. The gullible and unintelligent animals would,
therefore, be convinced that he is truly their protector, acting in their best
interests.
Of course, practically no Republican tried to implement this strategy
Well, that's in no small part because the Republicans started out as the "black party"
themselves. Indeed, that was Stephen Douglas's main tactic in his debate with Lincoln: to
heap abuse on Lincoln's "Black Republicans" and insinuate that they wanted to have Negroes
consorting with white women.
The fact is that both parties have claimed the moral high ground by trying to outdo each
other as to which treated blacks better. The Republicans did it in the 1860s; the Democrats
did it in the 1960s. Neither party is going to call the other out for being too pro-black; to
the contrary, all you hear is incessant pandering to blacks.
When the Republicans lost to Obama, the first thing they did was name Michael Steele RNC
Chairman. Trump, who got elected by the disenfranchised white working class, has been
bragging incessantly about what he's done for the black unemployment rate.
None of this will end unless there is an explicitly pro-white third party that makes a
successful challenge to the Democrat-Republican flim-flam
The "Cool, Hip, and Multicultural" worship blacks and excuse if not condone black violence.
The dominant contemporary thought is that misbehavior by either whites or blacks is the fault
of whites, and whites should be judged ever more harshly with each example of it. I don't see
that as changing within the next several generations.
With Fightin' Joe Biden at the helm ("he's no malarkey!") the Dems are already the Black
Party.
Joe tells 'em who to vote for and by god, if they're really black, it better be for
him.
A Democrat micro-strategist friend of mine had an elaborate theory as to why Black Joe
needed another POC on his ticket, i.e. Stacy Abrams. His theory rested on Dem electoral
politics absolutely needing GA in November. The only way to secure that strategic necessity
was Abrams, according to him. To ensure the black voters turn out.
All the rest of the states, voting blocs, etc. were irrelevant in this analysis.
Now loyal voting blocs are always helpful in politics. But if usually shaky black voter
turnout is so absolutely necessary, then the Dems have already put all of their eggs in one
shaky basket with that.
Biden isn't Obama, and Abrams isn't Oprah. These rioters and looters aren't exactly
sending a message of racial harmony either. Socialist Dem politicians don't appear to solve
any racial or politce problems. Who will notice?
@Larry, San
Francisco The employment issue little concerns blacks. As Steve once said (I parphrase):
" the majority of blacks are either not working or working for the government, or both."
Respectfully point out that the Democratic Party is the rightful agent for the assertion
of African-American racial interests
The party of rum, riots, and reparations.
places as far apart as Detroit and Zimbabwe.
Distance from Detroit to Harare: 8261.63 miles. A little less than Bangalore or
Bangkok.
I've mentioned before that when you are on the slave docks at Dakar, you are closer to
Minneapolis than to its sister city of Bosaso, Somalia. Africa big, man, big! Oh, and
the closest state is Maine. Really.
Sure, it's kind of retarded
Wow. You could still say that as recently as ten years ago. Window-lickin' good.
What about the growing immigrant groups, the Hispanics and the Asians, who, together,
cast 9.9 percent of the vote in 2008?
There simply are fundamental reasons why a low-income group will always be more attracted
to the Democrats, with their proud tax-and-spend tradition.
Reparations. Not from Americans, but specifically from Democrats. All the great American
"crimes" Democrats blame America for are Democratic crimes.
So, reparations to Cherokees for Andy Jackson's ethnic cleansing. Reparations to Europe
for Wilson's adventurism. Reparations to Germany for FDR's flattened cathedrals and to Japan
for HST's radiation poisining. Reparations to Koreans and Korean-Americans for mucking up
their country. Reparations to both Vietnamese-Americans and to Vietnam for mucking up
their country. Reparations to suburban Amercans for mucking up their (parents')
cities. Reparations to Mexican-Americans and Central Americans for, well, they must have done
something, right?
What do Republicans owe for? Okay, the Spanish-American War. Reparations to Spain come in
the form of the return of Puerto Rico.
I never have understood why the Republicans don't try harder to craft a campaign to pick
apart the Coalition. Why aren't they targeting Asians with the message that the Democrats are
using quotas to keep their children out of university because of their race? Why aren't they
targeting college age men who Dems say are all rapists and do not deserve the most basic due
process? Why aren't they targeting socially conservative Hispanics (among others) who do not
approve of allowing male perverts to dress up as women and go into the girl's locker room?
Why aren't they hammering away at working poor people that their jobs and futures are at risk
due to the open borders championed by the Dems? And why aren't they telling the wealthy
gentry Dems in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, why, yes, yes, we agree, let's raise taxes bigly
on the rich?
@anon That was
always my worst fear with Covid-19, not the death toll by itself but the loss of government
legitimacy if it were seen to do nothing in the wake of it. That's just what happened;
government at the highest levels tried to sweep the whole thing under the rug. More often
than you might think, governments lose legitimacy through inaction rather than action. The
colonists fought King George because they thought he was indifferent to their concerns.
French peasants overthrew their king for the same reason.
The conventional wisdom is that this nation continues to live with the consequences of our
original sin, slavery.
If fact we are now living with the consequences of the Confederate defeat. The defeat of the
Confederacy was the defeat of practical reason in politics and spelled the triumph of
Abolitionist/progressive/moral crusade ideology.
Carried to its extreme it is a religious cult that replaces Christianity in the psychological
foundation of modern Americans. Any criticism of blacks is a religious blasphemy.
How impervious to reason and susceptible to brainwashing are liberals? Just look at any cult
– Jonestown, Rajneesies, etc.
Trump's strategy in the last election seemed to be to keep blacks indifferent enough in
places like Detroit to stay home election night. This may only work in a Trump versus Hillary
situation and is not generally applicable.
The Republican strategist Grover Norquist suggested the successful strategy for
Republicans should be a "leave us alone" coalition. Most blacks with their desire for
government welfare, government jobs and government enforced affirmative action would not be a
part of this coalition.
A major component of this coalition would be people who just want to run their businesses
or pursue their careers and use the money they make to take care of themselves and their
families.
This would include many landlords and small businessmen. Obviously, businesses looking for
special favors from the government would not be part of this. A major goal of Democrats is to
eliminate these groups. Extending coronavirus shutdowns beyond what is needed for public
health reasons is being purposely pursued to harm these groups. Encouraging rioting that
leads to looting while the police are ordered to stand by is also being used to harm these
groups. Republicans should oppose both the extended lockdowns and the rioting and take a "law
and order" stance in election campaigns.
Just don't understand the idea of the Democratic Party becoming the Black Party. They're like
12% of the total population in the US and not all of them vote. Rough calculations say that
black voters consist of 5% of the total population in the US. White voters are more like 17%
of the total population in the US. 1:3 votes is a losing proposition, without considering the
remaining 14% of the voting population, mostly Asian and some Latinos. Asians and whites
carry the Dems, yet they are actively trying to alienate them. I would put an Asian candidate
on the ticket. Is there an up and coming Asian candidate in California, Hawaii, Alaska or
Washington?
BTW. Picking a candidate purely based on race is stupid, but Thomas Wolfe explained it
very well. If you introduce diversity to a voting population, the only discussions you get
are tribal.
David Mamet wrote that gun control advocacy is an attempt to propitiate the criminal. Similar
to Steve observing that many (Democrat or otherwise) voted for Obama just for him to be a
good example to black people. The principle could travel w/ other issues of metropolitan,
post-union/post-blue-collar left-liberal partisanship, short of accepting violent
transgression but still rejecting subtler contours of order: immigration/colonization,
transgender bathrooms, of course affirmative action. Once you can't crack down on a society's
obvious enemies the target remaining is regular taxpayers, as in Michigan
Which would be fine for the Democrats, except that blacks tend to behave badly far more
often than any other group.
I sent Steve an angry email exactly one month ago pointing out that his own commenters
seem to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups and need
stricter moral guidance from society. I told him I thought she should apologize to the people
of New Orleans, since he refuses to apply the same standard of "telling the hard truth" to
his own comment section and their coronavirus denial, which has real consequences when people
believe it and refuse to social distance. I had no idea that another wave of BLM tantrums
would soon break out and give him a chance to double down.
@Anonymous Is
that true? I would say voting patterns don't historically show that, but to be fair, the
media blitz against President Trump has been so intense and so unceasing that 2016 seems like
a lifetime ago. And for the last 20+ years both parties have had elites that were very
globalist: pro-immigration and aggressively for free trade. Trump really is an outlier for
Republicans.
So perhaps if our national media wasn't continuous outright diversity propaganda the
Republican party could carve out 25 to 30 percent of the black vote routinely. Unlike many
here I don't consider my fellow black Americans as irredeemable, many are fine people, and I
served with many excellent ones. But there are plenty of black racists (not a small
percentage at all in the black community, no error there) and it would take decades of
culture war to ever get the parties close to racial parity.
Honestly, it would probably be easier to take over the Democratic Party and convert it to
an immigration restriction party than convince many black Americans to vote Republican.
Nice try, but it won't work for two fundamental reasons:
1. As others point out, the blacks are too small and poor a voting bloc to ever really
take over a major party.
2. There are no brilliant black strategists to make up for this, as you yourself pointed
out before. If anything, black politicians are huge clowns, everyone from Maxine Waters to
the now-retired John Conyers, which is saying something considering clowns like Schumer,
Pelosi, and Trump.
As a result, none of the other Democrats you mention are worried about the Black Caucus,
they know they can just appease them with some cheap ObamaPhones and sentencing reforms. As
the few black conservatives often say, the plantation Negroes are not leaving the Democrat
plantation. Come election time, Biden will try to inflame them with the usual nonsense about
Republicans wanting to "put them back in chains" and/or pick some token PoC VP, and they will
try to raise the turnout from Hillary's disastrous run that way.
@Steve Sailer
I'd differentiate between the Democrats using the blacks as a symbolic "moral core," to
appeal to the moralistic
whites that Dr. X references above , and their representing any real political threat to
the remaining majority whites and other races. None of the rest are really worried about the
blacks edging out their interests, so its easy for them to throw some sops to the blacks and
keep them on board. This is a pretty big but rare sop atm, and they are likely miscalculating
the blowback from white Democrats.
If anything, Republicans should pick off the business-minded and religious blacks more, or
at least lower their turnout, as Trump seemed to do by doubling
McCain's black vote, 89-8 , and keeping their turnout lower (I wonder if that wasn't
mostly the media's fault for making it seem that Hillary's coronation was a done deal, so
they didn't bother coming out).
Hispanics and Asians certainly will never be terribly happy with the idea of being
junior partners in the white party. (Indeed, lots of white people have an allergy to
belonging to the white party.) Hence, the alternative must be framed that if Hispanics and
Asians don't want to be junior partners in the white party, they get [to] be junior
partners in the black party.
Black or white: choose one.
I've long supported the idea that if the GOP becomes the white party, it loses. Meanwhile,
if the Democrats become the black party, they lose.
This is somewhat different than what you formulated. For example, no matter how
distasteful Hispanics and Asians might find themselves as junior partners to blacks, they
will choose that if the alternative is an exclusivist white party, which is only rational.
Conversely, "junior" or no, if the so-called white party offers a partnership to Hispanics
and Asians while the Democrats become a black supremacist party, the choice is obvious.
So, in truth, this isn't about white party vs. black party – it's about the
likelihood that whichever party is able to attract the bulk of its core ethnic group, white
or black, all the while, at the same time, being able to attract sufficient number of allies
will win. But this has always been – politics has always been a game of
coalition-building, whether that coalition is one of different kinds/classes of whites (when
the country was much more white) or that of different ethnic groups.
Asians should be GOP. The older generations are pretty based and admirably assured of
themselves. There are low rates of social dysfunction and low rates of government dependency.
The younger generation a completely cuck to liberal ideology and they learn it in school.
Asians place a high value on education and neglect to build their own institutions that other
groups have, and so they erase themselves very quickly.
But the GOP blows it in a number of ways.
The GOP values blacks above other minorities too. They give blacks affirmative action in
their ranks. They give lip service to black interests.
The GOP also is xenophobic towards Mexicans and Asians. The Democrats for their faults do
not subtly view them as alien invaders in the same way as the GOP.
The GOP war on expertise is contrary to the Asian value on education. The GOP seems to
value hard work unless a Mexican does the hard work.
Those issues are fixable. But I don't see any movement towards that.
Check the careers on them. An abbot; two or three noblemen; journalist; lawyer; leaders of
bourgeois organizations. Not a peasant amongst them.
The French Revolution was a revolt of the bourgeois against the Church and nobility. When
they had power, they knew what to do with the peasants who clung to Faith: drown them en
masse.
It's pretty clear who the commie bastards known for their shoddy lab practices and their
weird fetish for gnawing on pangolins badly want to win in November, and it's not Trump and the
Republicans. The Chinese communists want their money's worth, and they will go all-in for the
Democrats who find the chance to hurt Trump at the same time they hurt America too delicious to
pass up. Plus, the Dems heartily approve of what Mao's Pals are doing to freedom-loving Hong
Kongers, seeing it as a template for what they would love to do to freedom-loving us.
Anybody who uses the term "Russiagate" seriously and not to recognize the actual and
serious Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election in support of Trump is
not to be taken remotely seriously.
Russiagate is a valid and IMHO very useful political discourse term which has two
intersecting meanings:
1. Obamagate : Attempt of a certain political forces around Clintons and Obama
with the support of intelligence agencies to stage a "color revolution" against Trump,
using there full control of MSM as air superiority factor. With the main goal is the return
to "classic neoliberalism" (neoliberal globalization uber alles) mode
Which Trump rejected during his election campaign painting him as a threat to certain
powerful neoliberal forces which include but not limited to Silicon Valley moguls (note bad
relations of Trump and Bezos), some part of Wall street financial oligarchy, and most MSMs
honchos.
2. Neo-McCarthyism campaign unleashed by Obama administration with the goal to
whitewash Hillary fiasco and to preserve the current leadership of the Democratic
Party.
That led to complete deterioration of relations between the USA and Russia and increase
of chances of military conflict between two. Add to this consistent attempts of Trump to
make China an enemy and politicize the process of economic disengagement between the two
countries and you understand the level of danger. .
When a senior Russian official implicitly calls the USA a rogue state and Trump
administration -- gangsters on international arena, that a very bad sign. See
But then again, it may well be so that the current Republican administration will in
effect become a line in history in which a considerable number of useful international
instruments were abrogated and that America exited them in the anticipation that this
approach would serve U.S. interests better. Having said that, I will never say or never
suggest that it was for us -- at least in the mid-2010s -- better with the previous
administration.
It was under the previous Obama administration that endless rounds of sanctions were
imposed upon Russia. That was continued under Trump. The pretext for that policy is
totally rejected by Russia as an invalid and illegal one. The previous administration,
weeks before it departed, stole Russian property that was protected by diplomatic
immunity, and we are still deprived of this property by the Trump administration. We have
sent 350 diplomatic notes to both the Obama and the Trump administrations demanding the
return of this property, only to see an endless series of rejections. It is one of the
most vivid and obvious examples of where we are in our relationship.
There is no such thing as "which administration is better for Russia in the U.S.?"
Both are bad, and this is our conclusion after more than a decade of talking to
Washington on different topics.
Heilbrunn: Given the dire situation you portray, do you believe that America has
become a rogue state?
Ryabkov: I wouldn't say so, that's not our conclusion. But the U.S. is clearly an
entity that stands for itself, one that creates uncertainty for the world. America is a
source of trouble for many international actors. They are trying to find ways to protect
and defend themselves from this malign and malicious policy of America that many of the
people around the world believe should come to an end, hopefully in the near future.
What I can't understand is this stupid jingoism, kind of "cult of death" among the US
neocons, who personally are utter chickenhawks, but still from their comfortable offices
write dangerous warmongering nonsense. Without understanding possible longer term
consequences.
Of course, MIC money does not smell, but some enthusiasts in blogs do it even without
proper remuneration
Sound like wishful thinking. Looks like cutting US military budget is impossible as "Full
spectrum Dominance" doctrine is still in place and neocons are at the helm of the USA foreign
policy. COVID-19 or not COVID-19.
The other day an aerospace industry analyst asked me whether I thought the defense budget
would start to go down, courtesy of the huge cost of dealing with the pandemic and the massive
deficits the nation faces. I said it was unlikely and he agreed.
This is not the conventional wisdom in DC. Some national security analysts and advocates for
higher defense budgets have
warned that the defense budget
is now under siege . Critics of the Pentagon and its spending are equally
convinced that the pandemic opens the door to necessary, deep, sensible
cuts in defense in order to fund the mountain of debt and take care of pressing needs for
income, employment, health care, global warming, and other major threats to the well-being of
Americans.
Whatever the nation's strategy, critics argue, the pandemic has changed the face of the
threat to America. COVID-19 is an invisible, lethal threat to human security, a viral neutron
bomb that spares buildings but kills their occupants.
Congress has appropriated more than 20 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, so
far, to cope with this threat. Additional funds for the military, ironically, have become a
"rounding error" in this spending -- little more than $10 billion of the more than $4 trillion
appropriated to date. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper
warned about the likelihood of defense cuts and wanted more funds for the Pentagon, but
Rep. Adam Smith, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee
said there was no way defense would get more funds through the pandemic bills.
So it looks bad for defense, and good for the advocates of cuts. But not so fast. Yes, it is
true; history shows that defense budgets do decline. It happens, predictably, when we get out
of a war – World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War. Even when we left Iraq in 2011,
the budget went down.
There is a secret ingredient in defense budget reductions: they seem to happen, as well,
when the politics of deficit reduction appear. Defense also declined after Korea because a
fiscal conservative, Eisenhower, was in office, with five virtual stars on his shoulders,
making it possible to put a lid
on the budgetary appetites of the services.
In fact, in 1985, well before the end of the Cold War, Congress, focused on the deficit,
passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which was then was reinforced in the 1990 Budget
Enforcement Act that set hard spending limits on domestic and defense spending. It had to cover
both parts of discretionary spending or Congress could not agree. It was 17 years before the
defense budget
began to rise .
Put the end of war together with a dollop of deficit reduction and defense budgets will go
down. They become the caboose, rather than the engine, of the budgetary train. But beware of
what you ask for. The price of constraints on defense has been constraints on domestic
spending, as the nation has learned over the past three decades. In fact, the Budget Control
Act of 2011 constrained domestic spending, while allowing defense to
escape almost unscathed, thanks to war supplementals.
When attention shifts to debates over priorities and deficits, it opens the door to a real
discussion about defense. But they do not ensure cuts. While the military services may not see
their appetite for real growth of 3-5 percent fulfilled, it is unlikely to decline very
much.
There is a floor under the defense budget. But you need to change the level of analysis to
see it and look at who actually makes defense budget decisions and why they make the decisions
they do. It's about something I called
the "Iron Triangle."
We all like to think that strategy drives defense budgets. For the most part, however,
defense decisions are made inside a political system involving constant,
relatively closed interaction between the military services, the Congress, and the
community and industry beneficiaries of defense spending.
In outline, budget planners in the military services start with last year's budget and graft
on new funds, rarely giving up a program, a mission, or part of the force. This dynamic points
the budgets upwards over time. Secretaries and under-secretaries work to add preferences and
projects, like national missile defense, to the services' budget plans. On top of that,
presidents have made promises, adding such things as bomber funds (Reagan) and space forces
(Trump) the services do not want.
Then there is the second leg of the triangle: Congress. For all their efforts to cut
Pentagon waste, progressive members do not drive defense decisions in the Congress. The defense
authorizers and appropriators do. The associated committees are dominated by defense spending
advocates, deeply interested in the outcomes, encouraged by industry campaign contributions and
community lobbying. These outside interests are the third leg of the triangle. Contracts and
community-based impacts give them a deep stake in the outcomes.
This system is not a conspiracy; it is a visible part of American politics, similar in shape
to the players in farm price supports or health care policy. But it is a system that operates
somewhat separately from and parallel to the politics of deficit reduction and has a major
impact on the content and levels of the defense budget. And its work bakes a kind of sclerosis
into efforts to have a broader debate over spending priorities.
The politics of the Iron Triangle will set limits on the defense budget debate making deep
cuts unlikely. So what might be the options to end-run this system? Politics, of course. If the
advocates of deeper defense reductions want to change America's spending and budgeting
priorities, they will need to join forces with advocates of a "new, new deal" in America -- one
that would put priority on the national health system, infrastructure investment, climate
change, immigration, and educational reform. Only a very
large, very deep coalition has a chance of overcoming the inertia imposed by the Iron
Triangle.
And that coalition will need to focus on Joe Biden. The president is the key actor here,
particularly at the start of an administration. As Bill Clinton learned, the first months are
critical to changing overall budget priorities, before the departments, including Defense, can
begin the Iron Triangle dance.
Even then, major cuts in defense budgets are an uphill fight. The opening for a broader
priorities debate has been provided by the COVID-19 pandemic. The outcome depends significantly
on bringing this kind of focus to actions over the next seven months.
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 3/ That out-take tells
you everything you need to know about why Obama had January 5 meeting to discuss
withholding information with the Trump transition team and administration. Can't you just
picture petty little Barack Obama "how dare General Flynn say I cannot "box" them in.
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 3/ That out-take tells
you everything you need to know about why Obama had January 5 meeting to discuss
withholding information with the Trump transition team and administration. Can't you just
picture petty little Barack Obama "how dare General Flynn say I cannot "box" them in.
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 4/ And for all those who
scream about diplomacy, my God, read the damn transcript. We want men like General Flynn
leading diplomacy. pic.twitter.com/ksPQoePrUO
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 4/ And for all those who
scream about diplomacy, my God, read the damn transcript. We want men like General Flynn
leading diplomacy. pic.twitter.com/ksPQoePrUO
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 6/ Read the --- damn
transcript! General Flynn did not interfere with the Obama administration. The Obama
administration interfered with the Trump administration. pic.twitter.com/XVT4D1f1Ay
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland 6/ Read the --- damn
transcript! General Flynn did not interfere with the Obama administration. The Obama
administration interfered with the Trump administration. pic.twitter.com/XVT4D1f1Ay
Replying to @JoeBiden 9/9 This entire 3-year nightmare for
General Flynn all arose because a petty little man named Barack Obama demanded revenge. And
@JoeBiden was right by
his side. END
Replying to @JoeBiden 9/9 This entire 3-year nightmare for
General Flynn all arose because a petty little man named Barack Obama demanded revenge. And
@JoeBiden was right by
his side. END
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland @Cernovich @GenFlynn I'm
shocked at how much the fake news is lying about the transcripts by "summarizing" them when
what they're saying directly contradicts what the transcripts say. This is how these fake
news people work. They tell you what the document says and hope you don't read it.
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland @Cernovich @GenFlynn I'm
shocked at how much the fake news is lying about the transcripts by "summarizing" them when
what they're saying directly contradicts what the transcripts say. This is how these fake
news people work. They tell you what the document says and hope you don't read it.
Replying to @Harmless_Patsy @ProfMJCleveland and
2 others That's
why I don't watch them. I follow real journalists, lawyers and investigators who tweet the
real documents and substantiate what they say.
Replying to @Harmless_Patsy @ProfMJCleveland and
2 others That's
why I don't watch them. I follow real journalists, lawyers and investigators who tweet the
real documents and substantiate what they say.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) released the transcripts between
then-incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kisliak,
which revealed that Flynn asked Russia to take "reciprocal" against sanctions levied by the
Obama administration over interference in the 2016 US election.
" I ask Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to
only make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get
into something that have to escalate tit-for-tat," Flynn told Kisyak.
12/23/16 - Flynn relays his goals about the Russia/US relationship.
Flynn: "We will not achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other
against this radical Islamist crowd."
Despite clear evidence to the contrary, Former FBI agent Peter Strzok used that conversation
as a basis to continue his investigation into whether Flynn was a potential Russian agent,
according to recently unsealed court documents. The agency used the call as leverage to try to
get the retired general to admit to a violation of the Logan Act - an obscure old law nearly a
quarter-century old which prohibits private citizens from interfering in diplomacy (which, as
it turns out, is standard practice among members of transitioning administrations).
FBI agent Joe Pientka, who interviewed Flynn with agent Strzok, wrote in his interview notes
that he did not believe Flynn was lying to them during the interview - while other recently
unsealed notes revealed that the FBI considered a perjury trap against Flynn to "
get him fired ."
If there was a preexisting improper relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia,
@GenFlynn
would never have needed an official call with Kislyak to prevent the disaster the Obama admin
was creating.
It's common sense if you're an honest broker.
-- John 'Murder Hornet' Cardillo
(@johncardillo) May 29,
2020
After the FBI's malfeasance came to light, the DOJ moved to drop the case against Flynn -
which US District Judge Emmet Sullivan has refused to do - instead asking a retired federal
judge, John Gleeson, to provide legal arguments as to whether Sullivan should hold Flynn in
criminal contempt for pleading guilty to FBI agents - which he now says he did not do.
Following the release of the transcripts , Sen. Grassley said in a statement: "Lt. General
Flynn, his legal team, the judge and the American people can now see with their own eyes
– for the first time – that all of the innuendo about Lt. General Flynn this whole
time was totally bunk. There was nothing improper about his call, and the FBI knew it. "
The transcripts show that Flynn was acting in his country's best interests, and his only
crime was bruising the fragile ego of the Obama team and their pathetic foreign policy
https://t.co/P3nuifreUI
"... In any case it looks like Flynn helped to avoid "boxing in" the new administration after the expulsion of Russian diplomats by the lame duck President? . That does not help Trump one bit, because first of all he is incompetent, and secondly he was instantly cooped by neocons, but still ..."
"... The key question here is whether Obama administration has motives to set a trap for Flynn now can be answered positively. If this was an entrapment then this is clearly a criminal offense and Strzok, Comey and possibly Brennan and Clapper, are clearly in hot water. ..."
One plausible hypothesis is that Obama administration decided to revenge Flynn
maneuver to foil Obama last move -- the expulsion of Russian diplomats, which stated
neo-McCarthyism campaign in the USA. He explicitly asked Russians not to retaliate and I
would understand why Obama did not like this move.
In any case it looks like Flynn helped to avoid "boxing in" the new administration
after the expulsion of Russian diplomats by the lame duck President? . That does not help
Trump one bit, because first of all he is incompetent, and secondly he was instantly
cooped by neocons, but still
The key question here is whether Obama administration has motives to set a trap for
Flynn now can be answered positively. If this was an entrapment then this is clearly a
criminal offense and Strzok, Comey and possibly Brennan and Clapper, are clearly in hot
water.
"... Instead of reining in the "globalist elites" he so vociferously ran against or those corporations "who have no loyalty to America," his one legislative achievement has been to award them a massive tax cut. Through it, he has maintained their favorite mix of low revenue intake and high deficits which gives Republicans a pretext to "starve the beast" and induce fiscal anorexia. ..."
"... Trump ran as a populist firebrand -- a fusion of Huey Long and Ross Perot -- and while he never abandoned that style, he has governed for the most part as a milquetoast free market Republican in perfect tandem with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, one whose solution to everything is more tax cuts and deregulation: a kind of turbo-charged "high-energy Jeb." ..."
"... With the outbreak of COVID-19, many on the reformist right are hoping for the emergence of the President Trump they thought they were promised, a leader just as ready to break out of the donor-enforced "small government" straitjacket while in power as he was during the campaign. ..."
"... The heightened rhetoric against China will continue -- the one thing Trump is good at -- but it is unlikely to be matched with the required policy ..."
"... If neoliberalism excused inequality at home by extolling the equalization of incomes across the globe (millions of Chinese raised from poverty, while millions of American workers fall back into it!), the new position must shift emphasis back to ensuring a more equitable domestic distribution of wealth and opportunity across all classes and communities in this country. ..."
"... It is worth pondering what might have happened if the administration had gone the other way and followed the last piece of policy advice given by Steve Bannon before his ouster in August 2017. Bannon suggested raising the top marginal income tax rate to 44 percent while "arguing that it would actually hit left-wing millionaires in Silicon Valley, on Wall Street, and in Hollywood." ..."
"... It might well have put Trump on the path to becoming what Daniel Patrick Moynihan once proposed as a model for Richard Nixon when he gifted the 37th president a biography of Disraeli, namely a Tory Republican who could outsmart the left by crafting broad popular coalitions based on a blending of patriotic cultural conservatism with class-conscious economic and social policy. ..."
"... Then and even more so now, the idea resonates: a Reuters/Ipsos poll from January found that 64 percent of Americans support a wealth tax, a majority of Republicans included. Poll after poll has reaffirmed this. It seems as if there is right-wing populist support for taxing the rich more. ..."
"... There is one more thing to be said about the significance of taxing the rich. Up until very recently, there has been a prevailing tendency among the reformist right (with some important exceptions) to couch criticism of the elites primarily or even exclusively in cultural terms. There seems to have been a polite hesitation at taking the cultural critique to its logical economic conclusions. It is easy to excoriate the excesses of elite identity politics, the "woke" part of woke capitalism; it's something all conservatives -- and indeed growing numbers of liberals and socialists -- agree on. Fish in a barrel. ..."
"... But to challenge the capitalism part, i.e. free market orthodoxy, not in a secondary or tertiary way, but head on and in specific policy terms as Lofgren and a few others have done, would involve confronting difficult truths, namely that the biggest beneficiaries of tax cuts and Reaganite economic policy in general, which most conservatives enthusiastically promoted for four decades, are the selfsame decadent coastal elites they claim to oppose. It is they who more than anyone else thrive on financialized globalization, arbitrage and offshoring. ..."
"... In other words, it amounts to an honest recognition of the complicity of conservatism in the mess we're in, which is perhaps a psychological bridge too far for too many on the right, reformist or not. (Trigger Warning!) This separation of culture and economics has led to the farce of a self-styled nationalist president lining the pockets of his nominal enemies, the globalist ruling class. ..."
"... A conservative call to tax the rich would signal that the right is ready to end this charade and chart a course toward a more patriotic, public-spirited and yes, proudly hyphenated capitalism. ..."
"... Michael Cuenco is a writer on politics and policy. He has also written for American Affairs. ..."
They also left worker wages stagnant and increased the deficit. Where is our more nationalist economic policy?
Much has been written about the disappointment of certain segments of the right in the apparent capitulation of Donald Trump to
the agenda of the conservative establishment.
Instead of reining in the "globalist elites" he so vociferously ran against or those corporations "who have no loyalty to America,"
his one legislative achievement has been to award them a massive tax cut. Through it, he has maintained their favorite mix of low
revenue intake and high deficits which gives Republicans a pretext to "starve the beast" and induce fiscal anorexia.
The president has granted them as well their ideal labor market through an ingenious formula: double down on mostly symbolic raids
(as opposed to systemic solutions like Mandatory E-Verify) and ramp up the rhetoric about "shithole countries" to distract the media,
but keep the supply of cheap, exploitable low-skill labor (legal and illegal) intact for the business lobby.
Trump ran as a populist firebrand -- a fusion of Huey Long and Ross Perot -- and while he never abandoned that style, he has governed
for the most part as a milquetoast free market Republican in perfect tandem with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, one whose solution
to everything is more tax cuts and deregulation: a kind of turbo-charged "high-energy Jeb."
With the outbreak of COVID-19, many on the reformist right are hoping for the emergence of the President Trump they thought they
were promised, a leader just as ready to break out of the donor-enforced "small government" straitjacket while in power as he was
during the campaign.
Despite signs of progress, what's more likely is a return to business as usual. Already the GOP's impulse for austerity and parsimony
is proving to be stronger than any willingness to think and act outside the box.
The heightened rhetoric against China will continue -- the one thing Trump is good at -- but it is unlikely to be matched with
the required policy, such as a long-term plan to reshore U.S. industry (that doesn't just rely on blindly giving corporations the
benefit of the doubt). At this point, we already know where the president's priorities lie when given a choice between the advancement
of America's workers or continued labor arbitrage and carte blanche corporate handouts.
Lest they be engulfed by it like everyone else, the reformist right should ask: is there any way to stand athwart the supply-side
swamp yelling Stop?
Many of these conservatives lament the Trump tax cut not just because it was a disaster that failed to spark reinvestment, left
wages stagnant, needlessly blew up the deficit and served as a slush fund for stock buybacks, but more fundamentally because it betrayed
the overwhelming intellectual inertia and lack of imagination that characterizes conservative policymaking.
More than in any other issue then, a distinct position on taxes would make the new conservatism truly worth distinguishing from
the old: tax cuts were after all the defining policy dogma of the neoliberal Reagan era.
If neoliberalism excused inequality at home by extolling the equalization of incomes across the globe (millions of Chinese raised
from poverty, while millions of American workers fall back into it!), the new position must shift emphasis back to ensuring a more
equitable domestic distribution of wealth and opportunity across all classes and communities in this country.
A reformulation of fiscal policy along populist economic nationalist lines can help with that.
It is worth pondering what might have happened if the administration had gone the other way and followed the last piece of policy
advice given by Steve Bannon before his ouster in August 2017. Bannon suggested raising the top marginal income tax rate to 44 percent
while "arguing that it would actually hit left-wing millionaires in Silicon Valley, on Wall Street, and in Hollywood."
Such a move would have been nothing short of revolutionary: it would have been a faithful and full-blown expression of the populist
economic nationalism Trump ran on; it would have presented a genuine material threat to the elite ruling class of both parties, and
likely would have pre-empted the shock value of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposing a 70 percent top marginal rate.
It might well have put Trump on the path to becoming what Daniel Patrick Moynihan once proposed as a model for Richard Nixon when
he gifted the 37th president a biography of Disraeli, namely a Tory Republican who could outsmart the left by crafting broad popular
coalitions based on a blending of patriotic cultural conservatism with class-conscious economic and social policy.
Not that Trump would have needed to go back to Nixon or Disraeli for instruction on the matter. In 1999, long before Elizabeth
Warren came along on the national scene, a presidential candidate eyeing the Reform Party nomination contemplated the imposition
of a 14.25 percent wealth tax on America's richest citizens in order to pay off the national debt: his name was Donald Trump.
What ever happened to that guy? The Trump of 1999 was onto something. Maybe this could be a way to deal with our post-pandemic
deficits.
Then and even more so now, the idea resonates: a Reuters/Ipsos poll from January found that 64 percent of Americans support a
wealth tax, a majority of Republicans included. Poll after poll has reaffirmed this. It seems as if there is right-wing populist
support for taxing the rich more.
To the common refrain, "the rich are just going to find ways to shelter their income or relocate it offshore," I have written
elsewhere about the concrete policy measures countries can and have taken to clip the wings of mobile global capital and prevent
such an outcome.
I have written as well about how taxing the rich and tightening the screws on tax enforcement have implications that go beyond
the merely redistributive approach to fiscal policy conventionally favored by the left; about how it can be a form of leverage against
an unaccountable investor class used to shopping at home and abroad for the most opaque assets in which to hoard vast amounts of
essentially idle capital.
A deft administration would use aggressive fiscal policy as an inducement for this irresponsible class to make things right by
reinvesting in such priorities as the wages and well-being of workers, the vitality of communities, the strength of strategic industries
and the productivity of the real economy – or else Uncle Sam will tax their wealth and do it for them.
It would also be an assertion of national sovereignty against globalization's command for countries to stay "competitive" by immiserating
their citizens with ever-lower taxes on capital holders and ever more loose and "flexible" labor markets in a never-ending race to
the bottom.
Mike Lofgren has penned a marvelous essay in these pages about the virtual secession of the rich from the American nation, "with
their prehensile greed, their asocial cultural values, and their absence of civic responsibility."
What better way to remind them that they are still citizens of a country and members of a society -- and not just floating streams
of deracinated capital -- than by making them perform that most basic of civic duties, paying one's fair share and contributing to
the commonweal? America need not revert to the 70-90 percent top marginal rates of the bolshevik administrations of Truman, Eisenhower
or Kennedy, but proposals for modest moves in that direction would be welcome.
There is one more thing to be said about the significance of taxing the rich. Up until very recently, there has been a prevailing
tendency among the reformist right (with some important exceptions) to couch criticism of the elites primarily or even exclusively
in cultural terms. There seems to have been a polite hesitation at taking the cultural critique to its logical economic conclusions.
It is easy to excoriate the excesses of elite identity politics, the "woke" part of woke capitalism; it's something all conservatives
-- and indeed growing numbers of liberals and socialists -- agree on. Fish in a barrel.
But to challenge the capitalism part, i.e. free market orthodoxy, not in a secondary or tertiary way, but head on and in specific
policy terms as Lofgren and a few others have done, would involve confronting difficult truths, namely that the biggest beneficiaries
of tax cuts and Reaganite economic policy in general, which most conservatives enthusiastically promoted for four decades, are the
selfsame decadent coastal elites they claim to oppose. It is they who more than anyone else thrive on financialized globalization,
arbitrage and offshoring.
In other words, it amounts to an honest recognition of the complicity of conservatism in the mess we're in, which is perhaps
a psychological bridge too far for too many on the right, reformist or not. (Trigger Warning!) This separation of culture and economics
has led to the farce of a self-styled nationalist president lining the pockets of his nominal enemies, the globalist ruling class.
Already, the White House is proposing yet another gigantic corporate tax cut. Using the exact same discredited logic as the last
one, senior economic advisor Larry Kudlow wants Americans to trust him when he says that halving the already lowered 2017 rate to
10.5 percent will encourage these eminently reasonable multinationals to reinvest. There he goes again.
A conservative call to tax the rich would signal that the right is ready to end this charade and chart a course toward a more
patriotic, public-spirited and yes, proudly hyphenated capitalism.
Michael Cuenco is a writer on politics and policy. He has also written for American Affairs.
"America need not revert to the 70-90 percent top marginal rates of the bolshevik administrations of Truman, Eisenhower or Kennedy,
but proposals for modest moves in that direction would be welcome."
Those tax rates were offset by direct investment in the US economy. So if I invested in the stock market, I'd get a 90% tax
rate because that doesn't produce actual wealth. On the other hand, if I invested in building factories that created thousands
of jobs for American citizens, my tax rate may fall to 0%. And those policies created a fantastic economy that we oldsters remember
as the golden age. That wasn't bolshevism, it was competitive capitalism. What we have today is libertarianism. And as long as
conservatives are going to let the libertarian boogey-man's nose under the tent, we are going to have this ugly, bifurcated economy.
Your choice. Man up.
You ever tell hear of sarcasm, bud? I think that's what the author was going for. Don't think he was trying to say that Ike and
Truman were Bolsheviks but was rather making fun of libertarians who hyperbolically associate high tax rates with socialism and
Soviet Communism...
We absolutely do not have libertarianism operating in this country today. There is simply no evidence that there is any
sort of libertarian economic or political system in place. Oh sure, you'll whine "but globalism without actually defining
what globalism is, or what is wrong about precisely, but just that it's somehow wrong and that libertarians are to blame for it.
There's a good word for such an argument: bullshit.
We have an economy that is extraordinarily dominated by the state via mandates, regulations, and monetary interference that is
most decidedly not libertarian in any way whatsoever. The current system though does create and perpetuate a system of
rent-seeking cronies who conform rather nicely to the descriptions of said actors by Buchanan and Tullock. The problems of the
modern economy are the result of state interference, not its absence, and Cuenco's sorry policy prescriptions do nothing to minimize
the state but instead just create a different set of rent-seeking cronies for which the wealth and incomes of the nation are to
be expropriated.
If you can point to how the current situation is in any way "libertarian" without creating your own perfect little lazy straw
man definition then by all means do so. Until then your retort is without
substance (you see a no true Scotsman reply doesn't work if the facts are in the favor of the person supposedly making such an
argument. Here you fail to establish why what I said is such a case; saying it doesn't make it so). When Kent makes some throwaway
comment that we're somehow living in some sort of libertarian era he's full of it, you know it, and all you can do is provide
some weak "no true Scotsman" defense? Come on and man up, stop appealing to artificial complaints of fallacious argumentation,
and give me an actual solid argument with evidence beyond "this is so libertarian" that we're living in some libertarian golden
age that's driving the oppression of the masses.
Busted unions, contracting out and privatization, deregulation of vast swaths of the economy since the late 1970's (Jimmy Carter
has gotten kudos from libertarian writers for his de-regulatory efforts), lowered tax rates, especially on financial speculation
and concentrated wealth, a blind eye or shrugged shoulder to anti-trust law and corporate consolidation. Yeah, nothing to see
here, no partial victories for the libertarian wings of the ruling class or the GOP, at all. The Koch Brothers accomplished nothing,
absolutely nothing, since David was the Libertarian Party's nominee for Vice President in 1980; all that money gone to waste.
Sure.
So, now some sort of "partial victory" means we're living in some sort of libertarian era? And what exactly was so wonderful about
all the things you listed being perpetuated? So, union "busting" is terrible, but union corruption was a great part of our national
solidarity and should have been protected? Deregulation of vast swathes of the economy? You mean the elimination of government
controlled cartels in the form of trucking and airlines? You mean the sorts of things that have enabled the working class folks
you supposedly favor to travel to places that were previously out of reach for them and only accessible to the rich for their
vacations? Yes, that's truly terrible. Again, you're on the side of the little guy, right? Lowered taxes? Are you seriously going
to argue that the traditional conservative position has been for high tax rates? What are taxes placed upon? People and property.
What do conservatives want to protect? People and property. So... arguing for higher taxes or saying that low taxes are bad or
even especially, libertarian, is really going off the rails. That's just bad reasoning. And regarding financialization, those
weren't especially libertarian in their enacting, but rather flow directly out of the consequences of the modern Progressive implementation
of neo-Keynesian monetary and fiscal policy. Suffice it to say, I don't think you'll find too many arguments from libertarians
that the policies encouraging financialization were good or followed libertarian economic policy prescriptions. Moreover, they
led entirely to the repulsive "too big to fail" situation and if there's one thing that libertarians hold to is that there is
no such thing (or shouldn't be) as "too big to fail." The objection to anti-trust law is that it was regularly abused and actually
created government-protected firms that harmed consumers. If you think anti-trust laws are good things and should be supported
by conservatives then by all means encourage Joe Biden to have Elizabeth Warren as his vice-presidential running mate and go vote
Democrat this fall.
"The problems of the modern economy are the result of state interference, not its absence". That's because the "state interference"
is working as proxy for the interests of vulture capitalist.
What we have today is vulture capitalism as opposed to free enterprise capitalism.
Exactly. The existence of a vulture capitalist or crony capitalist economy, which we have in many sectors, is evidence that "libertarianism"
is nothing more than a convenient totem to invoke as a rationale for complaint against the outcomes of the existing crony capitalist
state of affairs. My contention is that Cuenco, et al are simply advocating for a replacement of the cronies and vultures.
A very similar article(but probably coming at it from a slightly different angle) wouldn't look out of place in a socialist publication.
The culture war really is a pointless waste of time that keeps working class people from working towards a common solution to
shared problems.
I used to think that conservatism was about protecting private property and not, like Cuenco, in coming up with ever more excuses
for expropriating it.
No, that's libertarianism (or more properly propertarianism). Conservatism is first and foremost about responsibility to God,
community, family and self. Property is only of value in its utility towards a means.
As I see it, here are examples of how "conservatives" have actually practiced their "responsibility to God, community, family
and self":
The genocide of Native Americans
The slavery and murder of blacks
Their opposition to child labor laws, to womens' suffrage, etc.
Their support of Jim Crow laws
Their opposition to ending slavery and opposition to desegregation
Opposition to Civil Liberties Laws
Willingness to block, or curtail, voting rights.
Hyping the "imminent threat" of an ever more powerful communist menace bearing
down on us from the late 40s to the "unanticipated" collapse of the
USSR in '91. All of which was little more than endless "threat inflation" used
by our defense industry-corporate kleptocrats to justify monstrous increases
in deficits that have been "invested" in our meddlesome, murderous militarism all around the world, with the torture and deaths
of millions from S. E. Asia, to Indonesia, to Latin America, to the Middle East, to Africa, etc.
Violations of privacy rights (conservative hero J. Edgar Hoover's illegal domestic surveillance and acts of domestic terrorism,
"justified" by
his loopy paranoia about commies on every corner and under every bed.)
Toppling of democracies to install totalitarian despots in Iran
("Ike" '53), Guatemala (Ike, again, '54), Chile (Nixon '73), Brazil (LBJ, '64) and many, many more countries.
Strong support of the Vietnam War, the wars in Laos and Cambodia, and the Iraq War, which, according to conservative W. Bush,
God had inspired.
The myriad "dirty wars" we've fought around the world, and not only in Latin America.
With a few, notable exceptions, conservatives have routinely been on the wrong side of these issues. For the most part, it
has been the left, particularly the "hard left," that has gotten it right.
So conservatism should be entirely about taking people's property "for the good of the country"? That the purpose of a country
is to loot the people? That the people exist for the government and not the government for the people? Seems Edmund Burke and
Russell Kirk would like to have a word with you Adm.
To quote Kirk as just one example of your fundamental error:
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked . [Apparently, Adm. you dispute
Kirk's assertion and accuse him thereby of conflating libertarianism and conservatism. Yes, I know Kirk was a hater of the
idea of patriotism, but he was such a raging libertarian what else could he do?] Separate property from private possession,
and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread
is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling[this
is the outcome of Cuenco's policy prescriptions by the way] , conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting
and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth
is much to be desired.
So, either "Mr. Conservative" Russell Kirk wasn't really a conservative but a man who horribly conflated libertarianism and
conservatism, or we can say that Kirk was a conservative and that he recognized the protection of private property as crucial
in minimizing the control and reach of the Leviathan state. If the latter holds, then maybe what we've established is that AdmBenson
isn't particularly conservative.
"The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth." This status quo
has produced precisely the opposite of this. Wealth, assets, capital has been captured by the elite. The pitchforks are coming.
See this CBO chart:
View Hide
Conservatives accept taxes as a part of citizenship. Since taxes can't be avoided, a conservative insists on democratic representation
and has a general desire to get maximum bang for their taxpayer buck.
Libertarians, on the other hand, see everything through the lens of an individual's property rights. Taxes and regulation are
infringements on those rights, so a libertarian is always at war with their own government. They're not interested in bang for
their taxpayer buck, they just want the government to go away. I can't fault people for believing this way, but I can point out
that it is severely faulty as the operating philosophy beyond anything but a small community.
As for me not being particularly conservative, ya got me. It really depends on time of day and the level of sunspot activity.
I should have put the /s on my reply, but your response did give me a good chuckle. Besides, for that finger pointing at you,
there were three more pointing back at me.
And somehow people continually fall for the Trickle Down economic theory. George HW Bush was correct when he called this VooDoo
economics. Fiscal irresponsibility at it's finest.
Nah people don't fall for it, republicans do. The rest of us know this stuff doesn't work. We didn't need an additional datapoint
to realize that. The Tax Cuts and Jobs act was the single most unpopular piece of legislation to ever pass since polling began.
It never had support outside of the Republican Party which is why it's never had majority support.
John Kenneth Galbraith called Trickle Down "economics", "Oats and Horse Economics". If you feed the horse a lot of oats, eventually
some be left on the road...
Mitch is fully owned by Trump as is every republican that holds office except Romney. Mitch can't go to the bathroom with out
asking Trumps permission.
Mitch is owned by corporations and he likes it that way. He basically says as much whenever campaign finance reform pops up and
he defends the status quo.
Yep. The guy who declared war on the Tea Party. The guy who changed his tune entirely about China when he married into the family
of a shipping magnate.
I'm eagerly awaiting a GOP plan for economic restructuring. I've been waiting for decade(s). Surely there is someone in the entire
body of think tanks, congressional staffers, and political class that can propose a genuine and comprehensive plan for how to
rebalance production, education, and technology for the better of ALL Americans. Surely...
I honestly wonder if Jack Kemp might have had a "Road to Damascus" conversion away from his pseudo-libertarian and supply side
economic convictions if he had lived through the decade after the Great Recession. Probably not, given his political and economic
activity up until his death.
Trump pushed the tax cut because it saves him at least $20 million each year in taxes, probably closer to $50 million. That's
the only reason he does anything, because he benefits personally.
Thank you very much for posting the link to the wonderful essay by Mike Lofgren. Written 8 years ago it feels even more actual
than then. I have bookmarked it for future reference.
Looking at the US it always comes to my mind the way Rome and then Byzantium fell: a total erosion of the tax-base the rich
refused to pay anything to the imperial coffers, and then some of the rich had land bigger than some modern countries... And then
the barbarians came...
Lofgren: "What I mean by secession is a withdrawal into enclaves, an internal immigration, whereby the rich disconnect themselves
from the civic life of the nation and from any concern about its well being except as a place to extract loot."
That was in 2012, but that was what struck me about my well-to-do classmates
when I transferred from Cal State Long Beach to Columbia University in 1977 . Suddenly I was among people who saw America,
American laws, and a shared sense of civic responsibility as quaint, bothersome, rather tangential to the project of promoting
oneself and/or one's special interest.
The only way that factories would come back is when Americans start buying made in America. We can't wait for ANY government to
bring those factories and jobs ( and technology) . Only people voting with their pocketbooks can do it.
Still waiting for the day the first American asks "What have WE done wrong?" Rather than just following in Trumps step
and playing the victim card every step of the way and wondering why nothing gets better.
Medea Benjamin
and Nicolas J. S.
Davies Posted on
May 29, 2020 May 28, 2020 On May 6th, President Trump vetoed a
war powers bill specifying that he must ask Congress for authorization to use military
force against Iran. Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign of deadly sanctions and
threats of war against Iran has seen no let-up, even as the U.S., Iran and the whole world
desperately need to set aside our conflicts to face down the common danger of the Covid-19
pandemic.
So what is it about Iran that makes it such a target of hostility for Trump and the neocons?
There are many repressive regimes in the world, and many of them are close US allies, so this
policy is clearly not based on an objective assessment that Iran is more repressive than Egypt,
Saudi Arabia or other monarchies in the Persian Gulf.
The Trump administration claims that its "maximum pressure" sanctions and threats of war
against Iran are based on the danger that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. But after decades
of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and despite the US's politicization of
the IAEA, the Agency has repeatedly confirmed that Iran does
not have a nuclear weapons program.
If Iran ever did any preliminary research on nuclear weapons, it was probably during the
Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, when the US and its allies helped Iraq to make
and use chemical weapons that killed up to 100,000 Iranians. A 2007 US
National Intelligence Estimate , the IAEA's 2015 " Final Assessment on Past and
Present Outstanding Issues" and decades of IAEA inspections have examined and resolved every
scrap of false evidence of a nuclear weapons program presented or fabricated by the CIA
and its allies.
If, despite all the evidence, US policymakers still fear that Iran could develop nuclear
weapons, then adhering to the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA), keeping Iran inside the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, and ensuring ongoing access by IAEA inspectors would provide greater
security than abandoning the deal.
As with Bush's false WMD claims about Iraq in 2003, Trump's real goal is not nuclear
non-proliferation but regime change. After 40 years of failed sanctions and hostility, Trump
and a cabal of US warhawks still cling to the vain hope that a tanking economy and widespread
suffering in Iran will lead to a popular uprising or make it vulnerable to another U.S.-backed
coup or invasion.
United Against a Nuclear Iran and the Counter Extremism Project
One of the key organizations promoting and pushing hostility towards Iran is a shadowy group
called United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). Founded in 2008, it was expanded and reorganized
in 2014 under the umbrella of the Counter Extremism Project United (CEPU) to broaden its
attacks on Iran and divert US policymakers' attention away from the role of Israel, Saudi
Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other US allies in spreading violence, extremism and chaos
in the greater Middle East.
UANI acts as a private enforcer of US sanctions by keeping a " business registry " of hundreds of companies
all over the world – from Adidas to Zurich Financial Services – that trade with or
are considering trading with Iran. UANI hounds these companies by naming and shaming them,
issuing reports for the media, and urging the Office of Foreign Assets Control to impose fines
and sanctions. It also keeps a checklist of companies that have signed a
declaration certifying they do not conduct business in or with Iran.
Proving how little they care about the Iranian people, UANI even targets pharmaceutical,
biotechnology, and medical-device corporations – including Bayer
, Merck , Pfizer , Eli
Lilly , and Abbott Laboratories
– that have been granted special US humanitarian aid licenses.
Where does UANI get its funds?
UANI was founded by three former US officials, Dennis Ross, Richard Holbrooke and Mark
Wallace. In 2013, it still had a modest budget of $1.7 million, nearly 80% coming from two
Jewish-American billionaires with strong ties to Israel and the Republican Party: $843,000 from
precious metals investor Thomas
Kaplan and $500,000 from casino owner
Sheldon Adelson . Wallace and other UANI staff have
also worked for Kaplan's investment firms, and he remains a key funder and advocate for
UANI and its affiliated groups.
In 2014, UANI split into two entities: the original UANI and the Green Light Project, which
does business as the Counter Extremism Project. Both entities are under the umbrella of and
funded by a third, Counter Extremism Project United (CEPU). This permits the organization to
brand its fundraising as being for the Counter Extremism Project, even though it still regrants
a third of its funds to UANI.
CEO Mark Wallace, Executive Director David Ibsen and other staff work for all three groups
in their shared
offices in Grand Central Tower in New York. In 2018, Wallace drew a combined salary of
$750,000 from all three entities, while Ibsen's combined salary was $512,126.
In recent years, the revenues for the umbrella group, CEPU, have mushroomed, reaching $22
million in 2017. CEPU is secretive about the sources of this money. But investigative
journalist
Eli Clifton , who starting looking into UANI in 2014 when it was sued for defamation by a
Greek ship owner it accused of violating sanctions on Iran, has found evidence suggesting
financial ties with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
That is certainly what
hacked emails between CEPU staff, an Emirati official and a Saudi lobbyist imply. In
September 2014, CEPU's president Frances Townsend emailed the UAE Ambassador to the US to
solicit the UAE's support and propose that it host and fund a CEPU forum in Abu
Dhabi.
Four months later, Townsend emailed again to
thank him , writing, "And many thanks for your and Richard Mintz' (UAE lobbyist) ongoing
support of the CEP effort!" UANI fundraiser Thomas Kaplan has formed a
close relationship with Emirati ruler Bin Zayed, and visited the UAE at least 24 times. In
2019, he gushed to an interviewer that the UAE and its despotic rulers
"are my closest partners in more parts of my life than anyone else other than my wife."
Another email from Saudi lobbyist and former Senator Norm Coleman to the Emirati Ambassador
about CEPU's tax status implied that the Saudis and Emiratis were both involved in its funding,
which would mean that CEPU may be violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act by failing to
register as a Saudi or Emirati agent in the US
Ben Freeman of the Center for International Policy has
documented the dangerously unaccountable and covert expansion of the influence of foreign
governments and military-industrial interests over US foreign policy in recent years, in which
registered lobbyists are only the "tip of the iceberg" when it comes to foreign influence. Eli
Clifton calls UANI, "a fantastic case study and maybe a microcosm of the ways in which American
foreign policy is actually influenced and implemented."
CEPU and
UANI's
staff and advisory boards are stocked with Republicans, neoconservatives and warhawks, many of
whom earn lavish salaries and consulting fees. In the two years before President Trump
appointed John Bolton as his National Security Advisor, CEPU paid Bolton
$240,000 in consulting fees. Bolton, who openly
advocates war with Iran, was instrumental in getting the Trump administration to withdraw
from the nuclear deal.
UANI also enlists Democrats to try to give the group broader, bipartisan credibility. The
chair of UANI's board is former Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, who was known as the most
pro-Zionist member of the Senate. A more moderate Democrat on UANI's board is former New Mexico
governor and UN ambassador Bill Richardson.
Norman Roule, a CIA veteran who was the National Intelligence Manager for Iran throughout
the Obama administration was paid $366,000 in
consulting fees by CEPU in 2018. Soon after the brutal Saudi assassination of journalist
Jamal Khassoghi, Roule and UANI fundraiser Thomas Kaplan met with Crown Prince Mohammed Bin
Salman in Saudi Arabia, and Roule then played a leading role in articles and on the
talk-show circuit whitewashing Bin Salman's repression and talking up his superficial "reforms"
of Saudi society.
More recently, amid a growing outcry from Congress, the UN and the European Union to ease US
sanctions on Iran during the pandemic, UANI chairman Joe Lieberman, CEPU president Frances
Townsend and CEO Mark Wallace signed a
letter to Trump that falsely claimed, "US sanctions neither prevent nor target the supply
of food, medicine or medical devices to Iran," and begged him not to relax his murderous
sanctions because of COVID-19. This was too much for Norman Roule, who tossed out his UANI
script and told the Nation ,
"the international community should do everything it can to enable the Iranian people to obtain
access to medical supplies and equipment."
Two Israeli shell companies to whom CEPU and UANI have paid millions of dollars in
"consulting fees" raise even more troubling questions. CEPU has paid over $500,000 to Darlink,
located near Tel Aviv, while UANI paid at least $1.5 million to Grove Business Consulting in
Hod Hasharon, about 10% of its revenues from 2016 to 2018. Neither firm seems to really exist,
but Grove's address on UANI's IRS filings appears in the Panama Papers as that of Dr. Gideon
Ginossar, an officer of an offshore company registered in the British Virgin Islands that
defaulted on its creditors in 2010.
Selling a Corrupted Picture to US Policymakers
UANI's parent group, Counter Extremism Project United, presents itself as dedicated to
countering all forms of extremism. But in practice, it is predictably selective in its targets,
demonizing Iran and its allies while turning a blind eye to other countries with more credible
links to extremism and terrorism.
UANI supports
accusations by Trump and US warhawks that Iran is "the world's worst state sponsor of
terrorism," based mainly on its support for the Lebanese Shiite political party Hezbollah,
whose militia defends
southern Lebanon against Israel and fights in Syria as an ally of the government.
But Iran placed UANI on its own list of terrorist groups in 2019 after Mark Wallace and UANI
hosted a meeting at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York that was mainly attended by supporters of
the Mujahedin-e-Kalqh (MEK). The MEK
is a group that the US government itself listed as a terrorist organization until 2012 and
which is still committed to the violent overthrow of the government in Iran – preferably
by persuading the US and its allies to do it for them. UANI tried to distance itself from the
meeting after the fact, but the published program listed UANI as the event organizer.
On the other hand, there are two countries where CEPU and UANI seem strangely unable to find
any links to extremism or terrorism at all, and they are the very countries that appear to be
funding their operations, lavish salaries and shadowy "consulting fees": Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates.
Many Americans are still demanding a public investigation into Saudi Arabia's role in the
crimes of September 11th. In a court case against Saudi Arabia brought by 9/11 victims'
families, the FBI recently revealed that a
Saudi Embassy official , Mussaed Ahmed al-Jarrah, provided crucial support to two of the
hijackers. Brett Eagleson, a spokesman for the families whose father was killed on September
11th, told Yahoo News , "(This) demonstrates there was a hierarchy of command that's
coming from the Saudi Embassy to the Ministry of Islamic Affairs [in Los Angeles] to the
hijackers."
The global spread of the Wahhabi version of Islam that unleashed and fueled Al Qaeda,
ISIS and other violent Muslim extremist groups has been driven primarily by Saudi Arabia, which
has built and funded Wahhabi schools and mosques all over the world. That includes the King
Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles that the two 9/11 hijackers attended.
It is also well
documented that Saudi Arabia has been the largest funder and arms supplier for the Al
Qaeda-led forces that have destroyed Syria since 2011, including CIA-brokered shipments of
thousands of tons of weapons from Benghazi in Libya and at least eight countries in Eastern
Europe.The UAE also
supplied arms funding to Al Qaeda-allied rebels in Syria between 2012 and 2016, and the Saudi
and UAE roles have now been reversed in Libya, where the UAE is the main supplier of
thousands of tons of weapons to General Haftar's rebel forces. In Yemen, both the Saudis and
Emiratis have committed war crimes .
The Saudi and Emirati air forces have bombed schools, clinics, weddings and school buses, while
the Emiratis
tortured detainees in 18 secret prisons in Yemen.
But United Against a Nuclear Iran and Counter Extremism Project have redacted all of this
from the one-sided worldview they offer to US policymakers and the American corporate media.
While they demonize Iran, Qatar, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood as extremists and
terrorists, they depict Saudi Arabia and the UAE exclusively as victims of terrorism and allies
in U.S.-led "counterterrorism" campaigns, never as sponsors of extremism and terrorism or
perpetrators of war crimes.
The message of these groups dedicated to "countering extremism" is clear and none too
subtle: Saudi Arabia and the UAE are always US allies and victims of extremism, never a problem
or a source of danger, violence or chaos. The country we should all be worrying about is
– you guessed it – Iran. You couldn't pay for propaganda like this! But on the
other hand, if you're Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates and you have greedy, corrupt
Americans knocking on your door eager to sell their loyalty, maybe you can.
The Biden campaign has quietly canceled a fundraiser headlined by
Andrew Weissman - former special counsel Robert Mueller's 'attack dog' lawyer who
hand-picked the so-called '13 angry Democrats.'
Weissman, who attended Hillary Clinton's election night party in 2016, donated to Obama and
the DNC, yet somehow conducted an unbiased investigation that turned up snake-eyes, was set to
do a June 2 "fireside chat" with Biden , according to the
WSJ , which notes that the fundraiser was pulled right after it was posted late last week -
shortly after the Trump campaign began to latch onto it.
Yes, there's more value in keeping the lie going that the mueller special counsel hasn't
already been established beyond any doubt as a fraudulent and deeply unethical partisan
takedown scheme against Trump https://t.co/5wuFYpgggr https://t.co/mxaHomTaQO
Weissman - known as the "architect" of the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul
Manafort - notably reached out to a
Ukrainian oligarch for dirt on Trump and his team days after FBI agent Peter Strzok texted
"There's no big there there" regarding the Trump investigation in exchange for 'resolving the
Firtash case' in Chicago, in which he was charged in 2014 with corruption and bribery linked to
a US aerospace deal.
According to investigative journalist John Solomon, Firtash turned down Weissman's offer
because he didn't have credible information or evidence against Trump , Manafort, or anyone
else.
"... The failure of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) against COVID-19, with nearly four times the annual budget of the WHO, is visible to the world. The CDC failed to provide a successful test for SARS-CoV-2 in the critical months of February and March , while ignoring the WHO's successful test kits that were distributed to 120 countries. ..."
"... Trump has yet to hold his administration and the CDC responsible for this criminal bungling. This, more than any other failure , is the reason that the U.S. numbers for COVID-19 are now more than 1.5 million and about a third of all global infections. Contrast this with China, the first to face an unknown epidemic, stopping it at 82,000 infections, and the amazing results that countries such as Vietnam and South Korea have produced. ..."
"... Taiwan was the first to inform the WHO of human-to-human transmissions in December, but was completely ignored. ..."
"... "Just how evil does this situation become? Is the general leadership of the American political economy trying to be evil just for the fun of it?" ..."
"... And at what point does the general indifference to this state of affairs that still, incredibly, obtains, turn over into mass outrage and condemnation? Skrelli, Bayer, and all the rest are frelling evil. Extortion writ large, with easily preventable death and suffering. ..."
"... As you note it's about profits. One of the disturbing condemnations of the now fading American Century, which most USians remain contentedly oblivious to is that during their watch as global hegemon, the US, in what can be seen, in the best light, as bad faith, worked to undermine the democratic functionality of international cooperative organizations like the WHO, the UN, etc. ..."
"... The intention of granting copyrights and patents was noble, to provide a limited monopoly on an invention or literary work for a limited period. IP has been distorted and twisted, extended to insane time limits to protect works that for any common sense thinkers have already become public domain (see, e.g. the Happy Birthday song, Mickey Mouse or re-formulation of a drug that's gone out of patent). Software should have had its own IP regime but that ship has sailed (thanks Bill G.). ..."
Donald Trump launched a new vaccine war in May, but not against the virus. It was against
the world. The United States and the UK
were the only
two holdouts in the World Health Assembly from the declaration that vaccines and medicines
for COVID-19
should be available as public goods , and not under exclusive patent rights. The
United States explicitly disassociated itself from the patent pool call, talking instead of
"the critical role that intellectual property plays" -- in other words, patents for vaccines
and medicines. Having badly botched his COVID-19 response, Trump is trying to redeem his
electoral fortunes in the November elections this year by promising an early vaccine. The 2020
version of Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan is shaping up to be, essentially, "
vaccines for us" -- but the rest of the world will have to queue up and pay what big pharma
asks, as they will hold the patents.
Trump has yet to hold his administration and the CDC responsible for this criminal
bungling. This, more than any
other failure , is the reason that the U.S. numbers for COVID-19 are now more than 1.5
million and about a third of all global infections. Contrast this with China, the first to face
an unknown epidemic, stopping it at 82,000 infections, and the amazing results that countries
such as Vietnam and
South Korea have produced.
One issue is now looming large over the COVID-19 pandemic. If we do not address the
intellectual property rights issue in this pandemic, we are likely to see a repeat of the AIDS tragedy . People
died for 10 years (1994-2004) as patented AIDS medicine was priced at $10,000 to $15,000
for a year's supply, far beyond their reach. Finally, patent
laws in India allowed people to get AIDS medicine at less than a dollar a day , or $350 for a year's supply.
Today, 80
percent of the world's AIDS medicine comes from India. For big pharma, profits trumped
lives, and they will continue to do so, COVID or no COVID, unless we change the world.
Most countries have compulsory licensing provisions that will allow them to break patents in
case of epidemics or health emergencies. Even the WTO, after a bitter fight, accepted in its
Doha Declaration (2001) that countries, in a health emergency, have the right to allow any
company to manufacture a patented drug without the patent holder's permission, and even import
it from other countries.
Why is it, then, that countries are unable to break patents, even if there are provisions in
their laws and in the TRIPS Agreement? The answer is their fear of U.S. sanctions against them.
Every year, the U.S. Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issues a Special
301 Report that it has used to threaten trade sanctions against any country that tries to
compulsorily license any patented product.
India figures prominently in this report year after year, for daring to
issue a compulsory license in 2012 to Natco for nexavar, a cancer drug Bayer was selling
for
more than $65,000 a year . Marijn Dekkers, the CEO of Bayer, was quoted widely that this
was "theft," and "We did not develop
this medicine for Indians We developed it for Western patients who can afford it."
This leaves unanswered how many people even in the affluent West can afford a $65,000 bill
for an illness. But there is no question that a bill of this magnitude is a death sentence for
anybody but the super-rich in countries like India. Though a number of other drugs were under
also consideration for compulsory licensing at that time, India has not exercised this
provision again after receiving U.S. threats.
It is the fear that countries can break patents using their compulsory licensing powers that
led to proposals for patent pooling. The argument was that since many of these diseases do not
affect rich countries, big pharma should either let go of their patents to such patent pools,
or philanthropic capital should fund the development of new drugs for this pool. Facing the
pandemic of COVID-19, it is this idea of patent pooling that emerged in the recent World Health
Assembly , WHA-73. All countries supported this proposal, barring the
United States and its loyal camp follower, the UK . The
United States also entered its disagreement on the final WHA resolution, being the
lone objector to patent pooling of COVID-19 medicines and vaccines, noting "the critical
role that intellectual property plays in incentivizing the development of new and improved
health products."
While patent pooling is welcome if no other measure is available, it also makes it appear as
if countries have no other recourse apart from the charity of big capital. What this hides, as
charity always does, is that people and countries have legitimate rights even under TRIPS to
break patents under conditions of an epidemic or a health emergency.
The United States, which screams murder if a compulsory license is issued by any country,
has no such compunction when its own interests are threatened. During the anthrax scare in
2001, the U.S. Secretary of Health issued a threat to
Bayer under "eminent domain for patents" for licensing the anthrax-treatment drug
ciprofloxacin to other manufacturers. Bayer folded, and agreed to supply the quantity at a
price that the U.S. government had set. And without a whimper. Yes, this is the same Bayer that
considers India as a "thief" for issuing a compulsory license!
The vaccination for COVID-19 might need to be repeated each year, as we still do not know
the duration of its protection. It is unlikely that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 will
provide a lifetime
immunity like the smallpox vaccine. Unlike AIDS, where the patient numbers were smaller and
were unfortunately stigmatized in different ways, COVID-19 is a visible threat for everyone.
Any attempt to hold people and governments to ransom on COVID-19 vaccines or medicines could
see the collapse of the entire patent edifice of TRIPS that big pharma backed by the United
States and major EU countries have built. That is why the more clever in the capitalist world
have moved toward a voluntary
patent pool for potential COVID-19 medicines and vaccines. A voluntary patent pool means
that companies or institutions holding patents on medicines -- such as remdesivir -- or
vaccines would voluntarily hand them over to such a pool. The terms and conditions of such a
handover, meaning at concessional rates, or for only for certain regions, are still not clear
-- leading to criticism that a voluntary patent pool is not a substitute for declaring that all
such medicines and vaccines should be declared global public goods during the COVID-19
pandemic.
Unlike clever capital, Trump's response to the COVID-19 vaccine is to thuggishly bully his
way through. He believes that with the unlimited money that the United States is now willing to
put into the vaccine efforts, it will either beat everybody else to the winning post, or
buy the company that is
successful . If this strategy succeeds, he can then use "his" COVID-19 vaccine as a new
instrument of global power. It is the United States that will then decide which countries get
the vaccine (and for how much), and which ones don't.
Trump's little problem is that the days of the United States being a sole global hegemon
passed decades ago. The United States has shown itself as a
fumbling giant and its epidemic response
shambolic . It has been unable to provide virus tests to its people in time, and failed to
stop the epidemic through containment/mitigation measures, which a number of other countries
have done.
China and the
EU have already agreed that any vaccine developed by them will be regarded as a public
good. Even without that, once a medicine or a vaccine is known to be successful, any country
with a reasonable scientific infrastructure can replicate the medicine or the vaccine, and
manufacture it locally. India in particular has one of the largest
generic drug and vaccine manufacturing capacities in the world. What prevents India, or any
country for that matter, from manufacturing COVID-19 vaccines or drugs once they are developed
-- only the empty threat of a failed hegemon on breaking patents?
Clearly the Trump and Johnson administrations are completely wrong in not supporting that
all COVID vaccines and medications be declared as public goods. This is an unprecedented
global threat requiring unprecedented global response.
But as a Canadian I have to reluctantly admit, there are legimate reasons to oppose the
WHO. Trump like a broken clock can be correct twice a day, even if he is wrong the other 1438
times a day.
The worst offence is that the WHO (World Health Organisation) is suppose to represent the
world, and yet it deliberately excludes Taiwan, which it a known part of the world with 24
million people.
Taiwan was the first to inform the WHO of human-to-human transmissions in December, but
was completely ignored. And Taiwan has best handled its response to the pandemic.
Personally I think that all countries should stop supporting the WHO until it restores
Taiwan's observer status it previous had until 2016. The only other reasonable option would
be to create an alternative health organisation to the WHO which does not exclude any part of
the world.
The WHO also has other failings, including corruption, exorbitant travel expenses, and an
unqualified president beholden to the CCP. But these failings pale in comparison to Taiwan's
exclusion, and hopefully the other failings can be fixed within the organisation.
"Just how evil does this situation become? Is the general leadership of the American
political economy trying to be evil just for the fun of it?"
And at what point does the general indifference to this state of affairs that still,
incredibly, obtains, turn over into mass outrage and condemnation?
Skrelli, Bayer, and all the rest are frelling evil. Extortion writ large, with easily preventable death and suffering.
it did NOT begin with trump.It's been there for most of my life. What will it take for ordinary people to get mad enough about it all to do something about
it?
Even in this article, the unspoken assumption is that our hands are somehow tied that these
corps have agency far beyond anyone else's but those corps can be seized, and exist only at
the pleasure of governments in the places they pretend to exist in.
They are a human creation an Egregore, set tottering about as if it were willful and
alive
but even Lefties treat them as untouchable godlike entities "oh, well lets appeal to
"Benevolent Capital, instead "
"Behold, I show you the last man.
'What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?' thus asks the last man,
and blinks.
The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race
is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.
'We have invented happiness,'say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions
where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs
against him, for one needs warmth
One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the
entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much
exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.
No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels
different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.
'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink
One has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night: but one
has a regard for health.
'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink.""
As you note it's about profits. One of the disturbing condemnations of the now fading
American Century, which most USians remain contentedly oblivious to is that during their
watch as global hegemon, the US, in what can be seen, in the best light, as bad faith, worked
to undermine the democratic functionality of international cooperative organizations like the
WHO, the UN, etc.
Thus when emergencies arise such as international diplomatic crisis or pandemics, it is
found these organisations have been rendered untrustworthy, corrupted and unreliable;
unsuited to purpose. American exceptionalism?
It is clear now that the USA will not fund a national public health system to fight the
coronavirus epidemic. The only conclusion is the reason is to allow Pharmaceutical
Corporations to make huge profits by marketing patented drugs and vaccines to treat the
illness; if and when, they become available sometime in the future.
Due to incompetence, lack of money and bad messengering; the economic reopening of the USA
could kill close to a million Americans. To Republicans and Libertarians, this is of no
concern. Democrats may acknowledge the deaths but say they are unavoidable.
For the Elite keeping their wealth is more important than spending a portion to prevent
the huge costs in lives and treasure that will come once the Wuhan Coronavirus is established
across North America like the related common cold.
This is a teachable moment on the immorality of all "intellectual property". I am pleased to see that so many countries – other than the US and the UK –
can get together on the common decency of allowing everyone to live, and set that above the
"justice" of paying off intellectual property assignees. But these countries still have some
ways to go in understanding that this applies to all information. That the creation of
information can never be a living – in contrast to a living based on the creation of
essential goods and services, about which we are learning so much right now! – and that
information can never be owned.
They do not yet fully comprehend that all claims to own and extract rent from information
are in fact crimes against humanity.
The intention of granting copyrights and patents was noble, to provide a limited monopoly
on an invention or literary work for a limited period. IP has been distorted and twisted,
extended to insane time limits to protect works that for any common sense thinkers have
already become public domain (see, e.g. the Happy Birthday song, Mickey Mouse or
re-formulation of a drug that's gone out of patent). Software should have had its own IP
regime but that ship has sailed (thanks Bill G.).
Either a giant reform is due or people will ignore the law and infringe the IP. Chinese
companies do it with impunity. Maybe they're right to do so.
Patent applications for the top 20 offices, 2018
Rank Country Patent applications
1 China 1,542,002
2 U.S. 597,141
3 Japan 313,567
4 South Korea 209,992
If one sums up USA patent applications vs Asia (China, Japan, SK), it is USA 597K vs Asia
2066K.
So Asia is putting in patent applications, vs the USA, at a 3.46 multiple vs the USA.
It will be interesting to see if the USA attitude about the sanctity of intellectual
property changes when important key patents are held by the rest of the world.
Teachable moments. This could get really interesting if China or a non US & associated puppets develops
an effect Covid treatment first.
I will dream of something like this: China develops vaccine, offers it free to US on condition it reduce it's Dept of War &
Aggression by 80% and honor all existing and recently existing arms control agreement, and
withdraws it's Naval forces though out the world and confines them to the North Atlantic and
California coast.
I wonder if a geopolitically powerful nation/bloc of nations such as China/India/etc might
announce that they disregard pharma IP, & announce that they will adhere to the economist
Dr Dean Baker-type policy of open source pharma R&D/recipe publication, any private
manufacturer may manufacture & sell the resultant pharma SKU. I am referring to any type
of pharma or medical device (such as ventilators), not just a COVID-19 vaccine. I would
guesstimate that the "soft power" & goodwill generated by such a policy would be
extremely beneficial to those nation(s). Furthermore, the US if it tried to retaliate via
sanctions or other threats would get a corresponding additional decrease in soft power.
To be honest, in some instances Indian govt practices on pharma are quite bad. It is
extremely hard in some instances to recoup investments at prices they ask for.
Trump claims that the resolution was "based on misunderstandings of facts and law." The
only allegedly incorrect fact he mentions is the existence of open hostilities between the
United States and Iran, but that's merely a reflection of the time when the measure was
drafted. Besides, the two countries are still not exactly at peace with each other, thanks
in part to the president.
Trump is the one who is clearly mistaken regarding the law. He insists, as he did in
January, that the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Saddam Hussein's
Iraq was sufficient justification for killing Soleimani, but as the American Conservative's
Daniel Larison opined, "There is no honest reading of that resolution that supports this
interpretation." In addition, he claims that he derives his war-making power from Article
II of the Constitution, yet that article specifically states that "the president shall be
commander in chief of the [armed forces] when called into the actual service of the United
States." (Emphasis added.) And who gets to call them into service? According to Article I,
Congress does, by declaring war.
Trump doubles down on this unsupportable assertion in his next paragraph:
The resolution implies that the President's constitutional authority to use military
force is limited to defense of the United States and its forces against imminent attack.
That is incorrect. We live in a hostile world of evolving threats, and the Constitution
recognizes that the President must be able to anticipate our adversaries' next moves and
take swift and decisive action in response. That's what I did!
This is on a par with Trump's declaration over the states re-opening: he declared: "When
somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way
it's got to be."
This lunatic thinks he's Caesar!
Anyone who thinks he won't start a new war - somewhere - is delusional. He may not start
one *before* the election, but if he wins, what about *after*? And i wouldn't even be sure
about "before". He's dumb enough to think - or be convinced by his neocon advisers - that he
could get a "war President" boost in the polls if he starts one before the election. After
all, the one time he got a boost in the polls was when he attacked Syria over the bogus
"chemical weapons" incidents. So I wouldn't rule anything out.
Looks like Strzok and Page played larger role in Obamagate/Russiagate then it was assumed
initially
Notable quotes:
"... Just 17 days before President Trump took office in January 2017, then-FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok texted bureau lawyer Lisa Page, his mistress, to express concern about sharing sensitive Russia probe evidence with the departing Obama White House. ..."
"... Strzok related Priestap's concerns about the potential the evidence would be politically weaponized if outgoing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper shared the intercept cuts with the White House and President Obama, a well-known Flynn critic. ..."
"... "He, like us, is concerned with over sharing," Strzok texted Page on Jan. 3, 2017, relating his conversation with Priestap. ..."
"... The investigators are trying to determine whether Obama's well-known disdain for Flynn, a career military intelligence officer, influenced the decision by the FBI leadership to reject its own agent's recommendation to shut down a probe of Flynn in January 2017 and instead pursue an interview where agents might catch him in a lie. ..."
"... "The evidence connecting President Obama to the Flynn operation is getting stronger," one investigator with direct knowledge told me. ..."
"... Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray said Friday that the Flynn matter was at the very least a "political scandal of the highest order" and could involve criminal charges if evidence emerges that officials lied or withheld documents to cover up what happened. ..."
"... "I imagine there are people who are in the know who may well have knowingly withheld information from the court and from defense counsel in connection with the Michael Flynn prosecution," Ray told Fox News . ..."
"... April 2014: Flynn is forced out as the chief of DIA by Obama after clashing with the administration over the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS, and other policies. The Obama administration blames his management style for the departure. ..."
"... Jan. 3, 2017: Strzok and Page engage in the text messages about Obama's daily briefing and the concerns about giving the Flynn intercept cuts to the White House. ..."
"... Jan. 4, 2017: Lead agent in Flynn Crossfire Razor probe prepares closing memo recommending the case be shut down for lack of derogatory evidence. Strzok texts agent asking him to stop the closing memo because the "7th floor" leadership of the FBI is now involved. ..."
"... Jan. 5, 2017: Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates attends Russia briefing with Obama at the White House and is stunned to learn Obama already knows about the Flynn-Kislyak intercept . Then-FBI Director James Comey claims Clapper told the president, but Clapper has denied telling Obama. ..."
"... Investigators are trying to determine whether Obama asked for the Flynn intercept or it was offered to him and by whom. They also want to know how many times Comey and Obama talked about Flynn in December 2016 and January 2017. ..."
"... "We need to determine what motivated the FBI on Jan. 4, 2017 to overrule its own agent who believed Flynn was innocent and the probe should be closed," one investigator said. ..."
"... Obama weaponized everything he could, ..."
"... The idea that Obama was the center of anything is misdirection. The 'deep state,' as much as I loathe the term, is nothing but State clerks bent by their sense of self importance, venality in the adherence to 'rules,' and motivated by either their greed or their indignation that their status position is merely relative. ..."
"... The Flynn persecution is just the tip of the iceberg of corruption, illegal surveillance, perjury, money laundering, skimming and sedition. ..."
"... One can only imagine all the times Obama weaponized the intelligence agencies against his political opponents that will never be exposed ..."
"... John and Sarah Carter have knocked it out of the park since the Obama attempted coup started. ..."
"... In Watergate, the underlying crime was "Nixon spied on the Democrats". Everything else was just a question of who did what, and how much. ..."
"... How come there's never any mention of "London Collusion", as if UK interference in U.S. politics and society is quite alright -- even when it's highly detrimental? ..."
"... Brennan went over and met with MI-6 right about the time that Trump announced his candidacy. I think the whole Russia-Collusion thing was their idea and they put Brennan on to it. Set it all up for him, complete with a diagram so he wouldn't **** it up. That's what MI-6 does. ..."
"... MI-6, like Christopher Steele, hated Trump because they BADLY want World Government. Have been sabotaging Brexit for years. ..."
"... It's easier for me to imagine Obama as puppet than a ringleader. He always seemed to be a fake, manufactured sort of person. As if he was focus-group-tested and approved. ..."
Agents fretted sharing Flynn intel with departing Obama White House would become fodder for
'partisan axes to grind.'
Just 17 days before President Trump took office in January 2017, then-FBI
counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok texted bureau lawyer Lisa Page, his mistress, to express
concern about sharing sensitive Russia probe evidence with the departing Obama White House.
Strzok had just engaged in a conversation with his boss, then-FBI Assistant Director William
Priestap, about evidence from the investigation of incoming National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn, codenamed Crossfire Razor, or "CR" for short.
The evidence in question were so-called "tech cuts" from intercepted conversations between
Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to the texts and interviews with
officials familiar with the conversations.
Strzok related Priestap's concerns about the potential the evidence would be politically
weaponized if outgoing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper shared the intercept
cuts with the White House and President Obama, a well-known Flynn critic.
"He, like us, is concerned with over sharing," Strzok texted Page on Jan. 3, 2017,
relating his conversation with Priestap.
"Doesn't want Clapper giving CR cuts to WH. All political, just shows our hand and
potentially makes enemies."
Page seemed less concerned, knowing that the FBI was set in three days to release its
initial assessment of Russian interference in the U.S. election.
"Yeah, but keep in mind we were going to put that in the doc on Friday, with potentially
larger distribution than just the DNI," Page texted back.
Strzok responded, "The question is should we, particularly to the entirety of the lame
duck usic [U.S Intelligence Community] with partisan axes to grind."
That same day Strzok and Page also discussed in text messages a drama involving one of the
Presidential Daily Briefings for Obama.
"Did you follow the drama of the PDB last week?" Strzok asked.
"Yup. Don't know how it ended though," Page responded.
"They didn't include any of it, and Bill [Priestap] didn't want to dissent," Strzok
added.
"Wow, Bill should make sure [Deputy Director] Andy [McCabe] knows about that since he was
consulted numerous times about whether to include the reporting," Page suggested.
You can see the text messages recovered from Strzok's phone here.
The text messages, which were never released to the public by the FBI but were provided to
this reporter in September 2018, have taken on much more significance to both federal and
congressional investigators in recent weeks as the Justice Department has requested that
Flynn's conviction be thrown out and his charges of lying to the FBI about Kislyak
dismissed.
U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen of Missouri (special prosecutor for DOJ), the FBI inspection
division, three Senate committees and House Republicans are all investigating the handling of
Flynn's case and whether any crimes were committed or political influence exerted.
The investigators are trying to determine whether Obama's well-known disdain for Flynn, a
career military intelligence officer, influenced the decision by the FBI leadership to reject
its own agent's recommendation to shut down a probe of Flynn in January 2017 and instead pursue
an interview where agents might catch him in a lie.
They also want to know whether the conversation about the PDB involved Flynn and "reporting"
the FBI had gathered by early January 2017 showing the incoming national security adviser was
neither a counterintelligence nor a criminal threat.
"The evidence connecting President Obama to the Flynn operation is getting stronger," one
investigator with direct knowledge told me.
"The bureau knew it did not have evidence to justify that Flynn was either a criminal or
counterintelligence threat and should have shut the case down. But the perception that Obama
and his team would not be happy with that outcome may have driven the FBI to keep the probe
open without justification and to pivot to an interview that left some agents worried
involved entrapment or a perjury trap."
The investigator said more interviews will need to be done to determine exactly what role
Obama's perception of Flynn played in the FBI's decision making.
Recently declassified evidence show a total of 39 outgoing Obama administration officials
sought to unmask Flynn's name in intelligence interviews between Election Day 2016 and
Inauguration Day 2017, signaling a keen interest in Flynn's overseas calls.
Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray said Friday that the Flynn matter was at
the very least a "political scandal of the highest order" and could involve criminal charges if
evidence emerges that officials lied or withheld documents to cover up what happened.
"I imagine there are people who are in the know who may well have knowingly withheld
information from the court and from defense counsel in connection with the Michael Flynn
prosecution,"
Ray told Fox News .
"If it turns out that that can be proved, then there are going to be referrals and
potential false statements, and/or perjury prosecutions to hold those, particularly those in
positions of authority, accountable," he added.
Investigators have created the following timeline of key events through documents produced
piecemeal by the FBI over two years:
April 2014: Flynn is forced out as the chief of DIA by Obama after clashing with the
administration over the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS, and other policies. The Obama
administration blames his management style for the departure.
July 31, 2016:
FBI opens Crossfire Hurricane probe into possible ties between Trump campaign and Russia,
focused on Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. Flynn is not an initial target of that
probe.
Aug. 15, 2016: Strzok and Page engage in their infamous text exchange about having an
insurance policy just in case Trump should be elected. "I want to believe the path you threw
out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm
afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40," one text reads.
Aug. 16, 2016: FBI opens a sub-case under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella codenamed
Crossfire Razor focused on whether Flynn was wittingly or unwittingly engaged in
inappropriate Russian contact.
Aug. 17, 2016: FBI and DNI provide Trump and Flynn first briefing after winning the
nomination, including on Russia. FBI slips in an agent posing as an assistant for the
briefing to secretly get a read on Flynn for the new investigation, according to the
Justice
Department inspector general report on Russia case. "SSA 1 told us that the briefing
provided him 'the opportunity to gain assessment and possibly some level of familiarity with
[Flynn]. So, should we get to the point where we need to do a subject interview ... would
have that to fall back on,'" the IG report said.
Sept, 2, 2016: While preparing a talking points memo for Obama ahead of a conversation
with Russian leader Vladimir Putin involving Russian election interference, Page texts
Strzok that Obama wants to be read-in on everything the FBI is doing on the Russia
collusion case. "POTUS wants to know everything we're doing," Page texted.
Nov. 10, 2016: Two days after Trump won the election, the president-elect meets with
Obama at the White House and the outgoing president encourages the
incoming president not to hire Flynn as an adviser.
Jan. 3, 2017: Strzok and Page engage in the text messages about Obama's daily briefing
and the concerns about giving the Flynn intercept cuts to the White House.
Jan. 4, 2017:
Lead agent in Flynn Crossfire Razor probe prepares closing memo recommending the case be
shut down for lack of derogatory evidence. Strzok texts agent asking him to stop the closing
memo because the "7th floor" leadership of the FBI is now involved.
Jan. 5–23, 2017: FBI prepares to conduct an interview of Flynn. The discussions
lead Priestap, the assistant director, to openly question in his
handwritten notes whether the bureau was "playing games" and trying to get Flynn to lie
so "we can prosecute him or get him fired."
Jan. 24, 2017: FBI conducts interview with Flynn.
Investigators are trying to determine whether Obama asked for the Flynn intercept or it was
offered to him and by whom. They also want to know how many times Comey and Obama talked about
Flynn in December 2016 and January 2017.
"We need to determine what motivated the FBI on Jan. 4, 2017 to overrule its own agent who
believed Flynn was innocent and the probe should be closed," one investigator said.
arrowrod , 26 minutes ago
Grenell comes in for a month, releases a **** load of "secret poop", then is replaced.
President Trump should fire the head of the FBI and replace with Grenell. I know, too
easy.
"Expletive deleted", (I'm looking for new cuss words) the FBI and DOJ appear to be a bunch
of stumble bum hacks, yet continue to get away with murder.
Schiff, lied and lied, but had immunity, because anything said on the house floor is safe
from prosecution. Yet, GOP congress critters didn't go on the house floor and read the
transcript from the testimony of the various liars.
"Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God."-ThomasJefferson , 3 hours ago
Obama weaponized everything he could, including race, gender, religion, truth, law
enforcement, judiciary, news industry, intelligence community, international allies and
foes.
The most corrupt administration in the history of the republic. The abuse of power is mind
numbing.
Only one way to rectify the damage the Obama administration has done to the USA is to
systematically undo every single thing they touched.
Decimus Lunius Luvenalis , 3 hours ago
The idea that Obama was the center of anything is misdirection. The 'deep state,' as much
as I loathe the term, is nothing but State clerks bent by their sense of self importance,
venality in the adherence to 'rules,' and motivated by either their greed or their
indignation that their status position is merely relative.
Soloamber , 3 hours ago
The motive was to get Flynn fired and lay the ground work to impeach Trump . The problem is Flynn actually did nothing wrong but he was targeted , framed , and
blackmailed into claiming he lied over nothing illegal .
They destroyed his reputation , they financially ruined him and once they did that the sleazy prosecutors ran like rabbits . The judge is so in the bag , he bullied Flynn with implied threats about treason . The Judge is going to get absolutely fragged . Delay delay delay but the jig is up .
DOJ says case dropped and the Judge wants to play prosecutor . The Judge should be investigated along with the other criminals who framed Flynn . Who is the judge tied to ? Gee I wonder .
Nature_Boy_Wooooo , 4 hours ago
"As long as I'm alive the Republican party won't let anything happen to you."
"Thanks John McCain!......now let's set the trap."
"Let's do it Barry."
THORAX , 4 hours ago
The Flynn persecution is just the tip of the iceberg of corruption, illegal surveillance,
perjury, money laundering, skimming and sedition.
subgen , 4 hours ago
One can only imagine all the times Obama weaponized the intelligence agencies against his
political opponents that will never be exposed
sborovay07 , 5 hours ago
John and Sarah Carter have knocked it out of the park since the Obama attempted coup
started. CNN should give their fake Pulitzers too the two reporters who told the truth. It
been like the tree that falls in the forest. However, once the arrests start more people will
see the tree that fell. These treasonists
need to pay for their crimes Bigly.
Omni Consumer Product , 4 hours ago
There's too much spookology here for a jury - much less the public - to decipher.
You need a smoking gun, like a tape of Obama saying "I want General Flynn assassinated
because Orange Man Bad".
In Watergate, the underlying crime was "Nixon spied on the Democrats". Everything else was
just a question of who did what, and how much.
That's what is need here to swell the mass of public opinion. Of course, leftwing true
believers of "the Resistance" will never accept it, but that is what is needed to convince
the significant minority of more centrist Americans who haven't made a final decision
yet.
Lux , 5 hours ago
How come there's never any mention of "London Collusion", as if UK interference in U.S.
politics and society is quite alright -- even when it's highly detrimental?
fackbankz , 5 hours ago
The Crown took us over in 1913. We're just the muscle.
Lord Raglan , 5 hours ago
Brennan went over and met with MI-6 right about the time that Trump announced his
candidacy. I think the whole Russia-Collusion thing was their idea and they put Brennan on to
it. Set it all up for him, complete with a diagram so he wouldn't **** it up. That's what
MI-6 does.
MI-6, like Christopher Steele, hated Trump because they BADLY want World Government. Have
been sabotaging Brexit for years.
Brennan's just not smart or creative enough to have figured out the Hoax on his own. He's
certainly corrupt enough.
flashmansbroker , 4 hours ago
More likely, the Brits were asked to do a favor.
Steele Hammorhands , 5 hours ago
It's easier for me to imagine Obama as puppet than a ringleader. He always seemed to be a
fake, manufactured sort of person. As if he was focus-group-tested and approved.
Side Note: Does anyone remember when Obama referred to himself as "the first US president
from Kenya" and then laughed about it?
"... "Consumption and hiring started to tick up "in gross terms, not in net terms," Furman said, describing the phenomenon as a "partial rebound." The bounce back "can be very very fast, because people go back to their original job, they get called back from furlough, you put the lights back on in your business. Given how many people were furloughed and how many businesses were closed you can get a big jump out of that. ..."
"... IMO Trump now realizes that he was snookered by the medical equivalent of the Holy Office. Our Auto da Fe has been impressive and nearly fatal but not quite. Trump's statement that he will never shut the economy down again indicates to me that the "scales have fallen" from his eyes. ..."
"... One thing to note are all the diffusion indexes will show large upticks, because of the base effects. U6 will likely be more stubborn. ..."
"... he believes, the way to think about the current economic drop-off, at least in the
first two phases, is more like what happens to a thriving economy during and after a natural
disaster: a quick and steep decline in economic activity followed by a quick and steep
rebound.
The Covid-19 recession started with a sudden shuttering of many businesses, a nationwide
decline in consumption, and massive increase in unemployment. But starting around April 15,
when economic reopening started to spread but the overall numbers still looked grim, Furman
noticed some data that pointed to the kind of recovery that economists often see after a
hurricane or industry-wide catastrophe like the Gulf of Mexico oil spill." politico
******
"Consumption and hiring started to tick up "in gross terms, not in net terms," Furman
said, describing the phenomenon as a "partial rebound." The bounce back "can be very very
fast, because people go back to their original job, they get called back from furlough, you
put the lights back on in your business. Given how many people were furloughed and how many
businesses were closed you can get a big jump out of that. It will look like a V."" politico
--------------
Well, pilgrims, there you have it. If Politico thinks so, it must be so. Do I think the
Democratic Party grandees are deliberately suppressing the economy as long as they can and
bitching and whining as the GOP tries to crank up the machine? Yes, I do. Is that criminal?
Should it be criminal? IMO it should be but to prevent the disintegration of the Great
Republic, we must not treat it as such.
IMO Trump now realizes that he was snookered by the medical equivalent of the Holy Office.
Our Auto da Fe has been impressive and nearly fatal but not quite. Trump's statement that he
will never shut the economy down again indicates to me that the "scales have fallen" from his
eyes.
Are his attempts too little and too late? That could be. Or, maybe not.
The brawny beast that is America is gathering itself up, and looking once again at what
CAN BE, not at what is forbidden us by the Globalist nitwits who would destroy us and make us
into building blocks for their utopia. pl
What I don't understand is how prolonging the lockdown of reliably blue states like my own
WA furthers the Democrat election strategy -- assuming it is what you suggest.
It seems to me that when people in those states feel the totalitarian pinch on their own
livelihood, they might be more inclined to vote against the party that's doing it to them,
tipping the state into the purple or even red column.
Same goes for the battleground states. Seems like a surefire way to throw the election,
not win it.
Can someone explain how this is supposed to work?!?
One thing to note are all the diffusion indexes will show large upticks, because of the
base effects. U6 will likely be more stubborn.
The best comparisons will be unit volumes relative to prior to lockdown. For example,
number of flights or gas consumption prior to and after lockdown ends.
One indicator that I track is used car prices. It is starting a nice uptick particularly
for full size trucks. With all the incentives and financing options I would bet we'll see
growth in even new truck volumes .
On the flip side, IMO, the increased debt and the trillions that the Fed printed up for
Wall St will constrain growth in the medium term.
With respect, I don't agree with your view of what has happened from an economic and
medical sense although I agree with your view of the political machinations of the
democrats.
I said when all this started that the economy would bounce back quickly. I still believe
it will. I also believe that the lockdown was necessary, but now it is thought possible to
open up because the medical system and logistics have now caught up with the pandemic. The
lockdowns bought us time.
Fauci, Birx and Co. were talking of easing up three weeks ago at one of President Trumps
press conferences, I watched most of them live. I don't see the medicos as malevolent
globalists or anything other than public health officials doing their jobs under great
pressure and public scrutiny. I don't think they have drunk any of the numerous glasses of
kool aid that were proffered. They appear to me to have stuck stubbornly to the science.
We too are easing lockdown rules - allegedly in "a controlled and measured manner" but
that is actually BS. Everyone is sick of being cooped up and can't wait. We too have one
State leader - a leftist "democrat" that is dragging their feet in Queensland for political
reasons, our equivalent of Florida. Their borders are currently closed - when they reopen
there will be an absolute avalanche of tourists heading North, us included, to get some warm
weather, that will provide a huge economic spike.
Problem is things were frothy before covid, financial markets were well overextended, the
deficit was out of control, oil won't come back anytime soon. In many ways Trump is a lucky
general, gets to blame the slowdown on the virus and any faltering in the recovery on Dem
governors.
Here is a link to a poll that suggests the globalists have screwed up again (see bottom 1/3
of the link). A large % of Americans polled say they will now avoid products made in China
and would be willing to pay more for the same product if it's made in the USA. They also
think that trade restrictions and tariffs are a good idea. Basically, they like the Trumpian
model. China Joe and his boy Hunter are going to be perceived as being on the wrong side of
this issue by Trump.
you are right. We do not agree. IMO the country wide shutdown was never necessary. What
was needed was a strategy of protection for the vulnerable. The rest could have taken care of
themselves with anti-flu like treatment while therapies and vaccines were developed.
The Democrats deserve it and BTW I don't agree with any of the negatives you state with
regard to the pre-COVID state of things. You just don't like Trump. Neither do I
It is the strategy (poorly conceived) of people whose ideology blinds them to extant
reality, and who think they can mold that reality to their whims through sheer fervency of
their belief in their moral superiority to other, "lesser types." I can't think of a single
historical example where such a strategy has worked out, but there you have it. Then again,
according to them, history also fits into that concept of "malleable reality" as they see it.
They are the makers of history in their own estimation, rather than part of and subject to
it. This is why the Left has never been able to grapple with, and is often outright hostile
to, the notion of unforeseen consequences.
This past weekend our hotel parking lots were pretty full, this is normally a slow time in SW
Florida. It's likely restaurants will be allowed 100% capacity seating with bars opening this
coming Monday.
Reasonable people who want a real economy in the USA should all be voting for President
Trump. If he wins, and I think he will, we're going to have a real boom as smart EU money
moves into USA equities, particularly the NASDAQ.
" blame the slowdown on the virus "
Not gonna happen. He's going to blame the Democrats who issued all those EO declaring who was
essential and who was "seperate but equal". He'll blame China, rightfully so, for spreading
this as far and wide in the West as possible; he'll blame the academics and professional
"resistance" within and without the government for their incompetence and intransigence.
Corky,
"Seems like a surefire way to throw the election, not win it."
it doesn't matter who votes, it only matters now who counts them. Thus the statewide mailings
of ballots to maximize ballot harvesting. At the very least lots of local elections will get
stolen, probably a congressional one too, even if WA doesn't go for Trump in November.
"Both viruses remove marker molecules on the surface of an infected cell that are used by
the immune system to identify invaders, the researchers said in a non-peer reviewed paper
posted on preprint website bioRxiv.org on Sunday. They warned that this commonality could
mean Sars-CoV-2, the clinical name for the virus, could be around for some time, like
HIV...that the coronavirus was showing "some characteristics of viruses causing chronic
infection"."
It appears that an Intelligence report that's come out regarding the CCP and their virus by
French Intelligence (DGSE) isn't getting the traction it deserves.
Eleven years, , 'eleven years'BEFORE the EU signed off on the PRC/CCP Wuhan
lab construction, French DGSE warned that the PRC/CCP's lab was a construction leak and
bio-weapon making facility disaster waiting to happen.
Why was nobody listening at the time? Where were the FIVE EYES in all of this, were they
ignoring French Intelligence's warning, what? Where was the CIA in this? They're supposed to
be the 'external' watchdog, right? It was the Tenet/Goss handover time frame, 2004. But
surely the DGSE warnings had to have been 'flagged' by Langley for a closer scrutiny, right?
What was DIA's read on this at the time?
..."French diplomatic and security advisers, who argued that the Chinese reputation for
poor bio-security could lead to a catastrophic leak.
They also warned that Paris could lose control of the project, and even suggested that
Beijing could harness the technology to make biowarfare weapons."...
Another interesting cavet in the article relates to P4 labs everywhere (including U.S.
facilities)..... "A source told the newspaper: 'What you have to understand is that a P4
[high-level bio-security] laboratory is like a nuclear reprocessing plant. It's a
bacteriological atomic bomb."
An interesting development yesterday: Twitter have flagged a couple of Trump's tweets on
mail-in ballots as "Misleading". A link at the bottom of each tweet says "Get the facts about
mail-in ballots" and directs you to a piece written by Twitter on the subject quoting CNN
& WaPo as having contrary views to the President - hardly news in itself.
Are we seeing the beginning of another insurance policy, in case the economy recovers? It
appears to put Trump in a bind, as shutting down or sanctioning Twitter as a whole would not
only deny Trump his (until yesterday) unfiltered comms channel to his base, but also invite
cries of censorship by the MSM. If he does nothing, what is to stop Twitter 'correcting' more
of this messages? In a later tweet Trump directly
accused Twitter of "..interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election". It will be very
interesting to see how this develops. Here is the first of the offending tweets:
@Barbara
If Israel, Mexico, Great Britain, China, Ukraine, Canada, et.al can interfere in American
elections, and the USA can interfere in the elections of any nation it wishes, why should the
Masters and Commanders of the internet be forbidden the same hobby?
Have you never watched Network? https://americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechnetwork4.html
Same as it ever was.
"... In reality, the part left out of the story is that the phone call to Kislyak on December 22, 2016, was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd . ..."
"... The phone call made at the request of Israel was neither benign nor ethical as the Barack Administration was still in power and managing the nation's foreign policy. At the time, son-in-law Jared Kushner was Trump's point man on the Middle East. He and his family have extensive ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu's staying at the Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance. All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with the incoming Trumpsters, look no further. ..."
"... And it should be observed that the Israelis were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express their views to the incoming Trump. Kushner went far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of foreign policy as he was actively trying to clandestinely subvert and reverse a decision made by his own legally constituted government. His closeness to Netanyahu made him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli government agent of influence, even if he didn't quite see himself that way. ..."
"... Kushner's actions, as well as those of Flynn, would most certainly have been covered by the Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the United States and also could be construed as a "conspiracy against the United States." But in spite of all that the investigation went after Flynn instead of Kushner. As Kushner is Jewish and certainly could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis , that part of the story obviously makes many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it was and continues to be both ignored and expunged from the record as quickly as possible. ..."
There are two stories that seem to have been under-reported in the past couple of weeks. The
first involves Michael Flynn's dealings with the Russian United Nations Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak. And the second describes yet another bit of espionage conducted by a foreign country
directed against the United States. Both stories involve the State of Israel.
The bigger story is, of course, the dismissal by Attorney General William Barr of the
criminal charges against former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn based on
malfeasance by the FBI investigators. The curious aspect of the story as it is being related by
the mainstream media is that it repeatedly refers to Flynn as having unauthorized contacts with
the Russian Ambassador and then having lied about it. The implication is that there was
something decidedly shady about Flynn talking to the Russians and that the Russians were up to
something.
In reality, the part left out of the story is that the phone call to Kislyak on December 22,
2016, was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating
was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy,
meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass
without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each
delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution.
Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not
agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23
rd .
In taking the phone calls from a soon-to-be senior American official who would within weeks
be part of a new administration in Washington, the Russians did nothing wrong, but the media is
acting like there was some kind of Kremlin conspiracy seeking to undermine U.S. democracy. It
would not be inappropriate to have some conversations with an incoming government team and
Kislyak also did nothing that might be regarded as particularly responsive to Team Trump
overtures since he voted contrary to Flynn's request.
The phone call made at the request of Israel was neither benign nor ethical as the Barack
Administration was still in power and managing the nation's foreign policy. At the time,
son-in-law Jared Kushner was Trump's point man on the Middle East. He and his family have
extensive
ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu's staying at the
Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's
illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared
has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the
relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance.
All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with
the incoming Trumpsters, look no further.
And it should be observed that the Israelis
were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express
their views to the incoming Trump. Kushner went far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of
foreign policy as he was actively trying to clandestinely subvert and reverse a decision made
by his own legally constituted government. His closeness to Netanyahu made him, in intelligence
terms, a quite likely Israeli government agent of influence, even if he didn't quite see
himself that way.
Kushner's actions, as well as those of Flynn, would most certainly have been covered by the
Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on
behalf of the United States and also could be construed as a "conspiracy against the United
States." But in spite of all that the investigation went after Flynn instead of Kushner. As
Kushner is Jewish and certainly could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis , that part
of the story obviously makes many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it was
and continues to be both ignored and expunged from the record as quickly as possible.
The
second story , which has basically been made to disappear, relates to spying by Israel
against critics in the United States. The revelation that Israel was again using its
telecommunications skills to spy on foreigners came from an Oakland California federal court
lawsuit initiated by Facebook (FB) against the Israeli surveillance technology company NSO
Group. FB claimed that NSO has been using servers located in the United States to infect with
spyware hundreds of smartphones being used by attorneys, journalists, human rights activists,
critics of Israel and even of government officials. NSO allegedly used WhatsApp, a messaging
app owned by FB, to hack into the phones and install malware that would enable the company to
monitor what was going on with the devices. It did so by employing networks of remote servers
located in California to enter the accounts.
NSO has inevitably claimed that they do indeed provide spyware, but that it is sold to
clients who themselves operate it with the "advice and technical support to assist customers in
setting up" but it also promotes its products as being "used to stop terrorism, curb violent
crime, and save lives." It also asserts that its software cannot be used against U.S. phone
numbers.
Facebook, which did its own extensive research into NSO activity, alleges that NSO rented a
Los Angeles-based server from a U.S. company called QuadraNet that it then used to launch 720
hacks on smartphones and other devices. It further claims in the court filing that the company
reverse-engineering WhatsApp, using an program that it developed to access WhatsApp's servers
and deploy "its spyware against approximately 1,400 targets" before " covertly transmit[ting]
malicious code through WhatsApp servers and inject[ing]" spyware into telephones without the
knowledge of the owners."
The filing goes on to assert that the "Defendants had no authority to access WhatsApp's
servers with an imposter program, manipulate network settings, and commandeer the servers to
attack WhatsApp users. That invasion of WhatsApp's servers and users' devices constitutes
unlawful computer hacking."
NSO, which is largely staffed by former (sic) Israeli intelligence officers, had previously
been in the news for its proprietary spyware known as Pegasus, which "can gather information
about a mobile phone's location, access its camera, microphone and internal hard drive, and
covertly record emails, phone calls and text messages." Pegasus was reportedly used in the
killing of Saudi dissident journalist Adnan Kashoggi in Istanbul last year and it has more
recently been suggested as a resource for tracking coronavirus distance violators. Outside
experts have accused the company of selling its technology and expertise to countries that have
used it to spy on dissidents, journalists and other critics.
Israel routinely exploits the access provided by its telecommunications industry to spy on
the host countries where those companies operate. The companies themselves report regularly
back to Mossad contacts and the technology they provide routinely has a "backdoor" for secretly
accessing the information accessible through the software. In fact, Israel conducts espionage
and influence operations both directly and through proxies against the United States more
aggressively than any other "friendly" country, which once upon a time included being able to
tap into the "secure" White House phones used by Bill Clinton to speak with Monica
Lewinsky.
Last September, it was revealed that the placement of technical surveillance devices by
Israel in Washington D.C. was clearly intended to target cellphone communications to and from
the Trump White House. As the president frequently chats with top aides and friends on
non-secure phones, the operation sought to pick up conversations involving Trump with the
expectation that the security-averse president would say things off the record that might be
considered top secret.
A Politicoreport
detailed how "miniature surveillance devices" referred to as "Stingrays" were used to imitate
regular cell phone towers to fool phones being used nearby into providing information on their
locations and identities. According to the article, the devices are referred to by technicians
as "international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture
the contents of calls and data use."
Over one year ago, government security agencies discovered the electronic footprints that
indicated the presence of the surveillance devices near the White House. Forensic analysis
involved dismantling the devices to let them "tell you a little about their history, where the
parts and pieces come from, how old are they, who had access to them, and that will help get
you to what the origins are." One source observed afterwards that "It was pretty clear that the
Israelis were responsible."
So two significant stories currently making the rounds have been bowdlerized and disappeared
to make the Israeli role in manipulating and spying against the United States go away. They are
only two of many stories framed by a Zionist dominated media to control the narrative in a way
favorable to the Jewish state. One would think that having a president of the United States who
is the most pro-Israel ever, which is saying a great deal in and of itself, would be enough,
but unfortunately when dealing with folks like Benjamin Netanyahu there can never be any
restraint when dealing with the "useful idiots" in Washington.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected] .
div
Was Flynn a complete idiot or already ont he hook and in a position not to deny McCabe
reuaest not to use lawer? @Jim
So you can only conceive of three reasons for a person to "lawyer up"?
How about this: A badged employee of the government wish to ask you a few question. Just to
help in their investigation of something or another. So you go in to be interrogated. Your
interrogator has 20 years of employment and has done several interrogations a week for those
20 years. It is your first time being interrogated.
A smart person asks for a lawyer immediately. You are the pine rider for the little sisters
of the poor and the interrogator is Nolan Ryan. You are Rudy the waterboy and the
interrogator is Dick Butkus. You are a mook a skell, just another low life.
As a general rule, you get yourself a lawyer first before you answer anything. This is
something General Flynn knew and ignored. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
But, But, BUT I am innocent, I have nothing to hide, it is a citizens duty to "help"
legitimate authority, I dindunuffin innocence is irrelevant. All of us have our secrets and
our private things and you can become a liar to legal authority quicker than you can imagine
just by one wrong word, or one nervous twitch, or a simple hesitation, even an ambiguity in
your wording of some innocuous answer to some "unimportant" question.
You can ask the Colonel how interrogation works he spent many years honing his art.
For how an innocent person can be caught in a perjury trap, read Chapters 18 and 19, "The FBI
Comes Calling" and "Investigated By Mueller, Harassed By Congress" of K.T. McFarland's book
"Revolution".
It only costs $9.99 at Google Play Store and IMO, is well worth it for those two chapters
alone. (Hope that endorsement for the book is okay in context.)
"In 2019, a federal jury convicted Flynn's business associate, Bijan Kian, on two
felonies: conspiracy to violate lobbying laws and failure to register as a foreign agent for
Turkey. Flynn was scheduled to testify against Kian but changed his story at the last minute,
causing problems for the prosecution. The judge later tossed the verdict, saying the
prosecution didn't prove its case.
As part of an overall deal with federal prosecutors, Flynn was never charged in connection
with his lobbying for Turkey. It seems unlikely that he ever will"
I don't know much about this aspect of the Flynn Saga
The DC Circuit court wants Sullivan to explain himself. That will be instructive as to why
he wants Gleeson to provide a third party opinion of why Flynn should be charged with
perjury.
Terence
This is one aspect of Flynn that seems a bit shady but very much in line with how DC
trades in influence peddling. Apparently he was paid by Turkey to use his influence and put
together a media campaign to get Gulen extradited to Turkey.
When it comes to
foreign policy, Pompeo's penchant for undermining America's credibility is top-notch
'Pompeo is a
natural Trumpist.' Donald Trump's disdain for the
people, country and values his office is supposed to represent is unmatched in recent memory.
And he has found in the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo , a kindred spirit who has
embraced his role as Trumpism's number one proselytizer to the world.
Pompeo doesn't wield nearly as much power or have the jurisdiction to inflict damage on as
wide a range of issues as the president. He's not as crass or erratic as Trump, and his Twitter
feed seems dedicated more to childish
mockery than outright attacks. But when it comes to foreign policy, Pompeo's penchant for
undermining America's credibility is top-notch.
At Pompeo's recommendation,
Trump fired the state department's inspector general, who is supposed to be an independent
investigator charged with looking into potential wrongdoing inside the department. Steve Linick
was just the latest in a series of inspectors general across
the government that Trump had fired in an attempt to hide the misconduct of his administration
– but it also shone a spotlight on how Pompeo has undermined his agency.
Watchdog was investigating Pompeo for arms deal and staff misuse
before firing
According to news reports, Pompeo was being investigated by the inspector general for
bypassing Congress and possibly breaking the law in sending weapons to Saudi Arabia, even
though his own department and the rest of the US government
advised against the decision. He was also supposedly
organizing fancy dinners – paid for by taxpayers – with influential
businesspeople and TV personalities that seemed geared more towards supporting Pompeo's
political career than advancing US foreign policy goals. And he was reportedly being
scrutinized for using department personnel to conduct personal business, such as getting
dry cleaning and walking his dog.
But these revelations merely reaffirm a pattern of activities by Pompeo unbecoming of the
nation's top diplomat. When the House of Representatives was in the process of impeaching Trump
over his attempt to extort Ukraine for personal political purposes – an act that Pompeo
was aware of – Pompeo defended Trump while throwing under the bus career state department
officials, like the ousted US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who spoke out. Pompeo
has regularly ignored Congress, withholding documents from lawmakers – including during
the Ukraine impeachment investigation – and refusing to appear for testimony. In 2019,
the IG released a report detailing
political retaliation against career state department officials being perpetrated by Trump
officials. And Pompeo has spent considerable time traveling to Kansas and conducting media
interviews there, fueling speculation that he has been using his position to tee up a run for
the Senate, a
violation of the Hatch Act.
Pompeo is a natural Trumpist. In her fantastic profile
of the secretary of state, Susan Glasser notes of his first congressional race: "Pompeo ran a
nasty race against the Democrat, an Indian-American state legislator named Raj Goyle, who,
unlike Pompeo, had grown up in Wichita. Pompeo's campaign tweeted praise for an article calling
Goyle a 'turban topper', and a supporter bought billboards urging residents to 'Vote American – Vote Pompeo'."
... ... ...
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest 'Trump is undermining American leadership in incalculable ways, and
Pompeo has weaponized the state department on the president's behalf.' Photograph: Kevin
Lamarque/Reuters
Next to Trump's assault on US values, Pompeo's role as top Trump lackey may seem
insignificant. But the secretary of state is often the most senior US official that other
countries and publics hear from on any number of issues. Even with Trump in the Oval Office, a
secretary of state that was committed to the constitution - not Trump - would at least be able
to fight for the values that US foreign policy should embody,
and shield the department's day-to-day business from Trump's outbursts.
The work that
department professionals conduct around the world – helping American citizens abroad get
home in the early days of the pandemic or coordinating assistance to other countries to cope
with the coronavirus – is vital to American national security, and at the core of the
image that America projects abroad.
Trump is undermining American leadership in incalculable ways, and Pompeo has weaponized
the state department on his behalf
But now let's take a look at Schiff's sins and see how they compare. Back in 2017, he was
the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and therefore the man Democrats
counted on to lead the charge that Trump had colluded with the Kremlin in order to steal the
election. He did so with gusto. Quoting from a dossier prepared by ex-British MI6 agent
Christopher Steele, he regaled a March
2017 committee hearing with tales of how Russia bribed Trump adviser Carter Page by offering
him a hefty slice of a Russian natural-gas company known as Rosneft and of how Russian agents
boosted Trump's political fortunes by hacking Hillary Clinton's emails and passing them on to
WikiLeaks . Conceivably, such acts could have been purely coincidental, Schiff
acknowledged.
"But it is also possible," he went on, "maybe more than possible, that they are not
coincidental, not disconnected, and not unrelated, and that the Russians used the same
techniques to corrupt U.S. persons that they have employed in Europe and elsewhere. We simply
don't know, not yet, and we owe it to the country to find out."
Hours later, he
assured MSNBC that the evidence of collusion was "more than circumstantial." Nine months
after that, he informed CNN's Jake Tapper that the case was
no longer in doubt: "The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave
help, and the president made full use of that help." In February 2018, he
told reporters: "There is certainly an abundance of non-public information that we've
gathered in the investigation. And I think some of that non-public evidence is evidence on the
issue of collusion and some on the issue of obstruction."
The press lapped it up .
But now, thanks to the May 7 release of 57 transcripts of secret testimony
– transcripts, by the way, that Schiff bottled up for months – we have a better
idea of what such "non-public information" amounts to.
The answer: nothing.
A parade of high-level witnesses told the intelligence committee that either they didn't
know about collusion or lacked evidence even to venture an opinion. Not one offered the
contrary view that collusion was true.
"I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was
plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election," testified
ex-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch told
the committee that no one in the FBI or CIA had informed her that collusion had taken place.
Sally Yates, acting attorney general during the Obama-Trump transition, was similarly
noncommittal. So were Obama speechwriter Ben Rhodes and former acting FBI Director Andrew
McCabe. David Kramer, a prominent neocon who helped spread word of the Steele dossier in top
intelligence circles, was downright apologetic: "I'm not in a position to really say one way
or the other, sir. I'm sorry."
But rather than admit that the investigation had turned up nothing, Schiff lied that it had
– not once but repeatedly.
Let that sink in for a moment. Collusion dominated the headlines from the moment Buzzfeed
published the Steele dossier on Jan. 10, 2017, to the release of the Muller report on Apr. 18,
2019. That's more than two years, a period in which newspapers and TV were filled with Russia,
Russia, Russia and little else. Thanks to the uproar, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein secretly discussed using the Twenty-fifth Amendment to
force Trump out of office, while an endless parade of newscasters and commentators assured
viewers that the president's days were numbered because " the walls are closing in ."
Schiff's only response was to egg it on to greater and greater heights. Even when Special
Prosecutor Robert Mueller issued his no-collusion verdict – "the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities," his report said – Schiff insisted
that there was still "ample evidence of collusion in plain sight."
"I use that word very carefully," he said, "because I also distinguish time and time again
between collusion, that is acts of corruption that may or may not be criminal, and proof of a
criminal conspiracy. And that is a distinction that Bob Mueller made within the first few
pages of his report. In fact, every act that I've pointed to as evidence of collusion has now
been borne out by the report. "
So Trump colluded with the Kremlin, but in a non-criminal way? Even if Mueller got Schiff in
a headlock and screamed in his ear, "No collusion, no collusion," the committee chairman would
presumably reply: "See? He said it – collusion."
The man is an unscrupulous liar, in other words, someone who will say anything to gain
attention and fatten his war chest, which is why contributions
flowing to his re-election campaign have risen from under $1 million a year to $10.5 million
since the Russia furor began. The man talks endlessly about the Constitution, patriotism, his
father's heroic service in the military, and so on. But the only thing Adam Schiff really cares
about is himself.
Trump's sins are manifold. But with unerring accuracy, Schiff managed to zero in on the one
sin that didn't take place. Considering that the $391 million was destined for ultra-right
military units whose members sport
neo-Nazi regalia and SS symbols as they battle pro-Russian separatists in the eastern
Ukraine, Schiff's crimes are just as bad, if not worse. Ladies and gentlemen, we give you the
next candidate for impeachment, the congressman from Hollywood – Adam Schiff!
From MoA comment
57: "Warmongering shit bags endlessly flatulent about their moral superiority while threatening to nuke nations on the other
side of the globe daily. ... the greatness of the US consists of how gullible its hyper-exploited populace has been to a long
series of Donald Trumps who use the resources of the land and people for competitive violence against other nations. the world
heaves a collective hallelujah that this bullshit is about to end. "
Notable quotes:
"... Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the planet. ..."
"... This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless consequences. ..."
"... Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it ..."
Pompeo Warns US May Stop Sharing Intelligence With Australia Over Victoria Inking Deal With
China's BRI
The battle for Australia's soul has begun.
Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called
Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the
planet.
This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of
the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if
sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless
consequences.
On the other hand if Australia ceased its intelligence sharing and shut down all the data
traffic out of Australia - the USA would go ballistic. Not that the Oz government would ever
do such a thing being a craven water carrier for the new world order etc...
Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it.
Odd that you would reiterate his brainless threat vk.
"The American people are miserable amid the epidemic, and their president is an eccentric
who does not care about the safety of ordinary people and is good at passing the buck," Li
said.
Many analysts have noted the epidemic in the US might not end before the US election ,
and Trump's repeated emphasis on work resumption would not take off as long as the coronavirus
enjoys freedom to spread.
... ... ...
Ni Feng, director of the institute of American studies at the Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences in Beijing, told the Global Times the death notice of COVID-19 victims on the New York
Times' front page could "deal a fatal blow to Trump's re-election" as most of the names on the
front page were elderly people, his potential voters.
The elderly are always conservative, and thus most are potentially Trump's voters, Ni
opined.
The voter turnout of the elderly is also higher than young people, said Ni, noting Trump's
behavior will make the firmest supporters change their mind, "facing the crisis of life."
"... The explicit reference to Jerusalem appears later in the same document , in the context of communication between Stone and his unnamed contact in the Israeli capital. "On or about August 12, 2016, [NAME REDACTED] messaged STONE, "Roger, hello from Jerusalem. Any progress? He is going to be defeated unless we intervene. We have critical intell. The key is in your hands! Back in the US next week. How is your Pneumonia? Thank you. STONE replied, "I am well. Matters complicated. Pondering. R" The "he" is an apparent reference to Trump. ..."
"... Referring to the Israeli mentions in a report on the documents late Tuesday, the US website Politico noted: "The newly revealed messages often raise more questions than answers. They show Stone in touch with seemingly high-ranking Israeli officials attempting to arrange meetings with Trump during the heat of the 2016 campaign." ..."
"... Of course, this story is seen as a positive development from the Israeli (and evangelical) perspective because a Trump presidency was an essential part fulfilling an aggressive Zionist "wish list" which included moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, annexing the Golan Heights and the West Bank, and perhaps a major move against Iran in the second term. ..."
"... This story also explains why the jewish-controlled press saturated the airwaves with fake stories of "Russian" intervention in the election -- and why we will be seeing similar non-stop stories of "Chinese" intervention in the upcoming 2020 election in November. ..."
"... And Netanyahu hasn't wasted a second of Trump's presidency in expanding Israel's power, territory and influence. As one Jewish media pundit claimed , Donald Trump has been " the greatest president for Jews and for Israel in the history of the world." Trump has even bragged that he is so popular among Israelis that they would elect him Prime Minister if he ran. ..."
According to recently released FBI documents, Donald Trump's longtime confidant, Roger
Stone, who was convicted last year in Robert Mueller's investigation into ties between Russia
and the Trump campaign, was in contact with one or more apparently well-connected Israelis at
the height of the 2016 US presidential campaign, one of whom warned Stone that Trump was "going
to be defeated"
unless Israel intervened in the election :
The exchange between Stone and this Jerusalem-based contact appears in FBI documents made
public on Tuesday. The documents -- FBI affidavits submitted to obtain search warrants in the
criminal investigation into Stone -- were released following a court case brought by The
Associated Press and other media organizations.
A longtime adviser to Trump, Stone officially worked on the 2016 presidential campaign
until August 2015, when he said he left and Trump said he was fired. However he continued to
communicate with the campaign, according to Mueller's investigation.
The FBI material, which is heavily redacted, includes one explicit reference to Israel and
one to Jerusalem, and a series of references to a minister, a cabinet minister, a "minister
without portfolio in the cabinet dealing with issues concerning defense and foreign affairs,"
the PM, and the Prime Minister . In all these references the names and countries of the
minister and prime minister are redacted.
Benjamin Netanyahu was Israel's prime minister in 2016 , and the Israeli government
included a minister without portfolio, Tzachi Hanegbi, appointed in May with responsibility
for defense and foreign affairs. One reference to the unnamed PM in the material reads as
follows:
"On or about June 28, 2016, [NAME REDACTED] messaged STONE, "RETURNING TO DC AFTER
URGENT CONSULTATIONS WITH PM IN ROME. MUST MEET WITH YOU WED. EVE AND WITH DJ TRUMP THURSDAY
IN NYC."
Netanyahu made a state visit to Italy at the end of June 2016 .
The explicit reference to Israel appears early in the text of a May 2018 affidavit by an
FBI agent in support of an application for a search warrant, and relates to communication
between Stone and Jerome Corsi, an American author, commentator and conspiracy theorist. " On
August 20, 2016, CORSI told STONE that they needed to meet with [NAME REDACTED] to determine
"what if anything Israel plans to do in Oct," the affidavit states .
The explicit reference to Jerusalem appears later in the same document , in the context of
communication between Stone and his unnamed contact in the Israeli capital. "On or about
August 12, 2016, [NAME REDACTED] messaged STONE, "Roger, hello from Jerusalem. Any progress?
He is going to be defeated unless we intervene. We have critical intell. The key is in your
hands! Back in the US next week. How is your Pneumonia? Thank you. STONE replied, "I am well.
Matters complicated. Pondering. R" The "he" is an apparent reference to Trump.
The redacted material features numerous references to an "October surprise," apparently
relating to a document dump by Wikileaks' Julian Assange, intended to harm Hillary Clinton's
presidential campaign and salvage Trump's .
Referring to the Israeli mentions in a report on the documents late Tuesday, the US
website Politico noted: "The newly revealed messages often raise more questions than answers.
They show Stone in touch with seemingly high-ranking Israeli officials attempting to arrange
meetings with Trump during the heat of the 2016 campaign."
Mueller's investigation identified significant contact during the 2016 campaign between
Trump associates and Russians, but did not allege a criminal conspiracy to tip the outcome of
the presidential election.
This story first appeared last month, at the height of the COVID-19 plandemic, which
conveniently and not coincidentally allowed all the mainstream media in America to ignore
it.
Of course, this story is seen as a positive development from the Israeli (and evangelical)
perspective because a Trump presidency was an essential part fulfilling an aggressive Zionist
"wish list" which included moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, annexing the Golan Heights and
the West Bank, and perhaps a major move against Iran in the second term.
This story also explains why the jewish-controlled press saturated the airwaves with fake
stories of "Russian" intervention in the election -- and why we will be seeing similar non-stop
stories of "Chinese" intervention in the upcoming 2020 election in November.
We can only guess what further information about Israel's involvement in the election was
redacted from this FBI document, but there can be little doubt that the orders to help Trump
win came from the very top -- from Netanyahu himself.
And Netanyahu hasn't wasted a second of Trump's presidency in expanding Israel's power,
territory and influence. As one Jewish
media pundit claimed , Donald Trump has been " the greatest president for Jews and for
Israel in the history of the world." Trump has even bragged that he is so popular among Israelis that
they would elect him Prime Minister if he ran.
And even if the brain-dead American public found out about this Israeli intervention (i.e.,
"subversion of our democracy"), they would probably just shrug it off -- after all, Israel is
our "most trusted friend and ally,"
goyim .
While Flynn is a questionable figure with his Iran warmongering and the former tenure as a
Turkey lobbyist, it is important to understand that in Kislyak call he mainly played the role
of Israel lobbyist. This important fact was carefully swiped under the carpet by FBI
honchos.
Only the second and less important part of the call (the request to Russia to postpone the
reaction after the Obama expulsion of diplomats) was related to Russia. Not sure it was
necessary: Russia probably understood that this was a provocation and would wait for the dust
to settle in any case. Revenge is a dish that is better served cold. Later Russia used this
as a pretext to equalize the number of US diplomats in Russia with the number of Russian
diplomat in the USA which was a knockdown for any color revolution plans in this country:
people with the knowledge of the country and connections to its neoliberal fifth column were
sent packing.
But Russian neoliberal compradors were decimated earlier after EuroMaydan in Kiev, so this
was actually a service to the USA allowing to save the USA same money (as Trump
acknowledged)
Also strange how former chief of DIA fell victim of such a crude trap administered by a
second, if nor third rate person -- Strzok. Looks like he was already on the hook and, as
such, defenseless for his Turkey lobbing efforts. Which makes Comey-McCabe attempt to entrap
him look like a shooing fish in the tank.
Note to managerial class neoliberals (PMC). Your Russiagate stance is to be expected and
has nothing to do with virtue.
it was the urban and suburban PMC that gets its news from the establishment press --
the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR, that believed and supported the story.
Here's the best scenario: Trump wins re-election, and gives the neocons what they've been
egging for all along – WWIII, simultaneous war on all fronts, with Syria, Iran, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine, China, Russia, Venezuela. Let's see the empire stretched so thin
it eventually craters and goes bankrupt. The only way to save America is for it to die in its
present form. When the country is completely bankrupt, when the people are so sick of war, then
maybe, just maybe, we will wise up, rise up and do a Mussolini on all the neocons who've been
killing this country from within since the days of Woodrow Wilson.
Top Biden advisor says Democrats will continue Trump's policy in Syria.
Tony Blinken says Biden would:
– Keep US troops in Syria
– Deny Assad oil
– Keep Idlib for rebels
– Refuse to negotiate w Damascus until US "effectuates more positive outcome"
Donald Trump's father and grandfather were connected to Jewish organized crime. Donald Trump
first got big on Twitter promoting the "birther" conspiracy theories about Obama which Trump
was getting from the Israeli Jew Orly Taitz. These conspiracy theories were designed to
demonize Obama for trying to end the sanctions on Iran and prevent a war.
Zionist Jews were quite aware that Donald Trump was their guy – he has always been
consistently popular in Israel. Zionist Jews knew that Donald Trump could give them everything
they wanted: takeover all of Jerusalem, annex the Golan Heights, and eventually annex Palestine
and ethnically cleanse the Palestinians – all going on right now with the support of
Trump and Jared Kushner's hand-picked Mike Pompeo.
Hey, Trump fans – Trump DID in fact "drain the swamp." He (well, Jared Kushner) fired
anyone who dared to oppose anything Israel wanted and replaced them with yes-men Zionist
flunkies.
How much longer till the MAGA-tard realize they were tricked?
This is almost certainly false and confusing the issue:
" In 1927 Frederick Trump was one of seven people in KKK cap and gown arrested in a near
riot."
Donald Trump's father was arrested during a riot at a Klan rally – but he almost
certainly wasn't "in KKK cap and gown" – it's far more likely he was the one rioting
AGAINST the Klan, as a member of the Jewish "Anti-fascist" terrorist group, which was a Jewish
Communist group then in the early stages.
Trump's uncle was a member of a Jewish fraternity and often claimed that his father was
Jewish, but that is probably false. Trump's grandfather supposedly owned brothels. Consider:
what kind of people own brothels, houses of prostitution, basically, human trafficking?
Organized crime.
Trump isn't Jewish, Trump's father wasn't Jewish and neither was his grandfather. What
Trump and his family is, is non-Jewish members of Jewish organized crime.
Why confuse the issue? Half of Trump's children and grandchildren are now either Jewish,
Israelis, or married to Jews and Israelis.
Trump and his entire family going back to his grandfather, are shabbos goyim.
Trump is mostly concerned with giving handouts to the MIC because he thinks "the economy" is
based on jobs in the MIC since that is what they tell him is where US manufacturing is now
based.
Posted by: Kali | May 23 2020 18:16 utc | 2
To a degree, it is true. However, the problem with MIC as an economic stimulant is rather
pitiful multiplier effect. For starters, the costs are hopelessly bloated. Under rather
watchful Putin, Russia does its piece of arms race at a very small fraction of American
costs. By the same token, pro-economy effects of arms spending in USA are seriously diluted
-- the spending is surely there, but the extend of activity is debatable For example, in
aerospace, there is a big potential for civilian applications of technologies developed for
the military. Scant evidence in Boeing that should be a prime beneficiary. The fabled toilet
seat (that cost many thousands of dollars) similarly failed to find civilian applications.
Civilians inclined to overpriced toilets, like Mr. Trump himself, rely on low-tech methods
like gold-plating.
A wider problem is shared by entire GOP: aversion to any government programs, and least of
all industry promoting programs, that could benefit ordinary citizens. This is the exclusive
domain of the free market! Once you refuse to consider that, only MIC remains, plus some
boondogles like interstate highways. Heaven forfend to improve public transit or to repair
almost-proverbial crumbling dams and bridges.
We have to ask cui bono - who benefits from a new nuclear arms race? General Electric,
Boeing, Honeywell International, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman et al. No one else really.
Since these corporations also own the Congress and have zillions to fund Trump's re-election,
they will probably get the go-ahead to spend the rest of the world into oblivion.
Apart from the obvious fact that the MIC is the only viable engine of propulsion of the
American "real economy" (a.k.a. "manufacturing"), there's the more macabre fact that, if we
take Trump's administration first military papers into consideration, it seems there's a
growing coterie inside the Pentagon and the WH that firmly believes MAD can be broken
vis-a-vis China.
Hence the "Prompt Global Strike" doctrine (which is taking form with the commission of the
new B-21 "Raider" strategic bomber, won by Northrop Grumman), the rise of the concept of
"tactical nukes" (hence the extinction of the START, and the Incirlik Base imbroglio post
failed coup against Erdogan) and, most importantly, the new doctrine of "bringing manufacture
back".
The USA is suffering from a structural valorization problem. The only way out is finding
new vital space through which it can initiate a new cycle of valorization. The only
significant vital space to be carved out in the 21st Century is China, with its 600
million-sized middle class (the world's largest middle class, therefore the world's largest
potential consumer market). It won two decades with the opening of the ex-Soviet vital space,
but it was depleted in the 2000s, finally exploding in 2006-2008.
How many decades does the Americans think they can earn by a hypothetical unilateral
destruction of China?
Having a treaty that limits power (in this case nuclear) on the same level for the US and any
other country is simply totally against the ideology of US Superority/Exeptionalism.
That seems to be the driving (psychological and ideological) factor behind this charade.
And like this sick ideology always ends: It too will backfire.
@gepay: another problem is people that disagree with Bernhard on COVID, but then use this
disagreement to not read his artciles anymore.
So many people only want to read what they want to hear, and run away at the first real
different view.
The narcissism, that our neoliberal societies inducded in its people the last decade shows..
And seeing both sides and everything in between is not possible anymore for a majority it
seems.
And living in a bubble is so comforting and easy in todays world. On MSM and on Alt Media
alike.
"...that may well fit Trump's plans of pushing all arms control regimes into oblivion."
It's not just arms control regimes, as the WHO business showed. This is the Roy Cohn agenda
showing up again- the old GOP objection to the UN and all other international organisations.
It is pure ideology-the US has gained immensely from dominating the organisations of which it
is a part, leaving them makes no sense at all.
As to 'spending China to oblivion". This only works when every Pentagon dollar spent
forces China or Russia to spend a dollar themselves. In such a contest the richest country
wins. But that only works in the context of pre-nuclear warfare. With the nuclear deterrent
it becomes possible to opt out of all the money wasting nonsense represented by the Pentagon
budget, sit back and say, as the Chinese diplomat evidently did, "Just try it."
Which adds up to the conclusion that it is wholly irrational of the United States to denounce
treaties designed to reduce the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used: it is to the
advantage of Washington that other powers, potential rivals, are forced to build up
conventional forces because they are bound by treaty not to rely on nuclear weapons.
So, again: pure ideology designed for domestic consumption and advanced by the most
reactionary elements in American society- the Jesse Helms good ol' boys who make the neo-cons
look almost human.
He likes economic war (against everybody), they want actual war. Laguerre | May 23 2020 20:17
utc
Trump has a primitive mercantile mind. There is nothing inherently wrong about
mercantilism, but a primitive version of anything tends to be mediocre at best. Thus he loves
war that give profit, like Yemen where natives are bombed with expensive products made in USA
(and unfortunately, also UK, France etc., but the bulk goes to USA). Then he loves wars the
he thinks will give profit, like "keeping oil fields in Syria". Some people told him that oil
fields are profitable (although they can go bankrupt just like casinos).
Privately, I think that Trump wanted to make a war with Iran, but the generals explained
him what kind of disaster that would be.
One difference is that Democrats are aligned with uber Zionist of slightly less rabid
variety than Republicans. A bit like black bears vs grizzlies. Unfortunately, like in the
animal kingdom, when the push comes to shove, black bears defer to grizzlies, so on the side
of Palestinians etc. there is no difference.
Billingslea's "spending ... into oblivion" statement reflects the belief, still widespread
among US neocon political / military elites, that the Soviet Union was brought down and
destroyed by its attempts to keep up with US military spending throughout the 1980s. This
alone tells us how steeped in past fantasy the entire US political and military establishment
must be. Compared to Rip van Winkle, these people are comatose.
Spending the enemy into oblivion may be "tried and true" practice but only when the enemy
is much poorer than yourself in arms production and in one type of weapons manufacture. That
certainly does not apply to either Russia or China these days. Both nations think more
strategically and do not waste precious resources in parading and projecting military power
abroad, or rely almost exclusively on old, decaying technologies and a narrow mindset
obsessed with always being top dog in everything.
The anxiety over Trump's standing with the Christian right surfaced after a pair of
surveys by reputable outfits earlier this month found waning confidence in the
administration's coronavirus response among key religious groups, with a staggering decline
in the president's favorability among white evangelicals and white Catholics. Both are
crucial constituencies that supported Trump by wide margins in 2016 and could sink his
reelection prospects if their turnout shrinks this fall.
The polls paint a bleak picture for Trump, who has counted on broadening his religious
support by at least a few percentage points to compensate for weakened appeal with women and
suburban populations. One GOP official said the dip in the president's evangelical support
also appeared in internal party polling, but disputed the notion that it had caused panic.
Another person close to the campaign described an April survey by the Public Religion
Research Institute, which showed a double-digit decline in Trump's favorability among white
evangelicals (-11), white Catholics (-12) and white mainline protestants (-18) from the
previous month, as "pretty concerning."
More:
Following the PRRI survey, which was conducted while Trump was a dominant presence at
televised daily briefings by his administration's coronavirus task force, Pew Research Center
released new data last week that showed a 7-point increase from April to May in white
Catholics who disapprove of Trump's response to the Covid-19 crisis and a 6-point decline
among white evangelicals who previously gave him positive marks.
The open-the-churches call from Trump today is just rhetorical. The president doesn't have
the power to re-open them; state governments do. The president is trying to send a signal that
he is on the side of churchgoers. Not sure that's going to do the trick. From Politico:
It's unlikely that critics of church closings alone are responsible for the decline in
Trump's favorability among critical religious demographics. According to the Pew survey, 43
percent of white evangelicals and 52 percent of white Catholics think the current
restrictions on public activity in their areas are appropriate versus 42 percent and 31
percent, respectively, who think fewer restrictions would be better. Greater shares of white
evangelicals and white Catholics also said they are more afraid about their state governments
lifting restrictions on public activity too soon than they are about leaving the restrictions
in place for too long.
Maybe the truth is that conservative Christians may prefer Trump to Biden on issues that
matter to them, but his handling of the global pandemic overrides everything else this year. No
doubt that many Christian voters would vote Trump no matter how he performed on pandemic
response.
Andrew Sullivan writes today:
A year ago precisely, Trump's approval rating was, in FiveThirtyEight's poll of polls,
53.8 percent disapprove, 41.1 percent approve. This week, the spread was 53.1 percent
disapprove and 43 percent approve. Almost identical. None of the events of the last year --
impeachment, plague, economic collapse -- have had anything but a trivial impact on public
opinion.
It is true also that Trump's knot of popular support–about 43 percent of the
electorate, based on approval surveys–is remarkably solid, willing to accept just about
anything he does or says so long as he continues to attack those dastardly elites.
But presidential elections also don't turn on any incumbent's base of support. Reelection
requires that a president build upon that base and create a governing coalition by bringing
in new converts through Oval Office achievement. Richard Nixon, a 43 percent president
following the 1968 election, pulled to his party much of the George Wallace constituency,
nearly 14 percent of the popular vote in 1968. The result was a reelection landslide.
Similarly, following the 1980 election Ronald Reagan pulled to his banner the so-called
Reagan Democrats, which contributed to his margin of victory in numerous congressional
battles and in his own landslide reelection in 1984.
Or consider the case of Bill Clinton, like Nixon a 43 percent president after his 1992
victory against incumbent George H. W. Bush and upstart candidate Ross Perot, who garnered 19
percent of the popular vote. Clinton had his head handed to him in the 1994 midterm elections
following a sub-par performance during his first two years in office. But after that he
brilliantly calibrated his leadership to capture a significant portion of the Perot vote.
Thus did he build on his base through performance in office and become a two-term
president.
Trump has proved himself incapable of this kind of political calibration. He can't even
talk to those Americans who might be receptive to his policies but haven't yet joined up. He
talks only to his base.
Directly challenging him, even when his numbers are wrong, appears to erode Mr. Trump's
trust, according to former officials, and ultimately he stops listening. In other words, the
officials who tell him things he doesn't want to believe are soon sidelined or fired.
Again, everybody knows that there is a solid rock of immovable Trump voters --
I'm guessing that the 44 percent of Republicans who believe that Bill Gates wants to inject
microchips into people with a coronavirus vaccine are part of that crowd -- but they are
not enough to win Trump a second term. What about everybody else? Why are those Christian
voters who had a favorable opinion of Trump now abandoning him? I'd say a lot of it has to do
with exhaustion. The country is facing a crisis like none it has seen in a century. It is
crashing the economy. We can re-open, but if people start getting sick again, everybody's going
to stay home. These people who are normally inclined to Trump, but now going off of him --
they're going to make the difference between victory and defeat for the president. And they're
worn out with all this instability, and the stupid, pointless drama.
I mean, look at this. Whatever you think of Jeff Sessions, he stood by Trump early, when few
others in Washington did. But he made the mistake of putting duty to the law above personal
loyalty to Trump. This is the kind of thing that once upon a time, conservatives thought worth
supporting. Trump has never forgiven him for it. Sessions is running for his old Senate seat
back -- and Trump is trying to keep him from getting it. Look:
. @realdonaldtrump Look, I know
your anger, but recusal was required by law. I did my duty & you're damn fortunate I did.
It protected the rule of law & resulted in your exoneration. Your personal feelings don't
dictate who Alabama picks as their senator, the people of Alabama do. https://t.co/QQKHNAgmiE
See what I mean? What is the point of doing this to Jeff Sessions, except spite? I mean,
come on, Jeff Sessions? Really? There are a certain number of conservatives who are just
fed up with crap like this, and can't stand the thought of four more years of it.
That's my guess -- but then, I'm talking about somebody like myself: never a fan of Trump,
and genuinely frightened about what a Democrat in the White House would do, especially if the
Dems take the Senate (which they will likely do if Trump loses in a landslide). But nobody
knows what the future holds for the country in this pandemic, either in terms of public health
or the economy. Can we risk four more years of this chaos and craziness and overall
incompetence, especially not knowing what's ahead on the virus and the economy? Is that
prospect scarier than a Democratic president and Democratic Senate naming and confirming
judges?
Maybe. I did not imagine anything like this in January, but then, I didn't imagine that we
would get to Memorial Day weekend with almost 100,000 Americans dead, and 40 million
unemployed.
UPDATE: Reader Daniel (Not Larison)'s comment resonates with me:
This Pandemic, and the response to it, and the response of the public to the response, has
left me utterly exhausted.
My Facebook feed is getting crammed with my conservative friend's fear-mongering about how
(a) the virus is just a "cold", (b) the official death counts are greatly exaggerated
(through wide-spread incompetence and fraud), (c) the left is using this crisis to destroy
our freedoms, (d) masks are tyranny, (e) Trump's response has been perfect, (f) blue state
governors want to gain power and destroy their economies just to make Trump look bad, and (g)
the people who died would have died from something else any way. Sprinkled among these
responses are things like the Gates microchip thing, 5g causes the virus, it's really Obama's
fault, etc.
Sometimes they post some actual true information, like the errors of 4 states in
double-counting positive test results or that congressional democrats did try to pack the
COVID-19 relief bill with a wishlist of progressive causes. But mostly I see wild assertions
and baseless accusations. Anyone who agrees with Trump is smart and can be trusted, anyone
who disagrees with him is stupid and/or evil.
It truly is remarkable how even this kind of a crisis has been politicized. There is
nearly a perfect correlation between COVID-19 skepticism and Trump support. Tens of thousands
of health professionals and medical examiners committing fraud or incompetent by including
COVID-19 as a cause of death? Certainly, if it makes Trump look bad. Dozens of other nations
adopting similar policies to blue governors? Yeah, they're crashing their economies because
they hate Trump, too.
It is utter madness. Rather than respecting genuine differences in opinion, rather than
arguing with facts and data, we are responding with hatred, contempt, and raw emotion.
The left certainly is not above this–as we have seen in issues like transgenderism
and Project 1619, the left certainly has engaged in this and continues to do so. I've lost
count of how many liberal friends I've had to stop following on Facebook because of their
utter contempt not just of Trump, but of anyone who would dare express support for him or his
policies. And their cursing like sailors they wear like a badge of honor, as of it's a mark
of liberation.
Weimar America, truly. We're facing a dual crisis of health and economic collapse that we
hadn't seen in a century, and rather than rising to the occasion, many of us are just
attacking each other. It reminds me of what Josephus wrote in "The Jewish War" about the
Jews, under siege by Roman forces in an incredibly over packed Jerusalem, were busy killing
each other rather than facing the enemies outside.
Perhaps I am just a pessimist. Certainly not all Americans are rigidly divided into Team
Red and Team Blue–maybe not even the majority. But enough are for me to lose much of my
hope for the future of this country.
Yet I know God is in control, and this could very well be a manifestation of his judgment
on our wicked, wicked culture. Or even from a secular perspective, our culture has built such
a toxic response to crisis that we cannot survive. Either way, without change, I cannot see
us surviving as a unified nation and people (if we truly are any more) too far into the
future.
Rod, there is one thing you left out of the article: Democrats have made it absolutely
clear that they hate white evangelicals and their campaign rhetoric will be quite
incendiary on any issues of Christianity and society. At best, they will tell evangelicals
that they should be more like the so-called Religious Left (Sojourners, Natalie Bolz-Weber,
etc.) and at worst, they will sound like Beto O'Rourke when he called for taxing churches
that did not change their theology to welcome homosexuality and transgenderism.
Biden already has declared that transgender rights are "today's civil rights issue," and
I expect him to double down on his commitment there. Furthermore, given his tendency to say
outrageous things, you can bet he will be going right up to the line to where he declares
the Bible to be hate speech, and he is going to outright threaten evangelicals. He will go
radical on abortion rights and let it be known that churches that do not support open-ended
abortions to the time of birth (paid for by taxpayers) are going to face the wrath of his
administration.
Does anyone believe Biden will be silent on these issues or be anything but in-your-face
incendiary? Now, Donald Trump will not respond very well, since Trump doesn't respond very
well on anything and he almost surely will say and do things that will partially neutralize
this advantage that Biden will drop into his lap. Nonetheless, Joe Biden will be absolutely
clear that he hates evangelicals and means to do them harm if he is elected. Given that
much of secular America feels the same way, it probably will get him votes on the left.
In political years, five months is like a few generations these days. Trump is not anyone's
idea of an effective president but I think it is way too early to see how corona affects
him. I suspect most of his supporters think this is a hoax anyway and the people really
freaked out by corona weren't voting for Trump in the first place.
As to Trump's performance on corona, how is that going to be assessed? I'd assume by
lives lost and economic damage. But corona has hit a lot of countries. If Trump's bumblings
actually had an effect, how would we know except by comparison? In the good 'ol moneyball
stats there is a
metric called "value over replacement player" (VORP) where you compare the performance your
player in question to the performance you would get from the average replacement. Just
because you are disappointed in the performance of your player doesn't mean you can expect
to get much
better from replacing him. It could turn out he's close to the average.
So if we are looking at stats to assess Trump, we are gonna have to moneyball it. Which
leader are we going to compare Trump to? Which country "did things right"? What's our
baseline? Our average replacement player? I don't think any of us can say right now which
countries did things right. It is too early, we don't know enough about corona and we don't
know the ways in which the decisions of leaders have affected the outcome or failed to
affect it. In terms of deaths per million, U.S. seems pretty average. Plenty of countries
in Europe with leaders who "listen to experts" have far higher deaths per million at the
moment. Belgium, Sweden, Netherlands, UK, Italy, France, Spain all look worse than us.
None of this is to attribute any real skill to Trump, but in a situation where there is
no prospective
criteria by which to identify who has the wisdom to navigate the situation (only
retrospective analysis of the data of countries that all tried different things) you might
rather be lucky than good.
I'm genuinely puzzled as to where you and Politico are coming to this conclusion based on
the evidence presented. Looking at the data used in the article, it appears that Trump's
approval rating among certain groups felt a bump around the time when the main COVID panic
started, and then, a month later decreased to....where it was at the beginning of the year.
His overall approval/disapproval rating is still more or less the same as it had been
throughout his presidency, and more interestingly, Trump's approval among his "core base"
has increased significantly compared to 2017, not to mention 2015.
The other key fact embedded in the data is that Trump's approval among certain groups
was still considerably low during November 2016 , much lower than it is today for
example. This speaks to the simple truth that the majority of people who vote for Trump
aren't necessarily that fond of the man, but they still pulled the lever for him. Until
there is hard evidence that the number of people who absolutely will not vote for
Trump increases, we can't make any conclusions as to how more or less likely Trump's
chances are in November.
One last item to note is that the worst cases by far occurred in heavily Democratic
districts, and, as the reports explained, were the main areas where this loss of support
among Christians was reported. On the one hand, it's very likely that these people, to be
blunt, wouldn't have had much chance at pushing their districts to the Republican side
anyway and thus their support is not nearly as important as those in swing states. On the
other hand, to be a bit cheeky, given how poorly Democrat-run areas have fared in this
crisis, why on earth would you want another Democrat in the highest executive office?
I thought we'd seen into Trump's soul over the past five years, but the way he's revealing
himself now is astounding. The man is just unraveling, all his spitefulness and
sociopathies bubbling to the surface. There's nothing left to him now but his impotent
rage. Maybe the people who didn't want to see the truth of the man can't help but see now.
He's a failure, on a world stage, and his self-image is that he's a genius whose wise
leadership will bring us all peace, contentment and prosperity. Naturally, he's throwing a
temper tantrum and lashing out in all directions.
I think you underestimate the power of fear and self-delusion. Nearly all Republicans have
been convinced that all Democrats are nearly satanic. For the next week conservative media
will dwell relentlessly and obsessively on Biden's recent stupid statement while ignoring
whatever additional nonsense comes out of the White House. (Did you know there's a recent
study showing that widespread use of hydroxychloroquine (sp?) is probably bad? You wouldn't
if you read conservative media) It's strange to live in a country where a substantial
number of people can no longer see the good in other citizens, but here we are
Oh absolutely. Speaking for myself only, I regard Republican leadership, people like Mitch
McConnell, Pompeo, and of course our president as various mixtures of stupid and evil, and
their more devoted followers as pretty close to the same. The people who vote Republican
because they always vote Republican and don't pay much attention to politics, like members
of my family, I regard simply as incurious, but as family I still love them.
But I still think Democrats are a lot more justified in their disdain, as implied by
Kevin Drum in a recent post:
Did you know the candidate for the U.S. Senate in Oregon is a Q follower? And that when
the National Review advised Republicans to abandon her the majority of the comments on the
page retorted that Democrats are worse and more deluded and more crazy than Q?
This Pandemic, and the response to it, and the response of the public to the response, has
left me utterly exhausted.
My Facebook feed is getting crammed with my conservative friend's fear-mongering about
how (a) the virus is just a "cold", (b) the official death counts are greatly exaggerated
(through wide-spread incompetence and fraud), (c) the left is using this crisis to destroy
our freedoms, (d) masks are tyranny, (e) Trump's response has been perfect, (f) blue state
governors want to gain power and destroy their economies just to make Trump look bad, and
(g) the people who died would have died from something else any way. Sprinkled among these
responses are things like the Gates microchip thing, 5g causes the virus, it's really
Obama's fault, etc.
Sometimes they post some actual true information, like the errors of 4 states in
double-counting positive test results or that congressional democrats did try to pack the
COVID-19 relief bill with a wishlist of progressive causes. But mostly I see wild
assertions and baseless accusations. Anyone who agrees with Trump is smart and can be
trusted, anyone who disagrees with him is stupid and/or evil.
It truly is remarkable how even this kind of a crisis has been politicized. There is
nearly a perfect correlation between COVID-19 skepticism and Trump support. Tens of
thousands of health professionals and medical examiners committing fraud or incompetent by
including COVID-19 as a cause of death? Certainly, if it makes Trump look bad. Dozens of
other nations adopting similar policies to blue governors? Yeah, they're crashing their
economies because they hate Trump, too.
It is utter madness. Rather than respecting genuine differences in opinion, rather than
arguing with facts and data, we are responding with hatred, contempt, and raw emotion.
The left certainly is not above this--as we have seen in issues like transgenderism and
Project 1619, the left certainly has engaged in this and continues to do so. I've lost
count of how many liberal friends I've had to stop following on Facebook because of their
utter contempt not just of Trump, but of anyone who would dare express support for him or
his policies. And their cursing like sailors they wear like a badge of honor, as of it's a
mark of liberation.
Weimar America, truly. We're facing a dual crisis of health and economic collapse that
we hadn't seen in a century, and rather than rising to the occasion, many of us are just
attacking each other. It reminds me of what Josephus wrote in "The Jewish War" about the
Jews, under siege by Roman forces in an incredibly over packed Jerusalem, were busy killing
each other rather than facing the enemies outside.
Perhaps I am just a pessimist. Certainly not all Americans are rigidly divided into Team
Red and Team Blue--maybe not even the majority. But enough are for me to lose much of my
hope for the future of this country.
Yet I know God is in control, and this could very well be a manifestation of his
judgment on our wicked, wicked culture. Or even from a secular perspective, our culture has
built such a toxic response to crisis that we cannot survive. Either way, without change, I
cannot see us surviving as a unified nation and people (if we truly are any more) too far
into the future.
I think Trump entered oval office as a political tabula rasa. Republicans could have
moulded him into anything policy-wise, since he lacked knowledge of washington insider on
how to run things. So they did. Republicans turned him into a traditional, respectable
republican corporatist stock market whisperer President(tm). I think Republicans deserve to
lose because of their terrible policies and incompetence, though I don't see how democrats
deserve to win, because of their terrible policies and incompetence. But then again, it's
not like policies matter. As Cuomo demonstrates, all you need is good media coverage. It's
frustrating, that Trump is likely going to lose, because his PR is worse, not because his
policies have been terrible.
Republicans didn't have to work too hard given how willfully ignorant Trump is. All he's
ever been interested in doing is brandishing his brand and lining his pockets. There's
nothing there but endless appetite and resentment. He has no policies save for
self-aggrandizement.
Even out of office, he has been exposed to the addictive thrill of cheering crowds, and so
he will not fade from the scene. Certain Progressivists are salivating at the prospect of
hauling him and his associates through the courts, but that will not stop his rallies, and
will only keep his name in lights for a long time.
The Democratic Party leadership - - or "Donorship" - - wants to return to their version
of normal, getting rich(er) off globalism. The neocons want to get back to endless wars.
And Trump's Troopers will be there, carrying their AR-15 clones to protests and occupying
national park rest areas. It will be chaotic. One can easily foresee more "Ruby Ridge"
scenarios in our collective future.
Shy of a nation-wide revival of religion or of the civil religion, it won't get better
for a long time.
Those who liken this time to how WW1 changed the world forever are partly right. But
they miss that the world is always changing forever. And yet it is always the same. Face
it, the last half of the 20th Century was an unusually easy time for Americans. We are now
moving into what the rest of the world, throughout history, considers normal.
A US judge
dismissed a defamation lawsuit by One America News Network against MSNBC over Rachel Maddow's
claims that OAN was "literally" Russian propaganda, ruling that her segment was merely "an
opinion" and "exaggeration." OAN sued the liberal talk show host and MSNBC for defamation,
demanding over $10 million in damages, back in September 2019. The lawsuit was based on the
July 22 episode of The Rachel Maddow Show, where Maddow launched a scathing broadside against
the conservative television network, labeling it "the most obsequiously pro-Trump right
wing news outlet in America" and "really literally paid Russian propaganda."
In the segment, Maddow cited a story by The Daily Beast's Kevin Poulsen about OAN's Kristian
Rouz, who has previously contributed to Sputnik as a freelance author. Toeing the general US
mainstream line on the Russian media, be it Sputnik or RT, Poulsen branded the Russian news
agency "the Kremlin's official propaganda outlet" and said Rouz was once on its
"payroll." Shortly after MSNBC's star talent peddled the claim, OAN rejected the
allegations as "utterly and completely false. " The outlet, which is owned by the
Herring Networks, a small California-based family company, said that it "has never been
paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government," with its only funding
coming from the Herring family.
In their bid to win the case, Maddow herself, MSNBC, Comcast Corporation and NBCUniversal
Media did not address the accusation itself - namely, that her claim about OAN was false - but
opted to invoke the First Amendment, insisting that the rant should be protected as free
speech.
Siding
with Maddow, the California district court defined Maddow's show as a mix of "news and
opinions," concluding that the manner in which the progressive host blurted out the
accusations "makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the
contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact." h
The court said that while Maddow "truthfully" related the story by the Daily Beast,
the statement about OAN being funded by the Kremlin was her "opinion" and
"exaggeration" of the said article.
While the legal trick helped Maddow to get off the hook without ever trying to defend her
initial statement, conservative commentators on social media wasted no time in pointing out
that dodging a payout to OAN literally meant admitting that Maddow was not, in fact, news.
Maddow won a lawsuit brought against her because the Judge found her show was "opinion," that is, her show isn't one that
shares actual facts with viewers.https://t.co/T1bgdSfc0P — Essential Cernovich (@Cernovich) May 22, 2020Q
Just like Alex Jones’ defense in his divorce and custody proceedings: “I’m an entertainer”
Biden’s binder full of women (@Wallflowerface) May 22, 2020Q
So if she makes any statement(s) on air about being factual, then don’t we have an excellent appeal? — Mortimer Cinder
Block (@LeonardPGoldst1) May 22, 2020Q
Predictions are difficult, especially about the future. Who wll vote for Creepy Joe? that is the question. But it is true that many
people who voted for trump in 2016 hoping for changes will not vote for him. Most will not vote at all. With his foreign policies and
smug warmonger Pompeo at the State Department he lost all anti-war independents block. With COVID-19 fiasco he lost a large part of
working class -- which was most severely hit by the lockdown as well as small business support.
Notable quotes:
"... Look at how Trump is getting killed among people that don't like either candidate. And how he's losing independents solidly. That's your danger zone, not the left. He won in 2016 in large part because he had those two in the bag. ..."
Mitt Romney was treated by the mainstream media with derision and ridicule, portrayed as an out-of-touch plutocrat who babbled
about binders full of women. They depicted him as "a wealthy 1950s sitcom dad who liked firing poor people. Trump will attacked in
the same way
Donald Trump captured the presidency in 2016 in part because he perceived, alone among presidential contenders that year, that
a chasm had opened up between the country's arrogant meritocratic elite and vast numbers of citizens who felt the elites had turned
on them and were leading the country astray. But another factor was the perception of many voters that Barack Obama's second term
had been a mild failure (following a mild first-term success; hence his 2012 reelection). Incumbent performance in office remains
a potent factor in presidential elections.
And that's why Donald Trump likely will lose the presidency come November. His performance, thoroughly at variance from his
blustery rhetoric, will have rendered him, in the eyes of a majority of Americans, ineligible for rehire. His is not the kind
of record that normally leads to a two-term presidency or to party retention of the White House when the incumbent is not on the
ballot. Viewed from this perspective, Trump looks like a goner.
Trump supporters will of course recoil at this prediction. In disbelief, they will point to the intensity of his followers
and the fecklessness of his opposition. And it is true that former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic candidate,
appears hapless as he hunkers down in his Delaware basement and projects himself with a certain halting awkwardness. But history
tells us that voters focus far more on incumbent performance, which can be sharply defined, than on predictions of challenger
performance, which are wispy at best.
It is true also that Trump's knot of popular support–about 43 percent of the electorate, based on approval surveys–is remarkably
solid, willing to accept just about anything he does or says so long as he continues to attack those dastardly elites.
But presidential elections also don't turn on any incumbent's base of support. Reelection requires that a president build upon
that base and create a governing coalition by bringing in new converts through Oval Office achievement.
With Trump, I expect a "surprise" (and other various dirty tricks) here on out.
As I've noted before, the Burisma nonsense may end up backfiring. Not only did it get him impeached (even though he wasn't
removed from office), but it may innoculate Biden from further such surprises--there will be a presumption, if anything scandalous
comes from out of left field, that it might well be another attempt at rat-f***ing.
(And Biden has been equally fortunate in his accusers from the left; as the Tara Reade allegations seem to be falling apart.
He's not entirely in the clear--the vagueness of the allegations prevent Biden from mounting an affirmative defense, such as
an alibi, but right now he seems to be winning the credibility battle on that front).
The Tara Reade allegations aren't "falling apart." They're being smothered. They're either ignored, or dismissed with a "Biden says it never happened? Oh, OK....never mind" attitude.
A QAnnon crazy just won the Oregon GOP senate primary. Not only is Trump losing he is taking the entire GOP down with him. Either the GOP clears up the nuts or the nuts take over.
I agree. Trump has taken politics to a new low. When he's not on teleprompter, his "speeches" are more of a stand-up act where
he exaggerates his accomplishments ("the best ever"..."record" everything) and lobs personal insults at his perceived enemies
"loser,""incompetent," "the worst").
He has NO intention of expanding his base. He's happy to play to their adoration. And his cultists don't want him to "pivot
and change." They cheer him on.
That this is what so many people in this country want from a president is appalling.
He proved that in '16. Rather, we did. We the people made it happen. DJT just happens to be the means by which we re-made the
American political landscape. Leftist Democrats still haven't caught up.
They learned nothing from 2016 and after...nothing. They still cling to Washington establishment politics like a communist
to The Party. Power in a handful of politicians is all that matters to them. They'll sooner or later see that the people are
the source of our government.
TISO you seem like a pretty reasonable guy generally.
Look at how Trump is getting killed among people that don't like either candidate. And how he's losing independents
solidly. That's your danger zone, not the left. He won in 2016 in large part because he had those two in the bag.
I'm in those groups and voted for him then - I won't repeat this year. He was a good statement to make in 2016 but for me
that's now made. Personally he looks like a real idiot handling a crisis but I don't like his personality cult, I don't like
his floppiness with the ruling elite, and I especially don't like his turning immigrants into the white male of the right.
I hate idpol and he's just refined a right wing version of it.
My two cents. No doubt I'll be back to voting Republicans in 22 or 24.
Nice post!!!!!!! Trump is indeed losing the indie vote as well as a sliver of the true conservative vote. The guy is only a
shade or two better than having a president Camacho from Idiocracy. Trump won both the GOP nomination and the general election
because he was the only GOP candidate that said what the majority of GOP voters wanted to hear and was the only candidate that
didn't come off as an Establishment clone. On top of that, Hilary was not a well liked candidate(either was Trump) as two thirds
of GOP and Dem voters didn't like their candidate, but disliked the other just a bit more. It is sad that we are in the same
situation in 2020, in which there really isn't a really good candidate to choose from
Guy was a moron for his famous line to a GOP crowd insinuating that half the people in the country were freeloaders. Not too
far fetched of a statement, but absolutely a campaign killer. They indeed did depict him as a rather wealthy 1950's Mr Cleaver
type that was a job killer, but that wasn't far off the mark either. The banking cartel had their boy in office already so
there was no need for a change, thus the rather stale, boring, and easily targeted Romney was hung out to dry.
He "defeated" the ISIS Caliphate? And here i was under the impression that Iran was a Shia country and Syria was mostly secular,
while ISIS was a product of Salafist and Wahabist American allies like the Saudis?
This commenter epitomizes everything wrong with the Fox News cheerleading devotee. So consumed by the cult of Personality
that is Trump and "owning the Libs" that they can't see they have gotten nothing from Trump. No immigration reform, no wall,
no end to Middle East adventurism..... Just "tough tweets"
LETS LOOK AT THE FEW THINGS HE HAS DONE...He along with Kim Kardashian put forth the "First Step Act" freeing tens of thousands
of mostly inner city felons; the situation in the Middle East exponentially worse "thanks" to his rhetoric, loose usage of
missiles on countries WE ARE NOT at war with along with ASSASSINATING NATIONAL HEROES/MILITARY COMMANDERS of other sovereign
nations we are not at war with; he passed a corporate tax cut, Trump has focussed on spreading LGBT values to Africa and abroad,
and after attacking NAFTA for two decades passed "NAFTA 2.0", and has consistently made this country look even worse than it
normally has over the past 40 years.
If Israel isn't your priority in regards to the embassy moves or if your not a corporate head benefiting from Trumps "we
need more immigration than ever before" glut of cheap third world labor, then you should see him as an unmitigated disaster.
Look beyond the Grifters like Charlie Kirk and Sean Hannity.
The ISIS caliphate was defeated. ISIS still exists. One cannot destroy an ideology on the battlefield. The caliphate was their
"country" that they carved out of Syria. Virtually ALL of the rebels in Syria, even the non-ISIS ones are Sunni, not Shia.
The Shia are on the side of the Syrian government. That includes Iran.
Iran was not mentioned for some reason!
Iranians were the first to recognize ISIL was an arm of Israel/UAE/US axis to destabilize not only Syria but any country that
stood up to the axis. Then the Russian read the message on the wall and got involved.
Of course they did. Any decent economic/business magazine/ web site/blog was saying as far back as last September that the
FED was running out of "ammo" to forestall a collapse that was going to happen late this summer or early fall, then the virus
hits to take the blame for the poor economy instead of where it belongs and that is with the Federal Reserve and co. Now we
are hearing we are going to get QE to infinity and beyond, which basically means the globalists are tanking the dollar for
probably a global digital currency sometime in the not too distant future.
Before Russiagate, the former national security advisor was an operative for Turkey,
tilting foreign policy against the Kurds.
by Reese Erlich Posted on
May 22, 2020 May 21, 2020 Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is best known
for his connection to the Russiagate investigation. Lost in that hubbub, however, was Flynn's
slimy role as a lobbyist for Turkey. A Turkish businessman paid Flynn
$530,000 in 2016 to push pro-Turkey, anti-Kurd policies in hopes of influencing the Trump
Administration.
The American public has mostly forgotten about Flynn's Turkey connections, says Steven A.
Cook, senior fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in
Washington, D.C.
"There's more going on with Turkey than people may realize," Cook tells me.
Flynn's money-driven opportunism is just one example of the operations of Washington's
foreign policy lobbyists. As a candidate, Donald Trump correctly criticized the Washington
swamp, but as President, instead of draining it, he has shoveled in more muck.
I've dipped my toe into the swamp on occasion by attending conferences and press events
populated by Washington's elite. I've rubbed elbows with the likes of former Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Believe me, these folks are just as evil in person as they appear on TV.
Washington swamp creatures are easily identified by their black pinstriped suits, wingtip
oxfords, and red power ties. Two kinds of people attend these events: those in power and
those hoping to seize it.
Washington is crawling with former diplomats, intelligence officers, and business
executives eager to influence policy and make a buck. And so enters former army Lieutenant
General Michael Thomas Flynn, poster boy for the military-industrial complex.
Flynn's checkered past
Flynn, who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, came to Washington during the Obama
Administration as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. He was
forced to resign for insubordination in 2014, whereupon he joined the Washington swamp by
forming the Flynn Intel Group.
In 2016, Flynn hitched his wagon to candidate Donald Trump, giving a fiery speech at the
Republican National Convention in which he echoed
the call to "lock up" Hillary Clinton for her handling of State Department emails.
Behind the scenes, however, Flynn was engaged in offenses for which he could be locked up.
The Flynn Intel Group signed
a contract totaling $600,000 with a Turkish businessman who had close ties to authoritarian
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
Erdoğan wanted Washington to extradite Fethullah Gulen, a political opponent living
in Pennsylvania since 1999. Gulen is a rival political Islamist who had a falling out with
Erdogan. The Turkish president
accuses Gulen of organizing the unsuccessful July 2016 coup. At the time Flynn
spoke favorably about the military trying to overthrow Erdogan. He also
criticized Turkey for allowing terrorists to cross the border into Syria.
But after receiving the contract to help Turkey, he did a 180-degree turn and supported
Erdogan's policies.
"Flynn believes whatever is good for Flynn is good for America," Kani Xulam, director of
the American Kurdish Information Network, tells me. "The minute they put money in his bank
account, he became pro-Turkey. That was the shocking part."
Kidnapping
In September 2016, Flynn arranged
a meeting between former US officials and Turkish leaders, including the country's foreign
minister, energy minister, and Erdogan's son-in-law.
Participants at the meeting talked about kidnapping Gulen and bringing him to Turkey.
Former Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey, who attended the meeting, said
they
discussed "a covert step in the dead of night to whisk this guy away."
In December, Flynn
wrote an op-ed for the influential Washington publication The Hill in which he
compared Gulen to both Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini. According to analyst Cook, the
op-ed could have been written in Ankara: "It was all Turkey's talking points."
Flynn didn't bother to tell The Hill editors that he was a paid lobbyist for
Turkey.
Flynn became part of Trump's transition team after November 2016, and he used the position
to push anti-Kurdish policies. At that time, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces were on
the verge of taking control of the ISIS-controlled city of Raqqa, Syria. He told
the Obama Administration not to provide arms to the SDF and implemented that policy when
Trump came to power in 2017.
But Flynn's stint as National Security Advisor lasted for only three weeks. He was forced
to
resign after revelations of his phone call to the Russian ambassador. In March, Flynn
registered as a foreign agent
for Turkey.
In 2019, a federal jury convicted
Flynn's business associate, Bijan Kian, on two felonies: conspiracy to violate lobbying laws
and failure to register as a foreign agent for Turkey. Flynn was scheduled to testify
against Kian but changed his story at the last minute, causing problems for the
prosecution. The judge later tossed the
verdict, saying the prosecution didn't prove its case.
As part of an overall deal with federal prosecutors, Flynn was never charged in connection
with his lobbying for Turkey. It seems unlikely that he ever will.
Corrupt world
Flynn's activities are just one example of the corrupt world of foreign lobbying.
Recently, The New York Timesexposed how
defense contractor Raytheon pressured the Trump Administration to sell sophisticated weapons
to Saudi Arabia, which were then used to slaughter civilians in Yemen.
The Yemen war, which began in 2015, has
killed an estimated 100,000 people and displaced 80 percent of the population. Saudi air
bombardment of hospitals, schools, and other civilian targets helped create one of the
world's worst humanitarian crises. US arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon
have profited handsomely from the slaughter.
Until recently, Raytheon's vice president for government relations was a former career
army officer named Mark Esper. Today Esper is Secretary of Defense.
Crawling into bed with lobbyists is bipartisan activity. The Obama Administration
sold $10
billion in arms to Saudi Arabia and its allies. Trump has openly boasted that US arms sales
provide corporate profits and jobs at home.
"Trump has been more forthcoming praising US relations with Saudis because they want to
buy more weapons," Kurdish activist Xulam tells me. "He doesn't care what Saudis do with the
weapons."
Analyst Cook says the entire system of foreign lobbying needs major reform. "It's a
scandal that needs to be cleaned up," he says. "It's legalized foreign influence
peddling."
Reese Erlich's nationally distributed column, Foreign Correspondent, appears every two
weeks. Follow him on Twitter ,
@ReeseErlich; friend him on Facebook ;
and visit his webpage .
FBI Director Christopher Wray announced Friday that he has ordered the bureau to conduct an
internal review of its handling of the probe into former national security adviser
Michael Flynn , which has led to his years long battle in federal court.
It's like the fox guarding the hen house.
Wray's decision to investigate also comes late. The bureau's probe only comes after numerous
revelations that former senior FBI officials and agents involved in Flynn's case allegedly
engaged in misconduct to target the three star general, who became
President Donald Trump's most trusted campaign advisor.
Despite all these revelations, Wray has promised that the bureau will examine whether any
employees engaged in misconduct during the court of the investigation and "evaluate whether any
improvements in FBI policies and procedures need to be made." Based on what we know, how can we
trust an unbiased investigation from the very bureau that targeted Flynn.
Let me put it to you this way, over the past year Wray has failed to cooperate with
congressional investigations. In fact, many Republican lawmakers have called him out publicly
on the lack of cooperation saying, he cares more about protecting the bureaucracy than exposing
and resolving the culture of corruption within the bureau.
Wray's Friday announcement, is in my opinion, a ruse to get lawmakers off his back.
How can we trust that Wray's internal investigation will expose what actually happened in
the case of Flynn, or any of the other Trump campaign officials that were targeted by the
former Obama administration's intelligence and law enforcement apparatus.
It's Wray's FBI that continues to battle all the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act
requests regarding the investigation into Flynn, along with any requests that would expose
information on the Russia hoax investigation. One in particular, is the request to obtain all
the text messages and emails sent and received by former Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe.
The FBI defended itself in its Friday announcement saying that in addition to its own
internal review, it has already cooperated with other inquiries assigned by Attorney General
William Barr. But still Wray has not approved subpoena's for employees and others that
lawmakers want to interview behind closed doors in Congress.
The recent documented discoveries by the Department of Justice make it all the more
imperative that an outside review of the FBI's handling of Flynn's case is required. Those
documents, which shed light on the actions by the bureau against Flynn, led to the DOJ's
decision to drop all charges against him. It was, after all, DOJ Attorney Jeffery Jensen who
discovered the FBI documents regarding Flynn that have aided his defense attorney Sidney Powell
in getting the truth out to they American people.
Powell, like me, doesn't believe an internal review is appropriate.
"Wow? And how is he going to investigate himself," she questioned in a Tweet. "And how could
anyone trust it? FBI Director Wray opens internal review into how bureau handled Michael Flynn
case."
--
Sidney Powell 🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐ (@SidneyPowell1) May
22, 2020
Last week, this reporter published the growing divide between Congressional Republicans on
the House Judiciary Committee and Wray. The lawmakers have accused Wray of failing to respond
to numerous requests to speak with FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka, who along with former FBI
Special Agent Peter Strzok, conducted the now infamous White House interview with Flynn on Jan.
24, 2017.
Further, the lawmakers have also requested to speak with the FBI's former head of the
Counterintelligence Division ,
Bill Priestap, whose unsealed handwritten notes revealed the possible 'nefarious'
motivations behind the FBI's investigation of Flynn.
"Michael Flynn was wronged by the FBI," said a senior Republican official last week, with
direct knowledge of the Flynn investigation.
"Sadly
Director Wray has shown little interest in getting to the bottom of what actually
happened with the Flynn case. Wray's lackadaisical attitude is an embarrassment to the rank
and file agents at the bureau, whose names have been dragged through the mud time and time
again throughout the Russia-gate investigation. Wray needs to wake up and work with Congress.
If he doesn't maybe it's time for him to go. "
Powell argued that Flynn had pleaded guilty because his former Special Counsel Robert
Mueller, along with his prosecutors, threatened to target his son. Those prosecutors also
coerced Flynn, whose finances were depleted by his previous defense team. Mueller's team got
Flynn to plead guilty to lying to the FBI about a phone conversation he had with the former
Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period. However, the
agents who interviewed him did not believe he was lying.
Currently the DOJ's request to dismiss the case is now pending before federal Judge Emmet
Sullivan. Sullivan has failed to grant the DOJ's request to dismiss the case and because of
that Powell has filed a writ of mandamus to the U.S. D.C. Court of Appeals seeking the
immediate removal of Sullivan, or to dismiss the prosecution as requested by the DOJ.
"... One could write a long history of FBI abuses and failures, from Latin America to Martin Luther King to Japanese internment. But just consider a handful of their more recent cases. ..."
"... But it was 9/11 that really sealed the FBI's ignominious track record. The lavishly funded agency charged with preventing terrorism somehow missed the attacks, despite their awareness of numerous Saudi nationals taking flying lessons around the country. Immediately after 9/11, the nation was gripped by the anthrax scare, and once again the FBI's inability to solve the case caused them to try to railroad an innocent man, Stephen Hatfill . ..."
"... With 9/11, the FBI also began targeting troubled Americans by handing them bomb materials, arresting them, and then holding a press conference to tell the country that they had prevented a major terrorist attack -- a fake attack that they themselves had planned. ..."
"... 9/11 also opened the floodgates to domestic surveillance and all the FISA abuses that most recently led to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I am no fan of Flynn and his hawkish anti-Islamic views, but the way he was framed and then prosecuted really does shock the conscience. ..."
"... For the FBI, merely catching bad guys is too mundane. As one can tell from the sanctimonious James Comey, the culture at the Bureau holds grander aspirations. Comey's book is titled A Higher Loyalty , as if the FBI reports only to the Almighty. ..."
"... While the nation's elite colleges and tech companies are crawling with Chinese spies who are literally stealing our best ideas, the chief of the FBI's Counterintelligence Section, Peter Strzok, spent his days trying to frame junior aides in the Trump campaign. ..."
"... Some conservatives have called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to be fired. This would accomplish nothing, as the problem is not one man but an entire culture. ..."
"... One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has been the increasingly strong embrace of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term) by left liberals. ..."
"... It's tempting to wonder how many of them have even heard of COINTELPRO, but I suspect that most of them would be just fine if the FBI intervened to disrupt and destabilize the Marxist left in the unlikely event that it seemed to be gaining a significant political foothold. Can't have any nasty class politics disrupting their bourgeois identitarian parlor game! ..."
"... J. Edgar Hoover wrecked a lot of the good the FBI could have been right from the beginning, there needs to be a major cultural change over there and they need to be put back on track so that they serve us instead of themselves. ..."
"... Making sure crooks like Hoover and showboats like Comey never get put in charge would be a good start. ..."
"... Remember in "Three Days of the Condor," when Robert Redford reacts scornfully to Cliff Robertson's use of the term "community"? ..."
"... Collaboratus: Basically, working together. BULL, the individual IC Agencies can't work together internally, much less across agency boundaries. ..."
"... Virtus: a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carried connotations of valor, manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths. Again, BULL. The Feminazis and lgbtqxyz crowd have, pretty much snipped any balls and put them in a jar. Yes, gay pride is big in the IC. ..."
"... Fides: was the goddess of trust and bona fides in Roman paganism. She was one of the original virtues to be considered an actual religious divinity. Fides is everything that is required for "honour and credibility, from fidelity in marriage, to contractual arrangements, and the obligation soldiers owed to Rome". With respect to the IC, that last bears repeating" "Obligations Soldiers Owed To Rome." In the IC (Rome), Leadership and Management (LM) have no obligations to the 'soldiers'; so, of course, the soldiers respond in kind. ..."
"... Real underline issue is FBI has been politicized. Rather than be neutral and independent, top FBI leaders have aligned with politicians. While nominate FBI officials, presidents also select their own than someone is independent. ..."
"... Absolutely nothing new or rare was done to Flynn. The FBI used perfectly standard dirty tricks on him. ..."
"... It isn't just the FBI that uses dirty tactics. most police departments also use dirty tactics. ..."
"... As I see it the agency that needs to be broken up is the CIA. What they do is shameful and not American. They are and have always been heavily involved in other countries internal affairs. They are an evil organization. ..."
"... Absolutely phenomenal that an entire essay abusing the FBI could be written without once mentioning the man who actually made the Federal Bureau of Investigation into what it is (whatever that might be). But J Edgar Hoover is still sufficiently iconic a figure to many Conservatives that it would be counterproductive to assault him. Better someone like Comey. ..."
"... I did not know the FBI had the power to go back in time, otherwise how did they get Flynn to lie to VP Pence on Jan 14 when they didn't interview him until 1/24? Amazing how powerful they are! ..."
Its constant abuses, of which Michael Flynn is only the latest, show what a failed
Progressive Era institution it really is. Fittingly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was founded by a grandnephew of
Napoleon Bonaparte, Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte, during the Progressive Era.
Bonaparte was a Harvard-educated crusader. As the FBI's official history states, "Many
progressives, including (Teddy) Roosevelt, believed that the federal government's guiding hand
was necessary to foster justice in an industrial society."
Progressives viewed the Constitution as a malleable document, a take-it-or-leave-it kind of
thing. The FBI inherited that mindset of civil liberties being optional. In their early years,
with the passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I, the FBI came into its
own by launching a massive domestic surveillance campaign and prosecuting war dissenters.
Thousands of Americans were arrested, prosecuted, and jailed simply for voicing opposition.
One could write a long history of FBI abuses and failures, from Latin America to Martin
Luther King to Japanese internment. But just consider a handful of their more recent cases. The
FBI needlessly killed women and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Anyone who has lived anywhere
near Boston knows of the Bureau's staggering corruption during gangster Whitey Bulger's reign
of terror. The abuses in Boston were so terrific that radio host Howie Carr declared that the
FBI initials really stood for "Famous But Incompetent." And then there's Richard Jewell, the
hero security guard who was almost railroaded by zealous FBI agents looking for a scalp after
they failed to solve the Atlanta terrorist bombing.
But it was 9/11 that really sealed the FBI's ignominious track record. The lavishly funded
agency charged with preventing terrorism somehow missed the attacks, despite their
awareness of numerous Saudi nationals taking flying lessons around the country. Immediately
after 9/11, the nation was gripped by the anthrax scare, and once again the FBI's inability to
solve the case caused them to try to railroad an innocent man, Stephen Hatfill .
With 9/11, the FBI also began targeting
troubled Americans by handing them bomb materials, arresting them, and then holding a press
conference to tell the country that they had prevented a major terrorist attack -- a fake
attack that they themselves had planned.
9/11 also opened the floodgates to domestic surveillance and all the FISA abuses that most
recently led to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I am no fan of Flynn and his hawkish
anti-Islamic views, but the way he was framed and then prosecuted really does shock the
conscience. After Jewell, Hatfill, Flynn, and so many others, it's time to ask whether the
culture of the FBI has become similar to that of Stalin's secret police, i.e. "show me the man
and I'll show you the crime."
I am no anti-law enforcement libertarian. In a previous career, I had the privilege to work
with agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and they were some of the bravest
people I have ever met. And while the DEA can be overly aggressive (just ask anyone who has
been subjected to federal asset forfeiture), it is inconceivable that its agents would plot a
coup d'état against the president of the United States. The DEA sees their job as
catching drug criminals; they stay in their lane.
For the FBI, merely catching bad guys is too mundane. As one can tell from the sanctimonious
James Comey, the culture at the Bureau holds grander aspirations. Comey's book is titled A
Higher Loyalty , as if the FBI reports only to the Almighty.
They see themselves as
progressive guardians of the American Way, intervening whenever and wherever they see democracy
in danger. No healthy republic should have a national police force with this kind of culture.
There are no doubt many brave and patriotic FBI agents, but there is also no doubt they have
been very badly led.
This savior complex led them to aggressively pursue the Russiagate hoax. Their chasing of
ghosts should make it clear that the FBI does not stay in their lane. While the nation's elite
colleges and tech companies are crawling with Chinese spies who are literally stealing our best
ideas, the chief of the FBI's Counterintelligence Section, Peter Strzok, spent his days trying
to frame junior aides in the Trump campaign.
Some conservatives have
called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to be fired. This would accomplish nothing, as the
problem is not one man but an entire culture. One possible solution is to break up the FBI into
four or five agencies, with one responsible for counterintelligence, one for counterterrorism,
one for complex white-collar crime, one for cybercrimes, and so on. Smaller agencies with more
distinctive missions would not see themselves as national saviors and could be held accountable
for their effectiveness at very specific jobs. It would also allow federal agents to develop
genuine expertise rather than, as the FBI regularly does, shifting agents constantly from
terrorism cases to the war on drugs to cybercrime to whatever the political class's latest
crime du jour might be.
Such a reform would not end every abuse of federal law enforcement, and all these agencies
would need to be kept on a short leash for the sake of civil liberties. It would, however,
diminish the ostentatious pretension of the current FBI that they are the existential guardians
of the republic. In a republic, the people and their elected leaders are the protectors of
their liberties. No one else.
One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has been the increasingly
strong embrace of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term) by left liberals.
It's hard to believe it was only a decade ago when they were (correctly) deriding these
exact same people for their manifold failures relating to the War on Terror, but then again
left liberals at that time had not yet abandoned the pretense that they were something
other than a PMC social club.
It's tempting to wonder how many of them have even heard of COINTELPRO, but I suspect that most of them would be just fine if the FBI intervened to
disrupt and destabilize the Marxist left in the unlikely event that it seemed to be gaining
a significant political foothold. Can't have any nasty class politics disrupting their
bourgeois identitarian parlor game!
It's not the left liberals, it's the centrists and the neocons fleeing the Republican Party
like rats. The left never liked the FBI, never trusted them, with good reason.
J. Edgar
Hoover wrecked a lot of the good the FBI could have been right from the beginning, there
needs to be a major cultural change over there and they need to be put back on track so
that they serve us instead of themselves.
Making sure crooks like Hoover and showboats like
Comey never get put in charge would be a good start.
Or put another way... One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has
been the increasingly strong disdain of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term)
by far right conservatives.
Let's just be honest with ourselves - we really don't want intelligence, or science, or
oversight, unless it supports our team.
1. Collaboratus: Basically, working together. BULL, the individual IC Agencies can't
work together internally, much less across agency boundaries. This goes to guys like Mike
Flynn (former director of DIA), his predecessors and successors, and their peers across the
Intel(?) Community (that one kills me, too); the IC. Not to 'slight' anyone, but middle
management is no better, and probably, worse; everyone has to protect their own 'little
rice bowl' ya know.
2. Virtus: a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carried connotations of valor,
manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths.
Again, BULL. The Feminazis and lgbtqxyz crowd have, pretty much snipped any balls and put
them in a jar. Yes, gay pride is big in the IC.
3. Fides: was the goddess of trust and bona fides in Roman paganism. She was one of the
original virtues to be considered an actual religious divinity. Fides is everything that is
required for "honour and credibility, from fidelity in marriage, to contractual
arrangements, and the obligation soldiers owed to Rome". With respect to the IC, that last
bears repeating" "Obligations Soldiers Owed To Rome." In the IC (Rome), Leadership and
Management (LM) have no obligations to the 'soldiers'; so, of course, the soldiers respond
in kind.
The ICs are dog eat dog; LM are looking out for themselves...Period. Actually doing 'the
job' is pretty far down the TODO List. The vast majority of people in the 'trenches' are
just trying to get through the day; like LM, doing the 'right thing' is no longer the first
thought.
To make matters worse (if possible), MANY of those people in the trenches have
almost no clue WTF they are doing. This is because management involuntarily reassigns
people (SURPRISE!) to jobs for which they were not hired, have no qualifications, and,
often, no interest in becoming qualified. Of course, they hang on hoping that 'black swan'
will land and make everything right again.
We've had two major incidents (at least), in the last 20 years (9/11 and the Kung Flu)
that are specific failures of the IC (IMO). The IC failed (fails?) because Collaboratus,
Virtus, and Fides are just some words on a plaque; not goals for which to strive; lip
service is a poor substitute.
Yeah, these yahoos are overdue for a good house cleaning as well.
Real underline issue is FBI has been politicized.
Rather than be neutral and independent, top FBI leaders have aligned with politicians.
While nominate FBI officials, presidents also select their own than someone is
independent.
In order their men can do their "works", they also increased their authorities. Supposedly, FBI directors, once confirmed, will not change with president. In reality,
we saw presidents to replace old ones with their own.
It is not break up or whatever "reform". As long as presidents (regardless whom) can
choose their own, how can you expect FBI does its jobs stated by laws?
It is amazing how far people will let their political hatreds take them. The
FBI is actually more important for the services it provides police forces around America
than it is for solving federal crimes.
The FBI have been using dirty practices on people
for decades. Literally hundreds of people who are not criminals have written about this -
several of them are former agents who left in good standing.
They practice some of them
right out in the open, like leaking information about arrests to the press so that the
press get to film their arrests - sometimes timing arrests to hit local primetime new. It
even has a name - the prime time perp walk. Whether these people are convicted or not,
those images follow them for the rest of their lives. Or announcing that a person is "a
person of interest" to force cooperation, because they know that people hear "suspect" when
they hear such announcements. They will then offer to announce that the person is no longer
a person of interest in exchange for cooperation. It didn't deserve to be disbanded them.
Absolutely nothing new or rare was done to Flynn. The FBI used perfectly standard
dirty tricks on him. But since he was a minion of Donald Trump, the FBI should have
known that he was untouchable. That is their real wrongdoing here. But they didn't realize
it, so they should be disbanded. It is just like some progressives call for the disbandment
of ICE because it arrests illegal aliens.
This ignoramus reminds me of others of his kind who call for the disbandbandment of the
UN because they don't like the behavior of its General Council, its human rights or the
peace keeping agencies, completely oblivious of the critical services the dozens of
non-political UN agencies provide to all countries, especially to very small or under
developed ones. They call for the destruction of WHO because it kowtows to China no matter
that a number of countries in the world would have access to zero advanced health services
without it, and others who are less dependent, but find its services critical in
maintaining healthy populations. They find it politically objectionable so get rid of it! I
really hate how progressives throw around the words "entitled" and "privilege", but some
people do behave that way.
You can't go without the police though and a lot of what goes there can be reformed. Stop
treating them like an movie version of the military. Teach them to calm a situation instead
of shooting first, and realize you can treat them like an important part of society without
making them above the law.
As I see it the agency that needs to be broken up is the CIA. What they do is shameful and
not American. They are and have always been heavily involved in other countries internal
affairs. They are an evil organization.
If conservatives are coming around to the idea that police corruption is a real thing, that
would be great. Somehow, I tend to doubt that it extends much beyond a way to protect white
collar and political corruption. I hope this is a turning point. The investigations into
Clinton emails didn't seem to warrant a mention here. Oh well.
That whole email situation was worthless. Not to say whether there was or was not an issue
but the investigation was nothing worthwhile and only resulted in complicating an already
messy election. Whether you believe there was a crime or not there there was nothing good
handled by that investigation.
Personally I'm more content with the Mueller investigation. Not the way everyone
panicked over it on both sides but what Mueller actually did himself: came in, researched
the situation, found out that while a good few people acted messy Trump himself wasn't
doing more than Twitter talk (yes it's technically "not enough evidence to prosecute", but
that is how we phrase "not guilty" technically: you prove guilt not innocence), stated that
Trump keeps messing himself up (aka "why did you ask your staff to claim one reason for a
firing then tell a different story on national TV idiot")..
Then ran for the hills as everyone screamed "impeach/witchhunt".
Though don't get me wrong: I'm not going to get on the way of any attempt to dismantle
the FBI or any of those other systems. It's something I really wish "small government"
actually meant.
And lets not forget that Russia warned the FBI about the Tsarnaev brothers. The FBI did a
perfunctory investigation and dismissed the threat. They probably thought they were a
couple of poor Chechen boys persecuted by those evil Russians.
Absolutely phenomenal that an entire essay abusing the FBI could be written without once
mentioning the man who actually made the Federal Bureau of Investigation into what
it is (whatever that might be). But J Edgar Hoover is still sufficiently iconic a
figure to many Conservatives that it would be counterproductive to assault him. Better
someone like Comey.
But, this is part of a pattern of Trump and his loyal followers (no Conservatives they)
assault on the Institutions. The FBI is insufficiently tamed by Billy Barr, so it must go.
(Part of the deep state swamp. /s).
Actually, there are very sound reasons for keeping the FBI, and even more for reforming
it. But since it was engaged in checking out Trump's minion, Flynn, it is bad, very bad,
incredibly bad, and must go. OTOH, if Comey had bent the knee to Trump, the FBI would be
the most tremendous force for good the country has ever seen.
But this essay must be seen as part of the background of attempted legitimization for
whatever Trump tweetstormed today. Perhaps the critics are right, and "conservatism is
dead". If so, it would be the proper thing to give it a decent burial and go on.
Because there is nothing about Donald John Trump which is the least Conservative, and it
is sickening to see people I once presumed to be "principled" line up at the altar of
Trumpism. You know he will not be satisfied until the country is renamed The United States
of Trump.
Now, all you Trumpublicans and Trumpservatives go downvote because I decline to abandon
Conservatism for Trumpworship,
I did not know the FBI had the power to go back in time, otherwise how did they get Flynn
to lie to VP Pence on Jan 14 when they didn't interview him until 1/24? Amazing how
powerful they are!
"... Democrats, early in Trump's presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of Trump's most devoted enemies, and thus began viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to create new foreign policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal celebrities by being hired by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a virtually daily basis, masqueraded as news . ..."
In his extraordinary election-advocating op-ed, Hayden, Bush/Cheney's CIA chief, candidly
explained the reasons for the CIA's antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate's stated
opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to expand as well as his opposition
to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly "pro-Putin" positions
which, we are now all
supposed to forget,
Obama largely
shared ). As has been true since President Harry Truman's creation of the CIA after World
War II, interfering in other countries and dictating or changing their governments -- through
campaigns of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the abolition of democracy,
systemic disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots -- is regarded as a divine right,
inherent to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks
to impede it (as the CIA perceived Trump was) is of suspect loyalties at best.
The CIA's antipathy toward Trump continued after his election victory. The agency became the
primary vector for anonymous illegal leaks designed to depict Trump as a Kremlin agent
and/or blackmail victim. It worked to ensure the leak of the Steele dossier that clouded at
least the first two years of Trump's presidency. It drove the scam Russiagate conspiracy
theories. And before Trump was even inaugurated, open warfare erupted between the
president-elect and the agency to the point where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck
Schumer explicitly warned Trump on the Rachel Maddow Show that he was risking full-on
subversion of his presidency by the agency:
This turned out to be one of the most prescient and important (and creepy) statements of
the Trump presidency: from Chuck Schumer to Rachel Maddow - in early January, 2017, before
Trump was even inaugurated: pic.twitter.com/TUaYkksILG
Democrats, early in Trump's presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of
Trump's most devoted enemies, and thus began viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading
out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton
campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to
create new
foreign policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish
confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security
officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal celebrities by being
hired by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a
virtually daily basis, masqueraded as news .
The all-consuming Russiagate narrative that dominated the first three years of Trump's
presidency further served to elevate the CIA as a noble and admirable institution while
whitewashing its grotesque history. Liberal conventional wisdom held that Russian Facebook ads,
Twitter bots and the hacking and release of authentic, incriminating
DNC emails was some sort of unprecedented, off-the-charts, out-of-the-ordinary
crime-of-the-century attack, with several leading Democrats (including Hillary Clinton)
actually
comparing it to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor . The level of historical ignorance and/or jingostic
American exceptionalism necessary to believe this is impossible to describe. Compared to what
the CIA has done to dozens of other countries since the end of World War II, and what it
continues to do , watching Americans cast Russian interference in the 2016 election through
online bots and email hacking (even if one believes every claim made about it) as some sort of
unique and unprecedented crime against democracy is staggering. Set against what the CIA has
done and continues to do to "interfere" in the domestic affairs of other countries --
including Russia -- the 2016
election was, at most, par for the course for international affairs and, more accurately, a
trivial and ordinary act in the context of CIA interference. This propaganda was sustainable
because the recent history and the current function of the CIA has largely been
suppressed. Thankfully, a just-released book by journalist Vincent Bevins -- who
spent years as a foreign correspondent covering two countries still marred by brutal
CIA interference: Brazil for the Los Angeles Times and Indonesia for the Washington Post --
provides one of the best, most informative and most illuminating histories yet of this agency
and the way it has shaped the actual, rather than the propagandistic, U.S. role in the
world.
Entitled "The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program
that Shaped Our World," the book primarily documents the indescribably horrific campaigns of
mass murder and genocide the CIA sponsored in Indonesia as an instrument for destroying a
nonaligned movement of nations who would be loyal to neither Washington nor Moscow. Critically,
Bevins documents how the chilling success of that morally grotesque campaign led to its being
barely discussed in U.S. discourse, but then also serving as the foundation and model for
clandestine CIA interference campaigns in multiple other countries from Guatemala, Chile, and
Brazil to the Philippines, Vietnam, and Central America: the Jakarta Method.
Our newest episode of SYSTEM UPDATE, which debuts today at 2:00 p.m. on The Intercept's YouTube channel , is
devoted to a discussion of why this history is so vital: not just for understanding the current
international political order but also for distinguishing between fact and fiction in our
contemporary political discourse. In addition to my own observations on this topic, I speak to
Bevins about his book, about what the CIA really is and how it has shaped the world we still
inhabit, and why a genuine understanding of both international and domestic politics is
impossible without a clear grasp on this story.
President Donald Trump told Republican senators during a private lunch Tuesday that he is willing to let expanded unemployment
benefits expire at the end of July, a decision that would
massively slash the incomes of tens of millions
of people who have lost their jobs due to the Covid-19 crisis.
The Washington Post
reported Tuesday that the president "privately expressed opposition to extending a weekly $600 boost in unemployment insurance
for laid-off workers affected by the coronavirus pandemic, according to three officials familiar with his remarks."
House Democrats passed legislation last week that would extend the beefed-up unemployment benefits through January of 2021 as
experts and government officials -- including Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell --
warn the
U.S. unemployment rate could soon reach 25%. The unemployment insurance boost under the CARES Act is set to expire on July 31, even
as many
people have yet to receive their first check.
"With nearly 1 in 5 Americans out of work, Donald Trump's plan is to cut off the boost to unemployment benefits and shower his
wealthy buddies with more tax cuts," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of the architects of the unemployment insurance expansion,
toldHuffPost . "This is the worst economic crisis in 100 years and Donald Trump is doubling down on Herbert Hoover's economic
playbook and pushing workers to risk their health for his political benefit."
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) -- who
declared earlier this month that Congress will only extend the boosted unemployment insurance "over our dead bodies" -- said
after the private lunch that Trump believes the benefits are "hurting the economic recovery." Graham was one of several Republican
senators who
opposed the initial expansion of unemployment benefits as too generous.
An
analysis
released last week by the Hamilton Project, an initiative of the Brookings Institution, found that expanded unemployment benefits
offset "roughly half of lost wages and salaries in April." Unemployment insurance has "been essential to families, and is vital for
keeping the economy from cratering further," the authors of the analysis noted.
Ernie Tedeschi, a former Treasury Department economist,
estimated that "come July 31, if the emergency
UI top-up isn't extended, unemployed workers will effectively get a pay cut of 50-75% overnight."
"It's increasingly looking like there won't be enough labor demand to hire them all back at that point," Tedeschi tweeted.
The latest Labor Department statistics showed that
more than 36 million
people in the U.S. have filed jobless claims since mid-March as mass layoffs continue in the absence of government action to
keep workers on company payrolls. Despite the grim numbers, the Post 's Jeff Stein reported Tuesday that the White House
is "
predicting a swift economic recovery " as it resists additional efforts to provide relief to frontline workers and the unemployed.
On top of rejecting an extension of enhanced unemployment insurance, Trump last month
publicly voiced opposition to another round of direct stimulus payments, instead advocating a cut to the tax that funds Social
Security and Medicare.
In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, the FBI offered to pay former British spy
Christopher Steele "significantly" for collecting intelligence on Michael Flynn, according to
the
Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.
The FBI's proposal - made during an October 3, 2016 meeting in an unidentified European
city, and virtually ignored by the press - has taken on new significance in light of recent
documents exposing how the Obama administration targeted Flynn before and after president
Trump's upset victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The inspector general's report, released on Dec. 9, 2019, said that FBI agents offered to
pay Steele "significantly" to collect intelligence from three separate "buckets" that the
bureau was pursuing as part of Crossfire Hurricane , its counterintelligence probe of four
Trump campaign associates.
One bucket was "Additional intelligence/reporting on specific, named individuals (such as
[Carter Page] or [Flynn]) involved in facilitating the Trump campaign-Russian relationship,"
the IG report stated.
FBI agents also sought contact with "any individuals or sub sources" who Steele could
provide to "serve as cooperating witnesses to assist in identifying persons involved in the
Trump campaign-Russian relationship."
Steele at the time had provided the FBI with reports he compiled alleging that members of
the Trump campaign had conspired with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election. -
Daily Caller
Of note, Steele was promoting a discredited rumor that Flynn had an extramarital affair with
Svetlana Lokhova, a Russian-British academic who studied at the University of Cambridge. This
rumor was amplified by the Wall Street Journal and The Guardian in March, 2017.
According to the Inspector General's report, the FBI gave Steele a "general overview" of
their Crossfire Hurricane probe - including their efforts to surveil Trump campaign aides
George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, along with Paul Manafort and Flynn. In fact - some FBI
agents questioned whether the lead agent told Steel too much about the operation , according to
the IG report.
In recent weeks, the release of two documents raise questions about potential links between
the FBI's request of Steele and the Lokhova rumor .
One of the documents is a transcript of longtime John McCain associate David Kramer's
interview with the House Intelligence Committee. Kramer testified on Dec. 17, 2017,
that Steele
told him in December 2016 that he suspected that Flynn had an extramarital affair with a
Russian woman .
"There was one thing he mentioned to me that is not included here, and that is he believed
that Mr. Flynn had an extramarital affair with a Russian woman in the U.K .," Kramer told
lawmakers.
Kramer said that Steele conveyed that Flynn's alleged mistress was a "Russian woman" who
"may have been a dual citizen."
An FBI
memo dated Jan. 4, 2017, contained another allegation regarding Flynn and a mysterious
Russian woman.
The memo, which was provided to Flynn's lawyers on April 30, said that an FBI confidential
human source (CHS) told the bureau that they were present at an event that Flynn attended
while he was still working in the U.S. intelligence community . -
Daily Caller
Lokhova and Flynn have denied the rumors - with Lokhova's husband telling the Daily Caller
News Foundation that he picked his wife up after the Cambridge dinner where an FBI informant
said they 'left together in a cab.'
Meanwhile, a DIA official who was at the Cambridge event with Flynn also told the WSJ in
March 2017 that there was nothing inappropriate going on between Flynn and Lokhova.
Looking at my own reaction to the 2016 candidates, I knew Hillary was the the most corrupt
politician since Hermann Goering. I also knew Trump was a freak show. However, Trump did
claim to be against new wars and getting along with Russia. Not that I believed him, but in a
choice between the two, Trump was obviously better. And that's what the Trump supporters
believed and that's why he was elected (with some help from the Electoral College setup.)
Today, it's a choice between a President who has been an *utter circus* and has *proven*
to be a freak show, and a "garden-variety" corrupt politician who also has dementia. People
elect corrupt politicians all the time. Is there any other kind? How likely is it that the
electorate will take the time to fully understand the depth of corruption of Biden vs the
*obvious* lunacy of Trump? How many people are going to believe Biden has dementia,
especially if the mainstream media (outside of Fox) refuses to even mention it (you know
that's what they will do)?
I don't know the answer to that and neither does anyone else.
The real questions are: how will the economy question play out before November? Does Trump
get blamed? Does he get rewarded for reopening the economy even though the death toll from
the virus spikes? If the virus slows in the summer, does he get rewarded for that? If a
second virus wave roars in before election dat, what impact will that have? What happens with
Venezuela, Iran and China over the next five months? There's plenty of time for SHTF on any
of those fronts - does any of it reward or downgrade Trump's chances?
Like I said before, it is *way too soon* to be estimating the outcome of this
election.
I would suspect that the government in Kiev is trying to play kingmaker, leveraging the
tapes to try to get a better deal from Trump or the Democrats. As the current holder of the
Whitehouse, Trump is in a stronger position to make and follow through on his offers
(although he also has a history of breaking promises). Conversely, the Democrats have every
incentive to break the bank to keep those recordings secret.
So I guess we'll have to wait and see who makes the Ukrainians a better offer.
If Trump is going to give them a good offer it would need to be fairly soon (before
Aug), so lets see if he announces new arms sales or additional IMF funding for the
government in Kiev this summer. If he does, then more tapes will leak as we get closer to
the election.
As shown in this article, there is a key aspect to the entire anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine story
that has received absolutely no coverage by the mainstream media:
Presumably Biden was still coherent when talking with Poroshenko?
Of course, Biden can't openly talk about the US' real interest in Burisma: hegemony via
control of energy resources and the Crown Jewels of the Ukrainian economy...nor can he talk
about any personal stake he had in the deal.
I remember when Chavez took over PDVSA, Venezuelans claim to have learned that the
Venezuelan oil company's technology subsidiary's board of directors had been infested with
top CIA. You have to assume that they were not serving pro bono... Nor was Hunter
Biden...
incoming
NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak " in a meeting documented
in the January 2017 memo by National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the unredacted first page of
which was obtained by CBS on Tuesday.
The FBI director admits he " has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified
information to Kislyak ," and no real basis for his insistence that the probe must go
on.
-- Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) May
19, 2020
The only thing backing his hunch that the meetings between the general and the Russian
diplomat " could be an issue "?
" The level of communication is unusual ," Comey tells Obama, according to Rice,
hinting that the National Security Council should " potentially " avoid passing "
sensitive information related to Russia " to Flynn.
The FBI director did not elaborate on what is supposed to be " unusual " about an
incoming foreign policy official speaking with a Russian counterpart, especially in the midst
of what was then a rapidly-unraveling diplomatic relationship between the two countries with
Obama expelling 35 Russian diplomats and imposing sanctions over
alleged-but-never-substantiated " election interference. " Given the circumstances, an
absence of communication might have been more unusual. But the timing is certainly
auspicious.
Rice, Flynn's predecessor who authored the memo, relates that the January 5 meeting followed
" a briefing by [Intelligence Committee] leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016
Presidential election ."
The previous day, the FBI field office assigned with investigating Flynn attempted to close
the case against him, called CROSSFIRE RAZOR, after having found " no derogatory
information " to justify continued inclusion in the overarching CROSSFIRE HURRICANE probe
(the " Russian collusion " investigation). They were blocked from doing so by Agent
Peter Strzok, who added that the orders to keep the investigation going came from the " 7th
floor " - i.e. agency leadership. The Flynn investigation had been underway since August,
beginning the day after Strzok discussed an 'insurance policy' that was supposed to keep
then-candidate Donald Trump out of office with Comey's deputy, Andrew McCabe. While Comey
describes his probe of Flynn as " proceeding 'by the book' " after Obama repeatedly
stresses he wants only a " by the book " investigation - both parties presumably
hoping to avoid exactly the sequence of revelatory events that are currently unfolding -
recently-unsealed documents from the case against Flynn indicate the general was entrapped,
with the FBI's goal being to " prosecute him or get him fired " with an ambush-style
interview.
They got both their wishes - after agents tricked him into sitting for questioning without a
lawyer present, Flynn was accused of lying about his contacts with Kislyak, fired from his post
in the White House, and subsequently pled guilty to lying to a federal agent.
The Department of Justice has dropped its charges against Flynn, citing gross misconduct and
abuse of power at the FBI, which it claims had no basis for launching its investigation.
However, US District Judge Emmet Sullivan has attempted to block the dismissal, appointing a
retired judge as independent prosecutor to both argue against the Justice Department's move and
pursue perjury charges against Flynn - essentially charging him with lying about lying.
On Tuesday, Flynn's attorney filed a writ of mandamus with the US Court of Appeals for the
DC Circuit, urging them to force Sullivan to step aside and allow the dismissal of the
charges.
Yet another bombshell development emerged Thursday in the case of former National Security
Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn: the release of additional exculpatory evidence FBI officials had
withheld from the courts and the defense for three years.
Crucially, this includes evidence that the Bureau's official "302 report" filed by the lead
agent who interviewed Flynn was edited multiple times, including by an official who never
participated in the interview.
Thursday's revelations come on top of yesterday's disclosures indicating an apparent attempt
by FBI officials to trap Flynn into committing a criminal offense during an interview.
The new revelation could prove even more significant: In addition to the apparently
calculated effort to get Flynn to commit perjury or obstruction, top FBI figures, including FBI
Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, repeatedly altered the "302
report" that was filed after the Flynn interview.
That interview was conducted under highly unusual circumstances. Ordinarily, an FBI
interview of a top West Wing official would be requested through the White House Counsel's
office, and would be conducted in the presence of legal counsel representing the official being
interviewed.
That did not occur in the case of the FBI's interview with Flynn, and Comey later stated
that under "a more organized administration" he "probably wouldn't have gotten away with
it."
Initially, when the lead FBI agent handling the case was asked whether Flynn lied during the
interview, he stated that he did not believe so.
But over the coming days Strzok and Page would edit and revise the agent's 302 report
repeatedly, according to a document providing text messages between FBI officials that the
defense counsel finally received this week.
Prosecutors and investigators are required to turn over information that might tend to
indicate a suspect's innocence to the defense counsel prior to trial and sentencing. Most legal
analysts would consider the information withheld from Flynn's legal team potentially
exculpatory.
An inside source familiar with efforts to defend Gen. Flynn tells Newsmax an unadulterated,
original 302 document exists that was created by the lead agent from his notes of the interview
with Flynn.
Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University law professor who testified before the
House during President Trump's impeachment, wrote Thursday the decision to keep the case open
occurred when "Special counsel Robert Mueller decided to bring the dubious charge."
In a column posted on TheHill.com on Thursday, Turley said the case against Flynn should be
dismissed. "Justice demands a dismissal of his prosecution," he wrote.
At the time Flynn was being prosecuted, Mueller was seeking evidence the Trump campaign
colluded with Russia in the 2016 campaign.
Critics say he was prosecuting Flynn to get him to turn state's witness against Trump, but
the general never implicated him.
Mueller eventually determined there was no evidence of a Russian-collusion conspiracy. But
by then Flynn, under intense financial pressure from the prosecution and buckling under the
threat that his son could be drawn into a legal quagmire, had pled guilty to one count of lying
to the FBI.
He has since requested to withdraw that plea, and he is awaiting sentencing.
President Trump weighed in on the controversial case Thursday morning tweeting, "What
happened to General Michael Flynn, a war hero, should never be allowed to happen to a citizen
of the United States again!"
Later the president told reporters he believes Flynn is "in the process of being
exonerated."
Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik reacted strongly on Thursday to the
news FBI officials to altered a 302 report and reopened the case when the initial analysis
indicated no crime had been committed.
Kerik told Newsmax Thursday that if evidence or records had been unduly altered under his
watch as police commissioner, he would have referred the matter to the district attorney for
possible prosecution.
"They intentionally went back and doctored the original 302," he said. "That's because they
were not looking for the truth.
"They were looking for a mechanism to trap Gen. Flynn, to prosecute him, to get him fired in
order to go after the president. That was their motive, that was their agenda. It's absolutely
clear at this point they were not looking for the truth."
Kerik added, "This was done at the highest levels of the FBI. At the most senior level of
the FBI, they falsified records, they suppressed evidence.
"This is irresponsible, it's outrageous They used and abused their authority to deprive Gen.
Flynn of his constitutional right to freedom," he said.
According to the source, as supported by text messages also obtained by Newsmax, Stzrok, who
also participated in the Flynn interview, rewrote the 302 extensively -- although a text
message from him stated he tried not to "completely re-write it so as to save [redacted]
voice," presumably a reference to the lead agent who originally wrote it.
Stzrok then shared the document with a "pissed off" Page, who had not participated in the
interview, and who revised it significantly again, according to the Newsmax source.
The objective of the interview was to probe whether Flynn had violated the Logan Act, an
18th-century statute that has never been used in any criminal conviction. The Act makes it a
crime for a U.S. citizens to interfere with the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Many legal
scholars find the law to be unconstitutional.
The documents received by Newsmax indicate the case had virtually been closed –
suggesting the lead agent was satisfied no crime had been committed -- prior to it being
reopened by the direct intervention of Strzok and Page.
The documents, for example, show the probe of Flynn was about to be put to bed when the lead
agent received a text from Strzok stating, "Hey, if you haven't closed [the case], don't do so
yet."
Apparently, Page was pleasantly surprised to find the matter had not yet been closed.
On Feb. 10, 2017, Page texted Strzok, "This document pisses me off. You didn't even attempt
to make this cogent and readable? This is lazy work on your part."
Strzok replied, "Lisa you didn't see it before my edits that went into what I sent you. I
was 1) trying to completely re-write the thing so as to save [the lead agent's] voice and 2)
get it out to you for general review and comment in anticipation of needing it soon."
Wednesday's revelation included notes of a meeting conducted a short time after the 2016
election between FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The notes stated,
"What is our goal? Truth and admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him
fired?"
The notes were written by then-FBI head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap.
It is not. Forces behind Russiagate are intact and still have the same agenda. CrowdStrike
was just a tool. As long as Full Spectrum Dominance dourine is alive, Russiagate will flourish in
one form or another
Notable quotes:
"... The need for a scapegoat to blame for Hillary Clinton's snatching defeat out of the jaws victory also played a role; as did the need for the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT) to keep front and center in the minds of Americans the alleged multifaceted threat coming from an "aggressive" Russia. (Recall that John McCain called the, now disproven , "Russian hacking" of the DNC emails an "act of war.") ..."
"... Though the corporate media is trying to bury it, the Russiagate narrative has in the past few weeks finally collapsed with the revelation that CrowdStrike had no evidence Russia took anything from the DNC servers and that the FBI set a perjury trap for Gen. Michael Flynn. There was already the previous government finding that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia and the indictment of a Russian troll farm that supposedly was destroying American democracy with $100,000 in Facebook ads was dropped after the St. Petersburg defendants sought discovery. ..."
"... Given the diffident attitude the Security State plotters adopted regarding hiding their tracks, Durham's challenge, with subpoena power, is not as formidable as were he, for example, investigating a Mafia family. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the corporate media have all been singing from the same sheet since Trump had the audacity a week ago to coin yet another "-gate" -- this time "Obamagate." Leading the apoplectic reaction in corporate media, Saturday's Washington Post offered a pot-calling-the-kettle-black pronouncement by its editorial board entitled "The absurd cynicism of 'Obamagate"? ..."
"... So if we dug in and found large payments from George Soros or Mrs Clinton to these 'journalists', what crime could they be accused of? No crimes, I don't think. ..."
"... There never was anything to Russiagate. It was always just politics. I knew that from the beginning. There was, however, a lot of something to the torture scandal. Obama said "We are not going to look back." And now Gina Haspel, one of the chief torturers, partly responsible for destroying the torture tapes, despite a court order to preserve them, is now head of the CIA. ..."
"... Drain the Swamp my ***. He's started by firing all the IG's? Trump "looking back," not forward. He could start by investigating Gina Haspel. ..."
"... For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal." ..."
"... By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip." ..."
Seldom mentioned among the motives behind the persistent drumming on alleged Russian
interference was an over-arching need to help the Security State hide their tracks.
The need for a scapegoat to blame for Hillary Clinton's snatching defeat out of the jaws
victory also played a role; as did the need for the
Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT) to
keep front and center in the minds of Americans the alleged multifaceted threat coming from an
"aggressive" Russia. (Recall that John McCain called the, now
disproven , "Russian hacking" of the DNC emails an "act of war.")
But that was then. This is now.
Though the corporate media is trying to bury it, the Russiagate narrative has in the past
few weeks finally
collapsed with the revelation that CrowdStrike had no
evidence Russia took anything from the DNC servers and that the FBI set
a perjury trap for Gen. Michael Flynn. There was already the previous government finding that
there was no collusion between Trump and Russia and the indictment of a Russian troll farm that
supposedly was destroying American democracy with $100,000 in Facebook ads was dropped after
the St. Petersburg defendants sought discovery.
All that's left is to discover how this all happened.
Attorney General William Barr, and U.S. Attorney John Durham, whom Barr commissioned to
investigate this whole sordid mess seem intent on getting to the bottom of it. The possibility
that Trump will not chicken out this time, and rather will challenge the Security State looms
large since he felt personally under attack.
Writing on the Wall
Given the diffident attitude the Security State plotters adopted regarding hiding their
tracks, Durham's challenge, with subpoena power, is not as formidable as were he, for example,
investigating a Mafia family.
Plus, former NSA Director Adm. Michael S. Rogers reportedly is cooperating. The
handwriting is on the wall. It remains to be seen what kind of role in the scandal Barack
Obama may have played.
But former directors James Comey, James Clapper, and John Brennan, captains of Obama's
Security State, can take little solace from Barr's remarks Monday to a reporter who asked about
Trump's recent claims that top officials of the Obama administration, including the former
president had committed crimes. Barr replied:
"As to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement,
based on the information I have today, I don't expect Mr. Durham's work will lead to a
criminal investigation of either man. Our concerns over potential criminality is focused on
others."
In a more ominous vein, Barr gratuitously added that law enforcement and intelligence
officials were involved in "a false and utterly baseless Russian collusion narrative against
the president. It was a grave injustice, and it was unprecedented in American history."
Meanwhile, the corporate media have all been singing from the same sheet since Trump had the
audacity a week ago to coin yet another "-gate" -- this time "Obamagate." Leading the
apoplectic reaction in corporate media, Saturday's Washington Post
offered a pot-calling-the-kettle-black pronouncement by its editorial board entitled "The
absurd cynicism of 'Obamagate"?
The outrage voiced by the Post called to mind disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's indignant
response to criticism of the FBI by candidate Trump, in a Oct. 20, 2016 text exchange with FBI
attorney Lisa Page:
Strzok: I am riled up. Trump is a f***ing idiot, is unable to provide a coherent
answer.
Strzok -- I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F**K HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY
Page -- I don't know. But we'll get it back. We're America. We rock.
Strzok -- Donald just said "bad hombres"
Strzok -- Trump just said what the FBI did is disgraceful.
Less vitriolic, but incisive commentary came from widely respected author and lawyer Glenn
Greenwald on May 14, four days after Trump coined "Obamagate": ( See "System Update with Glenn
Greenwald -- The Sham Prosecution of Michael Flynn").
For a shorter, equally instructive video of Greenwald on the broader issue of Russia-gate,
see this clip from a March 2019 Democracy Now! -sponsored debate he had with David Cay Johnston
titled, "As Mueller Finds No Collusion, Did Press Overhype Russiagate? Glenn Greenwald vs.
David Cay Johnston":
(The entire
debate is worth listening to). I found one of the comments below the Democracy Now! video
as big as a bummer as the commentator did:
"I think this is one of the most depressing parts about the whole situation. In their
dogmatic pushing for this false narrative, the Russiagaters might have guaranteed Trump a
second term. They have done more damage to our democracy than Russia ever has done and will
do ." (From "Clamity2007")
In any case, Johnston, undaunted by his embarrassment at the hands of Greenwald, is still at
it, and so is the avuncular Frank Rich -- both of them some 20 years older than Greenwald and
set in their evidence-impoverished, media-indoctrinated ways.
... ... ...
Uncle Frank, 40 seconds ago
So if we dug in and found large payments from George Soros or Mrs Clinton to these
'journalists', what crime could they be accused of? No crimes, I don't think.
But when journalists are revealed to be issuing paid-for propaganda/lies mixed with their
own internal opinions, and their publisher allows it to be presented as if it were reporting
rather than opinion, said writers, editors, and publishers are relegated to obscurity and
derision.
Their work will never be taken seriously again by anyone who wasn't already
brain-washed.
They don't get that, I guess.
QABubba, 47 minutes ago (Edited)
There never was anything to Russiagate. It was always just politics. I knew that from the
beginning. There was, however, a lot of something to the torture scandal. Obama said "We are not
going to look back." And now Gina Haspel, one of the chief torturers, partly responsible for
destroying the torture tapes, despite a court order to preserve them, is now head of the
CIA.
General Flynn was so involved with Turkey he should have been registered as a foreign
agent.
And as I have said before, the real crime was laundering Russian Mafia/Heroin money
through Deutsche Bank into New York real estate. It is curious that Turkey is also a huge
transport spot for heroin into the
EU. And France and other EU nations have a migrant population that lives off the drug
trade.
Drain the Swamp my ***. He's started by firing all the IG's? Trump "looking back," not forward. He could start by investigating Gina Haspel.
The MSM disinformation campaign with consistent common talking points is not difficult to
see with a little discernment. The bigger question is has this happened organically or is there a larger agency
manipulating the public discourse?
"By 1905," Foglesong stated, "this fundamental reorientation of American views of Russia
had set up a historical pattern in which missionary zeal and messianic euphoria would be
followed by disenchantment and embittered denunciation of Russia's evil and oppressive
rulers." The first cycle, according to Foglesong, culminated in 1905, when the October
Manifesto, perceived initially by Americans as a transformation to democracy, gave way to a
violent socialist revolt. Foglesong observed similar cycles of euphoria to despair during the
collapse of the tsarist government in 1917, during the partial religious revival of World War
II, and during the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s
Crucial to Foglesong's analysis was how these cycles coincided with a contemporaneous need
to deflect attention away from America's own blemishes and enhance America's claim to its
global mission.
For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the
1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War,
revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal."
By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong
illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward
Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation
from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and
America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark
double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what
they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and
emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about
Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted
American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their
grip."
Moribundus, 3 hours ago
America's imperialism rules: Never to admit a fault or wrong; never to accept blame;
concentrate on one enemy at a time; blame that enemy for everything that goes wrong; take
advantage of every opportunity to raise a political whirlwind.
Kidbuck, 5 hours ago
Trump hasn't engaged in a fight in his life. He's a sissy at heart wants to negotiate. He
can't even do that right. He's caved on nearly every campaign promise he made. The only thing
his administration fights for is their salary and their retirement. Hillary still waddles
free and farts in his general direction.
ChaoKrungThep, 4 hours ago
Trump the Mafia punk, like his dad, and draft dodger like his German grand dad. Barr, old
CIA asset from the Clinton-Mena coke smuggling op. This crappy crew is running their masters'
game in front of the redneck rabble who are dumber than their mutts.
Save_America1st, 9 hours ago
Geez...how far behind can most of these assholes be after all these years????
For one...there was no "Russia-gate". It was all a hoax from the beginning, and anyone
with a few functioning brain cells knew that from the start.
And as of about 3 years ago we have all known this as "Obamagate" for the most part...we
all knew the corruption of the hoax totally led up to O-Scumbag.
And now as of the recent disclosures it is a total fact.
Haven't most of you been watching Dan Bongino for over 2 years now and haven't you read
his books? Haven't you been reading Sarah Carter and John Soloman among others for nearly 3
years now???
Surely, you haven't been just sitting around sucking leftist media **** for over 3 years,
right???????? I'm sure you haven't.
So why is this article even necessary on ZeroHedge?????
We already knew and have known the truth since before even the 2016 election. Drop it.
Posa, 9 hours ago
So funny. The 85 Year old "American century' is palpably disintegrating before our very
eyes. In particular the Deep State permanent bureaucracy is completely untethered and facing
what seems to be a Great Reckoning in the form of Barr- Durham. Cognitve Derangement prevails
in the press and spills overto the body politic. The country teeters a slo-mo Civil War.
Meanwhile, The dollar is disintegrating and we seem to face an economic abyss, the Terminal
Depression. Real "last Days of Rome" stuff.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN, 5 hours ago (Edited)
The Israeli dual citizens like Adelson and Mercer bought the Presidency.
Mossad was the organization handling the mole Seth Rich.
Blaming Russia also worked for those 2 groups because it deflected attention away from
(((them))).
Ray McGovern, being ex-intel, must know this to be true.
LetThemEatRand, 11 hours ago
Russiagate. The supposed target of said coup d'etat just Presided over the largest bailout
of banks ever by a factor of five or more. Trump supporters are asleep for the bailout, Trump
haters are asleep for the bailout. Let's fight about transgender bathrooms and Russiagate,
shall we?
Phone Calls Between Biden And Ukraine's Poroshenko Leaked; Details $1 Billion "Quid Pro
Quo" To Fire Burisma Prosecutor by Tyler Durden Wed, 05/20/2020 - 05:12 Leaked
phone calls between Joe Biden and former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko explicitly detail
the quid-pro-quo arrangement to fire former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin - who
Poroshenko admits did nothing wrong - in exchange for $1 billion in US loan guarantees (which
Biden openly bragged about in January, 2018
).
The calls were leaked by Ukrainian MP
Andrii Derkach , who says the recordings of "voices similar to Poroshenko and Biden" were
given to him by investigative journalists who claim Poroshenko made them.
Shokin was notably investigating Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that hired Biden's
son, Hunter, to sit on its board. Shokin had opened a case against Burisma's founder, Mykola
Zlochevsky, who granted Burisma permits to drill for oil and gas in Ukraine while he was
Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources. In January, 2019,
Shokin stated in a deposition that there were five criminal cases against Zlochevesky,
including money laundering, corruption, illegal funds transfers, and profiteering through shell
corporations while he was a sitting minister.
The leaked calls begin on December 3, 2015 , when former Secretary of State John Kerry
starts laying out the case to fire Shokin - who he says "blocked the cleanup of the Prosecutor
Generals' Office," and sated that Biden "is very concerned about it," to which Poroshenko
replies that the newly reorganized prosecutor general's office (NABU) won't be able to pursue
corruption charges, and that it may be difficult to fire Shokin without cause.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/EbmDLhJ43cU
Later in the leaked audio on February 18, 2016 - less than three months after the Kerry
conversation - Poroshenko delivers some "positive news."
"Yesterday I met with General Prosecutor Shokin," says Poroshenko. And despite of the fact
that we didn't have any corruption charges, we don't have any information about him doing
something wrong, I specially asked him - no, it was day before yesterday - I specially asked
him to resign. In, uh, as his, uh, position as a state person. And despite of the fact that he
has a support in the power. And as a finish of my meeting with him, he promised to give me the
statement on resignation. And one hour ago he bring me the written statement of his resignation
. And this is my second step for keeping my promises. "
Four weeks later on March 22, 2016, Biden says "Tell me that there is a new government and a
new Prosecutor General. I am prepared to do a public signing of the commitment for the billion
dollars. "
Poroshenko tells Biden that one of the leading candidates is the man who replaced Shokin,
Yuriy Lutsenko who later said
in a deposition that Hunter Biden and his business partners were receiving millions of
dollars in compensation from Burisma.
Then, on May 13, 2016, Biden congratulates Poroshenko on "getting the new Prosecutor
General," saying that it will be "critical for him to work quickly to repair the damage Shokin
did."
" And I'm a man of my word ," Biden adds. "And now that the new Prosecutor General is in
place, we're ready to move forward to signing that one billion dollar loan guarantee ."
Poroshenko thanks Biden for the support, and says that it was a "very tough challenge and a
very difficult job."
Shokin, meanwhile, filed a criminal complaint against Biden in Kiev this February, in which
he writes:
During the period 2014-2016, the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine was conducting a
preliminary investigation into a series of serious crimes committed by the former Minister of
Ecology of Ukraine Mykola Zlotchevsky and by the managers of the company "Burisma Holding
Limited "(Cyprus), the board of directors of which included, among others, Hunter Biden, son of
Joseph Biden, then vice-president of the United States of America.
The investigation into the above-mentioned crimes was carried out in strict accordance with
Criminal Law and was under my personal control as the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
Owing to my firm position on the above-mentioned cases regarding their prompt and objective
investigation, which should have resulted in the arrest and the indictment of the guilty
parties, Joseph Biden developed a firmly hostile attitude towards me which led him to express
in private conversations with senior Ukrainian officials, as well as in his public speeches, a
categorical request for my immediate dismissal from the post of Attorney General of Ukraine in
exchange for the sum of US $ 1 billion in as a financial guarantee from the United States for
the benefit of Ukraine.
* * *
And while we cannot verify the authenticity of the recordings with absolute certainty, we
now have the audio revealing how the deed was orchestrated.
This is about intelligence agencies becaming a powerful by shadow political force, much like
STASI. This not about corruption per se, but about perusing of political goals by dirty means. So
it is closer to sedition then to corruption.
Notable quotes:
"... there was no valid reason for the FBI to have interrogated Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak in the first place. There is nothing remotely untoward or unusual -- let alone criminal -- about an incoming senior national security official, three weeks away from taking over, reaching out to a counterpart in a foreign government to try to tamp down tensions. As the Washington Post put it , "it would not be uncommon for incoming administrations to interface with foreign governments with whom they will soon have to work." ..."
"... there was also massive corruption on the part of the investigators themselves, exploiting and abusing their vast and invasive investigative and prosecutorial powers for ideological goals, political subterfuge, election manipulation, and personal vendettas ..."
"... To begin with, cable and other news outlets that employed former Obama-era intelligence operatives, generals, and prosecutors to disseminate every Russiagate conspiracy theory they could find -- virtually always without any dissent or even questioning -- have barely acknowledged these explosive new documents. ..."
"... But the most critical reason to delve deeply into this case is that it reveals one the most dangerous abuses of power a democracy can suffer: The powers of the CIA, FBI, and NSA were blatantly and repeatedly abused to manipulate election outcomes and achieve political advantage. ..."
"... Flynn is a right-wing, hawkish general whose views on the so-called war on terror are ones utterly anathema to my own beliefs. That does not make his prosecution justified. One's views of Flynn personally or his politics (or those of the Trump administration generally) should have absolutely no bearing on one's assessment of the justifiability of what the U.S. government did to him here -- any more than one has to like the political views of the detainees at Guantanamo to find their treatment abusive and illegal , or any more than one has to agree with the views of people who are being censured in order to defend their right of free expression . ..."
"... As the journalist Aaron Maté demonstrated when he brilliantly challenged The Guardian's Luke Harding about his bestselling book claiming to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia -- one of the few times a Russiagate conspiracy advocate was forced to confront a knowledgeable critic -- those claims often cannot survive even minimal critical scrutiny. That's why media outlets have insulated these conspiracy theory advocates, as well as their audiences, from any dissent or even critical questioning. ..."
Gen. Michael Flynn, President Obama's former director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency and President Donald Trump's former national security adviser,
pleaded guilty on December 1, 2017, to a single count of lying to the FBI about two
conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while Flynn served as a Trump
transition team official (Flynn was never
charged for any matters relating to his relationship with the Turkish government). As part
of the plea deal, special counsel Robert Mueller
recommended no jail time for Flynn , and the plea agreement also seemingly put an end to
threats from the Mueller team to prosecute Flynn's son.
Last Thursday, the Justice Department
filed a motion seeking to dismiss the prosecution of Flynn based, in part, on newly
discovered documents revealing that the conduct of the FBI, under the leadership of
Director James Comey and his now-disgraced Deputy Andrew McCabe (who himself was forced to
leave the Bureau after
being caught lying to agents ), was improper and motivated by corrupt objectives. That
motion prompted histrionic howls of outrage from
the same political officials and their media allies who have spent the last three years pushing
maximalist Russiagate conspiracy theories.
But the prosecution of Flynn -- for allegedly lying to the FBI when he denied in a January
24 interrogation that he had discussed with Kislyak on December 29 the new
sanctions and expulsions imposed on Russia by the Obama administration -- was always odd
for a number of reasons. To begin with, the FBI agents who questioned Flynn said afterward that
they did not believe he was lying (as
CNN reported in February 2017: "the FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and
provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they
don't believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say"). For that reason, CNN
said, "the FBI is not expected to pursue any charges against" him.
More importantly, there was no valid reason for the FBI to have interrogated Flynn about
his conversations with Kislyak in the first place. There is nothing remotely untoward or
unusual -- let alone criminal -- about an incoming senior national security official, three
weeks away from taking over, reaching out to a counterpart in a foreign government to try to
tamp down tensions. As the Washington Post
put it , "it would not be uncommon for incoming administrations to interface with foreign
governments with whom they will soon have to work." What newly released documents over the
last month reveal is what has been generally evident for the last three years: The powers of
the security state agencies -- particularly the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the DOJ -- were
systematically abused as part of the 2016 election and then afterward for political rather than
legal ends.
While there was obviously deceit and corruption on the part of some Trump
officials in lying to Russiagate investigators and otherwise engaging in depressingly
common D.C. lobbyist corruption , there was also massive corruption on the part of the
investigators themselves, exploiting and abusing their vast and invasive investigative and
prosecutorial powers for ideological goals, political subterfuge, election manipulation, and
personal vendettas . The former category (corruption by Trump officials) has received a
tidal wave of endless media attention, while the latter (corruption and abuse of power by those
investigating them) has received almost none.
For numerous reasons, it is vital to fully examine with as much clarity as possible the
abuse of power that drove the prosecution of Flynn. To begin with, cable and other news
outlets that employed
former Obama-era intelligence operatives, generals, and prosecutors to disseminate every
Russiagate conspiracy theory they could find -- virtually always without any dissent or even
questioning -- have barely acknowledged these explosive new documents.
More disturbingly, liberals and Democrats -- as part of their movement toward venerating
these security state agencies -- have completely jettisoned long-standing, core principles
about the criminal justice system, including questioning whether
lying to the FBI should be a crime at all and recognizing that innocent people
are often forced to plead guilty -- in order to justify both the Flynn prosecution
and the broader Mueller probe.
But the most critical reason to delve deeply into this case is that it reveals one the
most dangerous abuses of power a democracy can suffer: The powers of the CIA, FBI, and NSA were
blatantly and repeatedly abused to manipulate election outcomes and achieve political
advantage. In other words, we know now that these agencies did exactly what Democratic
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer warned they would do to Trump when he appeared on Rachel
Maddow's MSNBC program shortly before Trump's inauguration:
This turned out to be one of the most prescient and important (and creepy) statements of
the Trump presidency: from Chuck Schumer to Rachel Maddow - in early January, 2017, before
Trump was even inaugurated: pic.twitter.com/TUaYkksILG
Because U.S. politics is now discussed far more as tests of tribal loyalty ("Whose
side are you on?") than actual ideological or even political beliefs ("Which policies do you
favor or oppose?"), it is very difficult to persuade people to separate their personal or
political views of Flynn ("Do you like him or not?") from the question of whether the U.S.
government abused its power in gravely dangerous ways to prosecute him.
Flynn is a right-wing, hawkish general whose views on the so-called war on terror are
ones utterly anathema to my own beliefs. That does not make his prosecution justified. One's
views of Flynn personally or his politics (or those of the Trump administration generally)
should have absolutely no bearing on one's assessment of the justifiability of what the U.S.
government did to him here -- any more than one has to like the political views of the
detainees at Guantanamo to find their
treatment abusive and illegal , or any more than one has to agree with the views of people
who are being censured in
order to defend their right of
free expression .
The ability to distinguish between ideological questions from evidentiary
questions is vital for rational discourse to be possible, yet has been all but eliminated at
the altar of tribal fealty. That is why evidentiary questions completely devoid of ideological
belief -- such as whether one found the Russiagate conspiracy theories supported by convincing
evidence -- have been treated not as evidentiary matters but as tribal ones: to be affiliated
with the left (an ideological characterization), one must affirm belief in those conspiracy
theories even if one does not find the evidence in support of them actually compelling. The
conflation of ideological and evidentiary questions, and the substitution of substantive
political debates with tests of tribal loyalty, are indescribably corrosive to our public
discourse.
As a result, whether one is now deemed on the right or left has almost nothing to do with
actual political beliefs about policy questions and everything to do with one's willingness to
serve the interests of one team or another. With the warped formula in place, U.S. politics has
been depoliticized , stripped of any meaningful ideological debates in lieu of mindless
team loyalty oaths on non-ideological questions.
Our newest SYSTEM UPDATE episode, debuting today, is devoted to enabling as clear and
objective an examination as possible of the abuses that drove the Flynn prosecution --
including these critical, newly declassified documents -- as well the broader Russiagate
investigations of which it was a part. These abuses have received far too little attention from
the vast majority of the U.S. media that simply excludes any questioning or dissent of their
prevailing narratives about all of these matters.
Notably, we invited several of the cable stars and security state agents who have been
pushing these conspiracy theories for years to appear on the program for a civil discussion,
but none were willing to do so -- because they are so accustomed to being able to spout these
theories on MSNBC, CNN, and in newspapers without ever being meaningfully challenged.
Regardless of one's views on these scandals, it is unhealthy in the extreme for any media to
insulate themselves from a diversity of views.
As the journalist Aaron Maté demonstrated when he brilliantly challenged The Guardian's Luke
Harding about his bestselling book claiming to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia -- one of the few times a Russiagate conspiracy advocate was forced to confront a
knowledgeable critic -- those claims often cannot survive even minimal critical scrutiny.
That's why media outlets have insulated these conspiracy theory advocates, as well as their
audiences, from any dissent or even critical questioning.
Today's SYSTEM UPDATE episode, which we believe provides the most comprehensive examination
to date of these new documents relating to the Flynn prosecution and how this case relates to
the broader Russiagate investigative abuses, can be viewed above or on The Intercept's YouTube channel .
This is about control of MSM by intelligence agencies, not so much about corruption of
individual journalists. Journalist became like in the USSR "Soldiers of the Party" -- well paid
propagandist of particular, supplied to them talking points.
What is particularly valuable about Smith's article is its perfect description of a media
sickness borne of the Trump era that is rapidly corroding journalistic integrity and
justifiably destroying trust in news outlets. Smith aptly dubs this pathology "resistance
journalism," by which he means that journalists are now not only free, but encouraged and
incentivized , to say or publish anything they want, no matter how reckless and fact-free,
provided their target is someone sufficiently disliked in mainstream liberal media venues
and/or on social media:
[Farrow's] work, though, reveals the weakness of a kind of resistance journalism that has
thrived in the age of Donald Trump: That if reporters swim ably along with the tides of
social media and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest
voices, the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness can seem more like impediments than
essential journalistic imperatives.
That can be a dangerous approach, particularly in a moment when the idea of truth and a
shared set of facts is under assault.
In assailing Farrow for peddling unproven conspiracy theories, Smith argues that such
journalistic practices are particularly dangerous in an era where conspiracy theories are
increasingly commonplace. Yet unlike most journalists with a mainstream platform, Smith
emphasizes that conspiracy theories are commonly used not only by Trump and his movement
(conspiracy theories which are quickly debunked by most of the mainstream media), but are also
commonly deployed by Trump's enemies, whose reliance on conspiracy theories is virtually never
denounced by journalists because mainstream news outlets themselves play a key role in peddling
them:
We are living in an era of conspiracies and dangerous untruths -- many pushed by President
Trump, but others hyped by his enemies -- that have lured ordinary Americans into
passionately believing wild and unfounded theories and fiercely rejecting evidence to the
contrary. The best reporting tries to capture the most attainable version of the truth, with
clarity and humility about what we don't know. Instead, Mr. Farrow told us what we wanted to
believe about the way power works, and now, it seems, he and his publicity team are not even
pretending to know if it's true.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected , and one could argue even in the months leading up to
his election, journalistic standards have been consciously jettisoned when it comes to
reporting on public figures who, in Smith's words, are "most disliked by the loudest voices,"
particularly when such reporting "swim[s] ably along with the tides of social media." Put
another way: As long the targets of one's conspiracy theories and attacks are regarded as
villains by the guardians of mainstream liberal social media circles, journalists reap endless
career rewards for publishing unvetted and unproven -- even false -- attacks on such people,
while never suffering any negative consequences when their stories are exposed as shabby
frauds.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/OOhRRr6c1wA?autoplay=0&rel=0&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com&widgetid=1
infiltrated and taken over the U.S. government through sexual and financial blackmail
leverage over Trump and used it to dictate U.S. policy; Trump officials conspired with the
Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election; Russia was attacking the U.S. by
hacking its electricity grid , recruiting
journalists to serve as clandestine Kremlin messengers , and plotting to cut off heat to
Americans in winter. Mainstream media debacles -- all in service of promoting the same set of
conspiracy theories against Trump -- are literally too numerous to count, requiring one to
select the worst offenses as illustrative .
In March of last year, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi -- writing under the
headline "It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD" -- compared the prevailing
media climate since 2016 to that which prevailed in 2002 and 2003 regarding the invasion of
Iraq and the so-called war on terror: little to no dissent permitted, skeptics of
media-endorsed orthodoxies shunned and excluded, and worst of all, the very journalists who
were most wrong in peddling false conspiracy theories were exactly those who ended up most
rewarded on the ground that even though they spread falsehoods, they did so for the
right cause.
Under that warped rubric -- in which spreading falsehoods is commendable as long as
it was done to harm the evildoers -- the New Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the most
damaging endorsers of
false
conspiracy theories about Iraq , rose to become editor-in-chief of The Atlantic,
while two of the most deceitful Bush-era neocons, Bush/Cheney speechwriter David Frum and
supreme propagandist Bill Kristol, have reprised their role as leading propagandists and
conspiracy theorists -- only this time aimed against the GOP president instead of on his behalf
-- and thus have become beloved liberal media icons. The communications director for both the
Bush/Cheney campaign and its White House, Nicole Wallace, is one of the most popular liberal
cable hosts from her MSNBC perch.
Join
Our NewsletterOriginal reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in
Exactly the same journalism-destroying dynamic is driving the post-Russiagate media landscape.
There is literally no accountability for the journalists and news outlets that spread
falsehoods in their pages, on their airwaves, and through their viral social media postings.
The Washington Post's media columnist Erik Wemple has been one of the very few journalists
devoted to holding these myth-peddlers accountable -- recounting how one of the most reckless
Russigate conspiracy maximialists, Natasha Bertrand,
became an overnight social media and journalism star by peddling discredited conspiratorial
trash (she was notably hired by Jeffrey Goldberg to cover Russigate for The Atlantic); MSNBC's
Rachel Maddow
spent three years hyping conspiratorial junk with no need even to retract any of it; and
Mother Jones' David Corn played a
crucial, decisively un-journalistic role in mainstreaming the lies of the Steele dossier
all with zero effect on his journalistic status, other than to enrich him through a predictably
bestselling book that peddled those unhinged conspiracies further.
Wemple's post-Russiagate
series has established him as a commendable, often-lone voice trying -- with futility -- to
bring some accountability to U.S. journalism for the systemic media failures of the past three
years. The reason that's futile is exactly what Smith described in his column on Farrow: In
"resistance journalism," facts and truth are completely dispensable -- indeed, dispensing with
them is rewarded -- provided "reporters swim ably along with the tides of social media
and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices."
That describes perfectly the journalists who were defined, and enriched, by years of
Russiagate deceit masquerading as reporting. By far the easiest path to career success over the
last three years -- booming ratings, lucrative book sales, exploding social media followings,
career rehabilitation even for the most discredited D.C. operatives -- was to feed
establishment liberals an endless diet of fearmongering and inflammatory conspiracies about
Drumpf and his White House. Whether it was true or supported by basic journalistic standards
was completely irrelevant. Responsible reporting was simply was not a metric used to assess its
worth.
It was one thing for activists, charlatans, and con artists to exploit fears of Trump for
material gain: that, by definition, is what such people do. But it was another thing entirely
for journalists to succumb to all the low-hanging career rewards available to them by
throwing all journalistic standards into the trash bin in exchange for a star turn as a
#Resistance icon. That , as Smith aptly describes, is what "Resistance Journalism" is,
and it's hard to identify anything more toxic to our public discourse.
Perhaps the single most shameful and journalism-destroying episode in all of this -- an
obviously difficult title to bestow -- was when a national security blogger, Marcy Wheeler,
violated long-standing norms and ethical standards of journalism by announcing in 2018 that she
had voluntarily turned in her own source to the FBI,
claiming she did so because her still-unnamed source "had played a significant role in the
Russian election attack on the US" and because her life was endangered by her brave decision to
stop being a blogger and become an armchair cop by pleading with the FBI and the Mueller team
to let her work with them. In her blog post announcing what she did, she claimed she was going
public with her treachery because her life was in danger, and this way everyone would know the
real reason if "someone releases stolen information about me or knocks me off tomorrow."
To say that Wheeler's actions are a grotesque violation of journalistic ethics is to
radically understate the case. Journalists are expected to protect their sources' identities
from the FBI even if they receive a subpoena and a court order compelling its disclosure; we're
expected to go to prison before we comply with FBI attempts to uncover our source's
identity. But here, the FBI did not try to compel Wheeler to tell them anything; they displayed
no interest in her as she desperately tried to chase them down.
By all appearances, Wheeler had to beg the FBI to pay attention to her because they treated
her like the sort of unstable, unhinged, unwell, delusional obsessive who, believing they have
uncovered some intricate conspiracy, relentlessly harass and bombard journalists with their
bizarre theories until they finally prattle to themselves for all of eternity in the spam
filter of our email inboxes. The claim that she was in possession of some sort of explosive and
damning information that would blow the Mueller investigation wide open was laughable. In her
post, she claimed she "always planned to disclose this when this person's role was publicly
revealed," but to date -- almost two years later -- she has never revealed "this person's"
identity because, from all appearances, the Mueller report never relied on Wheeler's intrepid
reporting or her supposedly red-hot secrets.
Like so many other Russiagate obsessives who turned into social media and MSNBC/CNN
#Resistance stars, Wheeler was living a wild, self-serving fantasy, a Cold War Tom Clancy
suspense film that she invented in her head and then cast herself as the heroine: a crusading
investigative dot-connecter uncovering dangerous, hidden conspiracies perpetrated by dangerous,
hidden Cold War-style villains (Putin) to the point where her own life was endangered by her
bravery. It was a sad joke, a depressing spectacle of psycho-drama, but one that could have had
grave consequences for the person she voluntarily ratted out to the FBI. Whatever else is true,
this episode inflicted grave damage on American journalism by having mainstream,
Russia-obsessed journalists not denounce her for her egregious violation of journalistic ethics
but celebrate her for turning journalism on its head.
Why? Because, as Smith said in his Farrow article, she was "swim[ing] ably along with the
tides of social media and produc[ing] damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by
the loudest voices" and thus "the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness [were] more like
impediments than essential journalistic imperatives." Margaret Sullivan, the former New York
Times public editor and now the Washington Post's otherwise reliably commendable media
reporter,
celebrated Wheeler's bizarre behavior under the headline: "A journalist's conscience leads
her to reveal her source to the FBI."
Despite acknowledging that "in their reporting, journalists talk to criminals all the time
and don't turn them in" and that "it's pretty much an inviolable rule of journalism: Protect
your sources," Sullivan heralded Wheeler's ethically repugnant and journalism-eroding
violation of those principles. "It's not hard to see that her decision was a careful and
principled one," Sullivan proclaimed.
She even endorsed Wheeler's cringe-inducing, self-glorifying claims about her life being
endangered by invoking long-standard Cold War clichés about the treachery of the
Russkies ("Overly dramatic? Not really. The Russians do have a penchant for disposing of people
they find threatening."). The English language is insufficient to convey the madness required
to believe that the Kremlin wanted to kill Marcy Wheeler because her blogging was getting Too
Close to The Truth, but in the fevered swamps of resistance journalism, literally no claim was
too unhinged to be embraced provided that it fed the social media #Resistance masses.
Sullivan's article quoted no critics of Wheeler's incredibly controversial behavior
-- no need to: She was on the right side of social media reaction. And Sullivan never bothered
to return to wonder why her prediction -- "Wheeler hasn't named the source publicly, though his
name may soon be known to all who are following the Mueller investigation" -- never
materialized. Both CNN
and, incredibly, the
Columbia Journalism Review published similarly sympathetic accounts of Wheeler's desperate
attempts to turn over her source to the FBI and then cosplay as though she were some sort of
insider in the Mueller investigation. The most menacing attribute of what Smith calls
"Resistance Journalism" is that it permits and tolerates no dissent and questioning: perhaps
the single most destructive path journalism can take. It has been well-documented that MSNBC
and CNN spent three years peddling all sorts of ultimately discredited Russiagate conspiracy
theories by excluding from their airwaves anyone who dissented from or even questioned those
conspiracies. Instead, they relied upon an
increasingly homogenized army of former security state agents from the CIA, FBI, and NSA to
propound, in unison, all sorts of claims about Trump and Russia that turned out to be false,
and peppered their panels of "analysts" with journalists whose career skyrocketed exclusively
by pushing maximalist Russiagate claims, often by relying on the same intelligence officials
these cable outlets sat them next to.
That NBC & MSNBC hired as a "news analyst" John Brennan - who ran the CIA when the
Trump/Russia investigation began & was a key player in the news he was shaping as a paid
colleague of their reporters - is a huge ethical breach. And it produced this: pic.twitter.com/nPlaq5YVxf
This trend -- whereby diversity of opinion and dissent from orthodoxies are
excluded from media discourse -- is worsening rapidly due to two major factors. The first is
that cable news programs are constructed to feed their audiences only self-affirming narratives
that vindicate partisan loyalties. One liberal cable host told me that they receive ratings not
for each show but for each segment , and they can see the ratings drop off -- the
remotes clicking away -- if they put on the air anyone who criticizes the party to which that
outlet is devoted (Democrats in the case of MSNBC and CNN, the GOP in the case of Fox).
But there's another more recent and probably more dissent-quashing development: the
disappearance of media jobs. Mass layoffs were already common in online journalism and local
newspapers
prior to the coronavirus pandemic , and have now turned into
an industrywide massacre . With young journalists watching jobs disappearing en masse, the
last thing they are going to want to do is question or challenge prevailing orthodoxies within
their news outlet or, using Smith's "Resistance Journalism" formulation, to "swim against the
tides of social media" or question the evidence amassed against those "most disliked by the
loudest voices."
Affirming those orthodoxies can be career-promoting, while questioning them can be
job-destroying. Consider the powerful incentives journalists face in an industry where jobs are
disappearing so rapidly one can barely keep count. During Russiagate, I often heard from young
journalists at large media outlets who expressed varying degrees of support for and agreement
with the skepticism which I and a handful of other journalists were expressing, but they felt
constrained to do so themselves, for good reason. They watched the reprisals and shunning doled
out even to journalists with a long record of journalistic accomplishments and job security for
the crime of Russiagate skepticism, such as Taibbi (similar to the way MSNBC fired Phil
Donahue in 2002 for opposing the invasion of Iraq), and they know journalists with less
stature and security than Taibbi could not risk incurring that collective wrath.
All professions and institutions suffer when a herd, groupthink mentality and the banning of
dissent prevail. But few activities are corroded from such a pathology more than journalism is,
which has as its core function skepticism and questioning of pieties. Journalism quickly
transforms into a sickly, limp version of itself when it itself wages war on the virtues of
dissent and airing a wide range of perspectives.
I do not know how valid are Smith's critiques of Farrow's journalism. But what I know for
certain is that Smith's broader diagnosis of "Resistance Journalism" is dead-on, and the harms
it is causing are deep and enduring. When journalists know they will thrive by affirming
pleasing falsehoods, and suffer when they insist on unpopular truths, journalism not only loses
its societal value but becomes just another instrument for societal manipulation, deceit, and
coercion.
Those are far from failures, those were successful disinformation/propaganda operations conducted with a certain goal --
remove Trump -- which demonstrate the level of intelligence agencies control of the MSM. In other words those are
parts of a bigger intelligence operation -- the color revolution against Trump led most probably by Obama and Brennan.
Now we know that Obama played an important role in Russiagate media hysteria and, most porbably, in planning and executing the
operation to entrap Flynn.
Notable quotes:
"... They are listed in reverse order, as measured by the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news, the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger they caused ..."
"... Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories. That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors" went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the same agenda and script: ..."
"... Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC, claimed they had evidence that Russia hacked Ukrainian artillery apps; they then retracted it . ..."
"... The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all "17 intelligence agencies" agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally retracted that in June, 2017: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." ..."
"... Widespread government and media claims that accused Russian agent Maria Butina offered "sex for favors" were totally false (and scurrilous). ..."
BuzzFeed was once notorious for
traffic-generating "listicles," but has since become an impressive outlet for deep
investigative journalism under editor-in-chief Ben Smith. That outlet was prominently in the
news this week thanks to its "bombshell" story about President Trump and Michael Cohen: a story
that, like so many others of its kind,
blew up in its face , this time when the typically mute Robert Mueller's office took the
extremely rare step to
label its key claims "inaccurate."
But in homage to BuzzFeed's past viral glory, following are the top ten worst media failures
in two-plus-years of Trump/Russia reporting. They are listed in reverse order, as measured by
the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news,
the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger
they caused. This list was extremely difficult to compile in part because news outlets
(particularly CNN and MSNBC) often delete from the internet the video segments of their most
embarrassing moments. Even more challenging was the fact that the number of worthy nominees is
so large that highly meritorious entrees had to be excluded, but are acknowledged at the end
with (dis)honorable mention status.
Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave
threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media
outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would
expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories.
That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media
clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors"
went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the
same agenda and script:
10. RT Hacked Into and Took Over C-SPAN (Fortune)
On June 12, 2017, Fortune claimed that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN and that
C-SPAN "confirmed" it had been hacked. The whole story was false:
Holy shit. Russia state propaganda (RT) "hacked" into C-SPAN feed and took over for a good
40 seconds today? In middle of live broadcast. https://t.co/pwWYFoDGDU
9. Russian Hackers Invaded the U.S. Electricity Grid to Deny Vermonters Heat
During the Winter (WashPost)
On December 30, 2016, the Washington Post reported that "Russian hackers penetrated the U.S.
electricity grid through a utility in Vermont," causing predictable outrage and panic, along
with threats from U.S. political leaders. But then they kept diluting the story with editor's
notes – to admit that the malware was found on a laptop not connected to the U.S.
electric grid at all – until finally acknowledging, days later, that the whole story was
false, since the malware had nothing to do with Russia or with the U.S. electric grid:
Breaking: Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont
https://t.co/LED11lL7ej
8. A New, Deranged, Anonymous Group Declares Mainstream Political Sites on the
Left and Right to be Russian Propaganda Outlets and WashPost Touts its Report to Claim Massive
Kremlin Infiltration of the Internet (WashPost)
On November 24, 2016, the Washington Post
published one of the most inflammatory, sensationalistic stories to date about Russian
infiltration into U.S. politics using social media, accusing "more than 200 websites" of being
"routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of
at least 15 million Americans." It added: "stories planted or promoted by the disinformation
campaign [on Facebook] were viewed more than 213 million times."
Unfortunately for the paper, those statistics were provided by a new, anonymous group that
reached these conclusions by classifying long-time, well-known sites – from the Drudge
Report to Clinton-critical left-wing websites such as Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig,
and Naked Capitalism, as well as libertarian venues such as Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul
Institute. – as "Russian propaganda outlets," producing one of the longest Editor's Note
in memory appended to the top of the article (but
not until two weeks later , long after the story was mindlessly spread all throughout the
media ecosystem):
Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, say independent
researchers https://t.co/3ETVXWw16Q
Just want to note I hadn't heard of Propornot before the WP piece and never gave
permission to them to call Bellingcat "allies" https://t.co/jQKnWzjrBR
7. Trump Aide Anthony Scaramucci is Involved in a Russian Hedge Fund Under
Senate Investigation (CNN)
On June 22, 2017, CNN reported that Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci was involved with the
Russian Direct Investment Fund, under Senate investigation. He was not. CNN retracted the story
and forced the three reporters who published it to leave the network. 6. Russia Attacked
U.S. "Diplomats" (i.e. Spies) at the Cuban Embassy Using a Super-Sophisticated Sonic Microwave
Weapon (NBC/MSNBC/CIA)
On September 11, 2017, NBC News and MSNBC
spread all over its airwaves a claim from its notorious CIA puppet Ken Dilanian that Russia
was behind a series of dastardly attacks on U.S. personnel at the Embassy in Cuba using a sonic
or microwave weapon so sophisticated and cunning that Pentagon and CIA scientists had no idea
what to make of it.
But then teams of neurologists began calling into doubt that these personnel had suffered
any brain injuries at all – that instead they appear to have experienced collective
psychosomatic symptoms – and then biologists published findings that the "strange sounds"
the U.S. "diplomats" reported hearing were identical to those emitted by a common Caribbean
male cricket during mating season.
An @NBCNews
exclusive: After more than a year of mystery, Russia is the main suspect in the sonic attacks
that sickened 26 U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials in Cuba. @MitchellReports has the
latest. pic.twitter.com/NEI9PJ9CpD
4. Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange Three Times in the Ecuadorian Embassy
and Nobody Noticed (Guardian/Luke Harding)
On November 27, 2018, the Guardian
published a major "bombshell" that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had somehow managed
to sneak inside one of the world's most surveilled buildings, the Ecuadorian Embassy in London,
and visit Julian Assange on three different occasions. Cable and online commentators
exploded.
Seven weeks later,
no other media outlet has confirmed this ; no video or photographic evidence has emerged;
the Guardian refuses to answer any questions; its leading editors have virtually gone into
hiding; other media outlets have expressed serious doubts about its veracity; and an Ecuadorian
official who worked at the embassy has called the story a complete fake:
Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in
London, and visited around the time he joined Trump's campaign, the Guardian has been told.
https://t.co/Fc2BVmXipk
The Guardian reports that Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks,
the same month that Manafort joined Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016, a meeting
that could carry vast implications for the Russia investigation https://t.co/pYawnv4MHH
3. CNN Explicitly Lied About Lanny Davis Being Its Source – For a Story
Whose Substance Was Also False: Cohen Would Testify that Trump Knew in Advance About the Trump
Tower Meeting (CNN)
On July 27, 2018, CNN
published a blockbuster story : that Michael Cohen was prepared to tell Robert Mueller that
President Trump knew in advanced about the Trump Tower meeting. There were, however, two
problems with this story: first, CNN got caught blatantly lying when its reporters claimed that
"contacted by CNN, one of Cohen's attorneys, Lanny Davis, declined to comment" (in fact, Davis
was one of CNN's key sources, if not its only source, for this story), and second, numerous
other outlets retracted the story after the source, Davis, admitted it was a lie. CNN, however,
to this date has refused to do either: 2. Robert Mueller Possesses Internal Emails and Witness Interviews Proving Trump
Directed Cohen to Lie to Congress (BuzzFeed)
BREAKING: President Trump personally directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie
to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow in order to obscure his
involvement. https://t.co/BEoMKiDypn
The allegation that the President of the United States may have suborned perjury before
our committee in an effort to curtail the investigation and cover up his business dealings
with Russia is among the most serious to date. We will do what's necessary to find out if
it's true. https://t.co/GljBAFqOjh
Listen, if Mueller does have multiple sources confirming Trump directed Cohen to lie to
Congress, then we need to know this ASAP. Mueller shouldn't end his inquiry, but it's about
time for him to show Congress his cards before it's too late for us to act. https://t.co/ekG5VSBS8G
To those trying to parse the Mueller statement: it's a straight-up denial. Maybe Buzzfeed
can prove they are right, maybe Mueller can prove them wrong. But it's an emphatic denial
https://t.co/EI1J7XLCJe
. @Isikoff :
"There were red flags about the BuzzFeed story from the get-go." Notes it was inconsistent
with Cohen's guilty plea when he said he made false statements about Trump Tower to Congress
to be "consistent" with Trump, not at his direction. pic.twitter.com/tgDg6SNPpG
We at The Post also had riffs on the story our reporters hadn't confirmed. One noted Fox
downplayed it; another said it "if true, looks to be the most damning to date for Trump." The
industry needs to think deeply on how to cover others' reporting we can't confirm
independently. https://t.co/afzG5B8LAP
Washington Post says Mueller's denial of BuzzFeed News article is aimed at the full story:
"Mueller's denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none
of those statements in the story are accurate." https://t.co/ene0yqe1mK
If you're one of the people tempted to believe the self-evidently laughable claim that
there's something "vague" or unclear about Mueller's statement, or that it just seeks to
quibble with a few semantic trivialities, read this @WashPost story about this https://t.co/0io99LyATS
pic.twitter.com/ca1TwPR3Og
You can spend hours parsing the Carr statement, but given how unusual it is for any DOJ
office to issue this sort of on the record denial, let alone this office, suspect it means
the story's core contention that they have evidence Trump told Cohen to lie is fundamentally
wrong.
New York Times throws a bit of cold water on BuzzFeed's explosive -- and now seriously
challenged -- report that Trump instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress: https://t.co/9N7MiHs7et
pic.twitter.com/7FJFT9D8fW
I can't speak to Buzzfeed's sourcing, but, for what it's worth, I declined to run with
parts of the narrative they conveyed based on a source central to the story repeatedly
disputing the idea that Trump directly issued orders of that kind.
1. Donald Trump Jr. Was Offered Advanced Access to the WikiLeaks Email Archive
(CNN/MSNBC)
The morning of December 9, 2017, launched
one of the most humiliating spectacles in the history of the U.S. media. With a tone so
grave and bombastic that it is impossible to overstate, CNN went on the air and announced a
major exclusive: Donald Trump, Jr. was offered by email advanced access to the trove of DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks – meaning before those emails were made public.
Within an hour, MSNBC's Ken Dilanian, using a tone somehow even more unhinged, purported to
have "independently confirmed" this mammoth, blockbuster scoop, which, they said, would have
been the smoking gun showing collusion between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over the hacked
emails (while the YouTube clips have been removed, you can still watch one of the amazing MSNBC
videos
here ).
There was, alas, just one small problem with this massive, blockbuster story: it was totally
and completely false. The email which Trump, Jr. received that directed him to the WikiLeaks
archive was sent after WikiLeaks published it online for the whole world to see, not before.
Rather than some super secretive operative giving Trump, Jr. advanced access, as both CNN and
MSNBC told the public for hours they had confirmed, it was instead just some totally pedestrian
message from a random member of the public suggesting Trump, Jr. review documents the whole
world was already talking about. All of the anonymous sources CNN and MSNBC cited somehow all
got the date of the email wrong.
To date, when asked how they both could have gotten such a massive story so completely wrong
in the same way, both CNN and MSNBC have adopted the posture of the CIA by maintaining complete
silence and refusing to explain how it could possibly be that all of their "multiple,
independent sources" got the date wrong on the email in the same way, to be as incriminating
– and false – as possible. Nor, needless to say, will they identify their sources
who, in concert, fed them such inflammatory and utterly false information.
Sadly, CNN and MSNBC have deleted most traces of the most humiliating videos from the
internet, including demanding that YouTube remove copies. But enough survives to document just
what a monumental, horrifying, and utterly inexcusable debacle this was. Particularly amazing
is the clip of the CNN reporter (see below) having to admit the error for the first time, as he
awkwardly struggles to pretend that it's not the massive, horrific debacle that it so obviously
is:
Knowingly soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign national for campaign
purposes violates the Federal Election Campaign Act. If it's worth over $2,000 then penalties
include fines & IMPRISONMENT. @DonaldJTrumpJr may be in bigly
trouble. #FridayFeeling
https://t.co/dRz6Ph17Er
CNN is leading the way in bashing BuzzFeed but it's worth remembering CNN had a
humiliation at least as big & bad: when they yelled that Trump Jr. had advanced access to
the WL archive (!): all based on a wrong date. They removed all the segments from YouTube,
but this remains: pic.twitter.com/0jiA50aIku
ABC News' Brian Ross is fired for
reporting Trump told Flynn to make contact with Russians when he was still a candidate;
in fact, Trump did that after he won.
The New York Times claimed Manafort provided
polling data to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a person "close to the Kremlin"; in fact, he
provided them to Ukrainians, not Russians.
Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC, claimed they had evidence that Russia hacked
Ukrainian artillery apps;
they then retracted it .
Bloomberg and the WSJ reported Mueller subpoenaed Deustche Bank for Trump's financial
records; the NYT said
that never happened .
Rachel Maddow devoted 20 minutes at the start of her show to very melodramatically
claiming a highly sophisticated party tried to trick her by sending her a fake Top Secret
document modeled after the one published by the Intercept, and said it could only have come
from the U.S. Government (or the Intercept) since the person obtained the document before it
was published by us and thus must have had special access to it; in fact,
Maddow and NBC completely misread the metadata on the document ; the fake sent to Maddow
was created after we published the document, and was sent to her by a random member of the
public who took the document from the Intercept's site and doctored it to see if she'd fall
for an obvious scam. Maddow's entire timeline, on which her whole melodramatic conspiracy
theory rested, was fictitious.
The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all "17 intelligence
agencies" agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally
retracted that in June, 2017: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies --
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not
approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."
AP claimed on February 2, 2018, that the Free Beacon commissioned the Steele Dossier;
they thereafter acknowledged that was false and
noted, instead: "Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was
initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until
after Democratic groups had begun funding it."
Widespread government and media claims that accused Russian agent Maria Butina offered
"sex for favors" were
totally false (and scurrilous).
After a Russian regional jet crashed on February 11, 2018, shortly after it took off from
Moscow, killing all 71 people aboard, Harvard Law Professor and frequent MSNBC contributor
Laurence Tribe
strongly implied Putin purposely caused the plane to go down in order to murder Sergei
Millian, a person vaguely linked to George Papadopoulos and Jared Kushner; in fact, Millian
was not on the plane nor, to date, has anyone claimed they had any evidence that Putin
ordered his own country's civilian passenger jet brought down.
Essentially the second part of Flynn call was on behave of Israel
Notable quotes:
"... In those conversations, Flynn asked that the Russians not retaliate for the Obama administration sanctions on Moscow imposed for the now debunked Russiagate allegations. Russia eventually decided not to retaliate. Flynn also asked on behalf of Israel that the Russians veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning illegal Israeli West Bank settlements, which Obama was planning to abstain on. Russia refused this request. ..."
"... Contrary to popular belief, when you can't trust your own government, that's a very bad thing. ..."
"... This is a hugely important article explaining the process, the policies, and their historical context by one who was a top legal expert at the Bureau. This is what the American public should be reading to know what should happen, as well as to learn how the process and policies have been violated, what have been the consequences. Thank you Coleen Rowley, and thank you Consortium News. ..."
Yhe president announced on Friday that he was firing Steve Linick, the State Department's
Inspector General.
One possible reason that Linick was removed may have been that he was conducting an
investigation into the
bogus emergency declaration that the administration used to expedite arms sales to Saudi
Arabia and the UAE last year:
House Democrats have discovered that the fired IG had mostly completed an investigation
into Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's widely criticized decision to skirt Congress with an
emergency declaration to approve billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia last year,
aides on the Foreign Affairs Committee tell me.
"I have learned that there may be another reason for Mr. Linick's firing," Rep. Eliot L.
Engel (D-N.Y.), the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement sent to me.
"His office was investigating -- at my request -- Trump's phony declaration of an emergency
so he could send weapons to Saudi Arabia."
If Linick was investigating the bogus emergency declaration, he would have come across
reporting that showed how a
former Raytheon lobbyist serving at the department was instrumental in pushing through the
plan to expedite arms sales that benefited his old employer. He would have discovered that
there was no genuine emergency that justified going around Congress. Once his investigation was
concluded, it would have found that the emergency declaration was made in bad faith and that
the law was abused so that the administration could proceed with arms sales that Congress
opposed.
Another reason for the firing was to
protect Mike Pompeo from an investigation into the Secretary's abuses of government
resources for personal purposes:
The State Department inspector general fired by President Trump was looking into
allegations that a staffer for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was performing domestic errands
and chores such as handling dry cleaning, walking the family dog and making restaurant
reservations, said a congressional official familiar with the matter.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee released a statement immediately on Friday objecting to Linick's firing and
suggesting that it might be an illegal act of retaliation. There will now be a Congressional
investigation into the circumstances surrounding Linick's firing. If Trump hoped to reduce the
scrutiny on Pompeo by getting rid of Linick, he will be disappointed. It remains to be seen how
much of a price Pompeo will pay for this, but the price is likely higher now than it would have
been if he hadn't pushed for removing the inspector general.
Pompeo reportedly recommended
Linick's removal. This is not the first time that Pompeo has been accused of misusing
government resources. There was a report
last summer that a whistleblower alleged that Pompeo and his wife were using Diplomatic
Security agents as their personal errand boys:
Democrats on a key House congressional committee are investigating allegations from a
whistleblower within the State Department about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his
family's use of taxpayer-funded Diplomatic Security -- prompting agents to lament they are at
times viewed as "UberEats with guns".
Congressional investigators, who asked for the committee not to be named as they carry out
their inquiries, tell CNN that a State Department whistleblower has raised multiple issues
over a period of months, about special agents being asked to carry out some questionable
tasks for the Pompeo family.
Pompeo has also repeatedly used government resources for domestic travel that seems to have
more to do with advancing the Secretary's political ambitions in Kansas. There has been
widespread speculation that he has used official trips in an attempt to lay the groundwork for
a possible
Senate campaign . If so, it would be a flagrant violation of the Hatch Act. That prompted a
call for a special counsel investigation into Pompeo's travel. If Pompeo and his wife have
been using a political appointee as a gofer, that would be more of the same abusive
behavior.
Linick has previously clashed with other Trump administration officials at State. Last year,
he released a damning
report on Brian Hook over his treatment of Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, the Iranian-American
official who was apparently
targeted for political retaliation because of her policy views and ethnic background. The
fired inspector general was well-respected at the department, and his firing at Pompeo's urging
will likely cause further demoralization at a department that has already been run into the
ground under the Secretary's dismal leadership.
The Secretary of State seems to think that government funds and personnel are at his
disposal for his personal errands and political activities. Linick was doing exactly what an
inspector general is supposed to be doing by investigating the allegations against him, and
then he was conveniently fired on Pompeo's recommendation. You could hardly ask for a more
straightforward case of a corrupt official using his influence to remove the person responsible
for scrutinizing his conduct. If Linick was also fired because he was in the process of
exposing the administration's dishonest push for more arms sales to the Saudi coalition, that
makes his removal all the more outrageous and sinister.
"... The contradictions revealed in recent disclosures, including the list of officials seeking to "unmask" the identity of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, are shocking. There seems a virtual news blackout on these disclosures, including the fact that both former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden followed the investigation. Indeed, Biden's name is on the unmasking list. ..."
"... The declassification of material from the Michael Flynn case has exposed more chilling details of an effort by prosecutors to come up with a crime to use against the former national security adviser. ..."
"... That included the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former White House adviser who was widely quoted by the media with her public plea for Congress to gather all of the evidence that she learned of as part of the Obama administration. ..."
"... That story would have been encompassing if it was learned that there was no direct evidence to justify the investigation and that the underlying allegation of Russian collusion was ultimately found to lack a credible basis. ..."
"... But the motives of Obama administration officials are apparently not to be questioned. Indeed, back when candidate Donald Trump said the Obama administration placed his campaign officials under surveillance, the media universally mocked him. That statement was later proven to be true. The Obama administration used the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign officials. ..."
"... While unmasking is more routinely requested by intelligence officials, with a reported 10,000 such requests by the National Security Agency last year alone, it is presumably less common for figures like Biden or White House chief of staff Denis McDonough ..."
"... The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively followed the investigation. ..."
The contradictions revealed in recent disclosures, including the list of officials seeking
to "unmask" the identity of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, are shocking. There
seems a virtual news blackout on these disclosures, including the fact that both former
President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden followed the investigation. Indeed,
Biden's name is on the unmasking list.
The declassification of material from the Michael Flynn case has exposed more chilling
details of an effort by prosecutors to come up with a crime to use against the former national
security adviser. This week, however, a letter revealed another unsettling detail. Among over
three dozen Obama administration officials seeking to "unmask" Flynn in the investigation was
former Vice President Joe
Biden . This revelation came less than a day after Biden denied any involvement in the
investigation of Flynn. It also follows a disclosure that President Obama was aware of that
investigation.
For three years, many in the media have expressed horror at the notion of the Trump campaign
colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 election. We know there was never credible evidence
of such collusion. In recently released transcripts, a long list of Obama administration
officials admitted they never saw any evidence of such Russian collusion. That included the
testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former White House adviser who was widely quoted by the media
with her public plea for Congress to gather all of the evidence that she learned of as part of
the Obama administration.
The media covered her concern that this evidence would be lost "if they found out how we
knew what we knew" about Trump campaign officials "dealing with Russians." Yet in her
classified testimony under oath, she said she did not know anything. Farkas is now running for
Congress in New York and highlighting her role in raising "alarm" over collusion. As much of
the media blindly pushed this story, a worrying story unfolded over the use of federal power to
investigate political opponents.
There is very little question that the response by the media to such a story would have been
overwhelming if George Bush and his administration had targeted the Obama campaign figures with
secret surveillance .
That story would have been encompassing if it was learned that there was no direct evidence
to justify the investigation and that the underlying allegation of Russian collusion was
ultimately found to lack a credible basis.
But the motives of Obama administration officials are apparently not to be questioned.
Indeed, back when candidate Donald Trump said the Obama administration placed
his campaign officials under surveillance, the media universally mocked him. That statement was
later proven to be true. The Obama administration used the secret Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act court to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign officials.
Yet none of this matters as the media remains fully invested in the original false
allegations of collusion. If Obama administration officials were to be questioned now, the
coverage and judgment of the media may be placed into question, as even this latest disclosure
from the investigation of the unmasking request of Biden will not alter the media
narrative.
Unmasking occurs when an official asks an intelligence agency to remove anonymous
designations hiding the identity of an individual. This masking is a very important protection
of the privacy of American citizens who are caught up in national security surveillance. The
importance of this privacy protection is being dismissed by media figures, like Andrea
Mitchell, who declared the Biden story to be nothing more than gaslighting.
While unmasking is more routinely requested by intelligence officials, with a reported
10,000 such requests by the National Security Agency last year alone, it is presumably less
common for figures like Biden or White House chief of staff Denis McDonough. Seeking unmasking
information that was likely to reveal the name of a political opponent and possibly damage the
Trump administration raises a concern. More importantly, it adds a detail of the scope of
interest and involvement in an investigation that targeted Flynn without any compelling
evidence of a crime or collusion.
The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively
followed the investigation.
Atlantic Council senior fellow, Congressional candidate, and Russia conspiracy theorist
Evelyn Farkas is desperately trying to salvage her reputation after recently released
transcripts from her closed-door 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed
she totally lied on national TV .
In March of 2017, Farkas confidently told MSNBC 's Mika Brzezinski: " The Trump folks, if
they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians , that they
would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would not longer have access to
that intelligence ."
Except, during testimony to the House, Farkas admitted she lied . When pressed by former
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) on why she said 'we' - referring to the US government, Farkas said she
"didn't know anything."
In short, she was either illegally discussing US intelligence matters with her "former
colleagues," or she made the whole thing up.
Now, Farkas is in damage control mode - writing in the
Washington Post that her testimony demonstrated "that I had not leaked intelligence and
that my early intuition about Trump-Kremlin cooperation was valid.' She also claims that her
comments to MSNBC were based on "media reports and statements by Obama administration officials
and the intelligence community," which had "began unearthing connections between Trump's
campaign and Russia."
Farkas is now blaming a 'disconcerting nexus between Russia and the reactionary right,' for
making her look bad (apparently Trey Gowdy is part of the "reactionary right" for asking her
who she meant by "we").
Attacks against me came first on Twitter and other social media platforms, from far-right
sources. Forensics data I was shown suggested at least one entity had Russian ties . The
attacks increased in quantity and ferocity until Fox News and Trump-allied Republicans --
higher-profile, and more mainstream, sources -- also criticized me .
...
Trump surrogates, including former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski ,
Donald Trump Jr. and Fox
News hosts such as Tucker Carlson have essentially accused me
of treason for being one of the "fraudulent originators" of the "Russia hoax." -Evelyn
Farkas
She then parrots the Democratic talking point that the attacks she's received are part of
Trump's larger "Obamagate" allegations - " a narrative that distracts attention from his
administration's disastrous pandemic response and attempts to defect blame for Russian
interference onto the Obama administration" (Obama told Putin to ' cut it out ' after all).
Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her
Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar
and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative outlets which have
called her out for Russia malarkey.
There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that
right-wing pundits began pumping accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up. Within a day,
Russian "
disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter
accounts boosting attacks have posted in unison, a sign of inauthentic social media
behavior.
She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced
now."
No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the
largest, most divisive hoax in US history - which was based on faulty intelligence that
includes crowdstrike admitting they had
no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier
based on his 'Russian sources.'
MrBoompi, 18 minutes ago
Lying is a common occurrence on MSNBC. Farkas was just showing her party she is qualified
for a more senior position.
chubbar, 23 minutes ago
My opinion, based on zero facts, is that the lie she told was to Gowdy. She had to say she
lied about having intelligence data or she'd be looking at a felony along with whomever she
was talking to in the US gov't. You just know these cocksuckers in the resistance don't give
a **** about laws or fairness, it's all about getting Trump. So they set up an informal
network to get classified intelligence from the Obama holdovers out into the wild where these
assholes could use it against Trump and the gov't operations. Treason. She needs to be
executed for her efforts!
LetThemEatRand, 59 minutes ago
This whole thing reminds me of a fan watching their team play a championship game. If the
ref makes a bad call and their team wins, they don't care. And if the ref makes a good call
and their team loses, they blame the ref. No one cares about the truth or the facts. That in
a nutshell is politics in the US. If you believe that anyone will "switch sides" or admit the
ref made a bad call or a good call, you're smoking the funny stuff.
mtumba, 50 minutes ago
It's a natural response to a corrupt system.
When the system is wholly corrupt so that truth doesn't matter, what else is there to care
about other than your side winning?
"... "Did [ FBI Director James B. Comey] seek permission from you to do the formal opening of the counterintelligence investigation?" Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, asked the former attorney general. ..."
"... "No, and he ordinarily would not have had to do that," Ms. Lynch answered. "lt would not have come to the attorney general for that." ..."
"... Mr. Schiff, a fierce defender of the FBI in the Russia probe, seemed taken aback. "Even in the case where you're talking about a campaign for president?" he asked. ..."
"... "I can't recall if it was discussed or not," Ms. Lynch said. "I just don't have a recollection of that in the meetings that I had with him." ..."
"... "Yates was very frustrated in the call with Comey," said the FBI interview report, known as a 302. "She felt a decision to conduct an interview of Flynn should have been coordinated with [the Department of Justice ]." ..."
"... Ms. Yates told the FBI that the interview was "problematic" because the White House counsel should have been notified. ..."
"... During his book tour, Mr. Comey bragged that he sent the two agents without such notification by taking advantage of the White House's formative stage. He said he "wouldn't have gotten away with it" in a more seasoned White House. ..."
"... Other evidence of an FBI on autopilot: The Justice Department inspector general's report on how the bureau probed the Trump campaign revealed more than a dozen instances of FBI personnel submitting false information in wiretap applications and withholding exculpatory evidence. For example, agents evaded Justice Department scrutiny by not telling their warrant overseer that witnesses had cast doubt on the reliability of the Steele dossier. ..."
Newly released documents show FBI agents
operated on autopilot in 2016 and 2017 while targeting President Trump and his campaign with
little or no Justice Department guidance
for such a momentous investigation.
Loretta E. Lynch, President Obama's attorney general, said she never knew the FBI
was placing wiretaps on a Trump campaign volunteer or using the dossier claims of former
British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to put the
entire Trump world under suspicion. Mr. Steele was handled by Fusion
GPS and paid with funds from the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
"I don't have a recollection of briefings on Fusion GPS or Mr. Steele ," Ms. Lynch told the
House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence in October 2017. "I don't have any information on that,
and I don't have a recollection being briefed on that."
Under pressure from acting Director of National Intelligence
Richard A. Grenell, the committee last week released transcripts of her testimony and that of
more than 50 other witnesses in 2017 and 2018, when Republicans controlled the Trump-
Russia
investigation.
Ms. Lynch also testified that she had no knowledge the FBI had taken the
profound step of opening an investigation, led by agent Peter Strzok, into the Trump campaign
on July 31, 2016.
"Did [ FBI Director
James B. Comey] seek permission from you to do the formal opening of the counterintelligence
investigation?" Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, asked the former attorney
general.
"No, and he ordinarily would not have had to do that," Ms. Lynch answered. "lt would not
have come to the attorney general for that."
Mr. Schiff, a fierce defender of the FBI in the
Russia probe,
seemed taken aback. "Even in the case where you're talking about a campaign for president?" he
asked.
"I can't recall if it was discussed or not," Ms. Lynch said. "I just don't have a
recollection of that in the meetings that I had with him."
Attorney General William P. Barr has changed the rules. He announced that the attorney
general now must approve any FBI decision to
investigate a presidential campaign.
Ms. Lynch's testimony adds to the picture of an insular, and sometimes misbehaving,
FBI as its agents
searched for evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to interfere in the
2016 election to damage Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton .
In documents filed by the Justice Department last
week, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates expressed dismay that Mr. Comey would
dispatch two agents, including Mr. Strzok, on Jan. 24, 2017, to interview incoming National
Security Adviser Michael Flynn at the White House.
Ms. Yates, interviewed by FBI agents
assigned to the Robert Mueller special counsel probe, said Mr. Comey notified her only after
the fact.
"Yates was very frustrated in the call with Comey," said the FBI interview
report, known as a 302. "She felt a decision to conduct an interview of Flynn should have been
coordinated with [the Department of Justice
]."
Ms. Yates told the FBI that the
interview was "problematic" because the White House counsel should have been notified.
During his book tour, Mr. Comey bragged that he sent the two agents without such
notification by taking advantage of the White House's formative stage. He said he "wouldn't
have gotten away with it" in a more seasoned White House.
Mr. Barr filed court papers asking U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to dismiss the
Flynn case and his guilty plea to lying to Mr. Strzok about phone calls with Russian Ambassador
Sergey Kislyak. Mr. Strzok and other FBI personnel
planned the Flynn interview as a near ambush with a goal of prompting him to lie and getting
fired, according to new court filings.
Other evidence of an FBI on autopilot:
The Justice Department
inspector general's report on how the bureau probed the Trump campaign revealed more than a
dozen instances of FBI personnel
submitting false information in wiretap applications and withholding exculpatory evidence. For
example, agents evaded Justice Department scrutiny
by not telling their warrant overseer that witnesses had cast doubt on the reliability of the
Steele
dossier.
The far-fetched dossier was the one essential piece of evidence required to obtain four
surveillance warrants on campaign volunteer Carter Page, according to Justice Department
Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz. The Mueller and Horowitz reports have discredited the
dossier's dozen conspiracy claims against the president and his allies.
Mr. Schiff, now chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence , had held on
to the declassified transcripts for more than a year. Under pressure from Republicans and Mr.
Grenell, he released the 6,000 pages on the hectic day Mr. Barr moved to end the Flynn
prosecution.
The closed-door testimony included witnesses such as Mr. Obama's national security adviser,
a United Nations ambassador, the nation's top spy and the FBI deputy
director. There were also Clinton campaign chieftains and
lawyers.
The transcripts' most often-produced headline: Obama investigators never saw evidence of
Trump conspiracy between the time the probe was opened until they left office in mid-January
2017.
"I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was
plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election," former Director of
National Intelligence James
R. Clapper told the committee .
Mr. Clapper is a paid CNN analyst who has implied repeatedly and without evidence that Mr.
Trump is a Russian spy and a traitor. The Mueller report contained no evidence that Mr. Trump
is a Russian agent or election conspirator.
Mr. Schiff told the country repeatedly that he had seen evidence of Trump collusion that
went beyond circumstantial. Mr. Mueller did not.
Mr. Schiff was a big public supporter of Mr. Steele 's dossier, which
relied on a Moscow main source and was fed by deliberate Kremlin disinformation against Mr.
Trump, according to the Horowitz report.
Trump Tower
One of Mr. Schiff's pieces of evidence of a conspiracy "in plain sight" is the meeting
Donald Trump
Jr. took with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya on June 9, 2016.
The connections are complicated but, simply put, a Russian friend of the Trumps' said she
might have dirt on Mrs. Clinton . At the time, Ms.
Veselnitskaya was in New York representing a rich Russian accused by the Justice Department of
money laundering. To investigate, she hired Fusion GPS -- the same firm that retained Mr.
Steele
to damage the Trump campaign.
The meeting was brief and seemed to be a ruse to enable Ms. Veselnitskaya to pitch an end to
Obama-era economic sanctions that hurt her client. Attending were campaign adviser Paul
Manafort, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and Anatoli Samochornov. Mr. Samochornov is a dual
citizen of Russia
and the U.S. who serves as an interpreter to several clients, including Ms. Veselnitskaya and
the State Department.
Mr. Samochornov was the Russian lawyer's interpreter that day. His recitation of events
basically backs the versions given by the Trump associates, according to a transcript of his
November 2017 committee testimony.
The meeting lasted about 20 minutes. Ms. Veselnitskaya briefly talked about possible illegal
campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton . Manafort, busy on his
cellphone, remarked that the contributions would not be illegal. Mr. Kushner left after a few
minutes.
Then, Rinat Akhmetshin, a lobbyist, made the case for ditching sanctions. He linked that to
a move by Russian President Vladimir Putin to end a ban on Americans adopting Russian
children.
Mr. Trump Jr. said that issue would be addressed if his father was elected. In the end, the
Trump administration put more sanctions on Moscow's political and business operators.
"I've never heard anything about the elections being mentioned at that meeting at all or in
any subsequent discussions with Ms. Veselnitskaya," Mr. Samochornov testified.
No mask
One of the first things Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican, did to earn the animus of
Democrats and the liberal media was to visit the Trump White House to learn about "unmaskings"
by Obama appointees.
The National Security Agency, by practice, obscures the names of any Americans caught up in
the intercept of foreign communications. Flynn was unmasked in the top-secret transcript of his
Kislyak call so officials reading it would know who was on the line.
In reading intelligence reports, if government officials want the identity of an "American
person," they make a request to the intelligence community. The fear is that repeated requests
could indicate political purposes.
That suspicion is how Samantha Power ended up at the House intelligence committee witness
table. The former U.N. ambassador seemed to have broken records by requesting hundreds of
unmaskings, though the transcript did not contain the identities of the people she exposed.
She explained to the committee why
she needed to know.
"I am reading that intelligence with an eye to doing my job, right?" Ms. Power said.
"Whatever my job is, whatever I am focused on on a given day, I'm taking in the intelligence
to inform my judgment, to be able to advise the president on ISIL or on whatever, or to inform
how I'm going to try to optimize my ability to advance U.S. interests in New York."
She continued: "I can't understand the intelligence . Can you go
and ascertain who this is so I can figure out what it is I'm reading. You've made the
judgement, intelligence professionals, that I need to read this piece of intelligence, I'm
reading it, and it's just got this gap in it, and I didn't understand that. But I never
discussed any name that I received when I did make a request and something came back or when it
was annotated and came to me. I never discussed one of those names with any other
individual."
Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican, listened and then mentioned other officeholders,
such as the White House national security adviser and the secretary of state.
"There are lots of people who need to understand intelligence products, but the number of
requests they made, ambassador, don't approach yours," Mr. Gowdy said.
Ms. Power implied that members of her staff were requesting American identities and invoking
her name without her knowledge.
The dossier
By mid- to late 2017, the full story on the Democrats' dossier -- that it was riddled with
false claims of criminality that served, as Mr. Barr said, to sabotage the Trump White House --
was not known.
Mr. Steele claimed that there was
a far-reaching Trump- Russia conspiracy, that Mr. Trump was a
Russian spy, that Mr. Trump financed Kremlin computer hacking, that his attorney went to Prague
to pay hush money to Putin operatives, and that Manafort and Carter Page worked as a conspiracy
team.
Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson, a Clinton operative, spread the inaccuracies all
over Washington: to the FBI , the
Justice
Department , Congress and the news media.
None of it proved true.
But to Clinton loyalists in 2017, the
dossier was golden.
"I was mostly focused in that meeting on, you know, the guy standing behind this material is
Christopher Steele ," campaign
foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said about a Fusion meeting. "He is the one who's judging
its credibility and veracity. You know him. What do you think, based on your conversations with
him? That's what I was really there to try and figure out. And Glenn was incredibly positive
about Steele and felt he was really
on to something and also felt that there was more out there to go find."
Clinton campaign attorney Marc
Elias vouched for the dossier, and its information spread to reporters. He met briefly with Mr.
Steele
during the election campaign.
"I thought that the information that he or they wished to convey was accurate and
important," Mr. Elias testified.
"So the information that Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele wished to
portray to the media in the fall of 2016 at that time, you thought, was accurate and
important?" he was asked.
"As I understand it," he replied.
Mr. Elias rejected allegations that the Clinton campaign conspired with
Russia by having
its operatives spread the Moscow-sourced dirt.
"I don't have enough knowledge about when you say that Russians were involved in the
dossier," he said to a questioner. "I mean that genuinely. I'm not privy to what information
you all have.
"It sounds like the suggestion is that Russia somehow gave information to the
Clinton
campaign vis-a-vis one person to one person, to another person, to another person, to me, to
the campaign. That strikes me as fanciful and unlikely, but perhaps as I said, I don't have a
security clearance. You all have facts and information that is not available to me. But I
certainly never had any hint or whiff."
Trump say that Brennan was one of the architect. Obama knew everything and probably directed
the color revolution against Trump
Notable quotes:
"... Self-described, "scandal-free" administration Obama is a lie nonetheless, Obama will eventually have to testify in front of Congress there is no hiding from it. ..."
Self-described, "scandal-free" administration Obama is a lie nonetheless, Obama will
eventually have to testify in front of Congress there is no hiding from it.
Emmet G. Sullivan, the judge in the case of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn, is refusing to let William Barr's Justice Department drop the charge. He's even thinking
of adding more, appointing a retired judge to ask "whether the Court
should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for
perjury."
Pundits are cheering. A trio of former law enforcement and judicial officials saluted
Sullivan in the Washington Post, chirping, "
The Flynn case isn't over until a judge says it's over ." Yuppie icon Jeffrey Toobin of CNN
and the New Yorker , one of the #Resistance crowd's favored legal authorities, described
Sullivan's appointment of Judge John Gleeson as " brilliant ." MSNBC legal
analyst Glenn Kirschner said Americans owe Sullivan a " debt of gratitude ."
One had to search far and wide to find a non-conservative legal analyst willing to say the
obvious, i.e. that Sullivan's decision was the kind of thing one would expect from a judge in
Belarus. George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley was one of the few willing to
say Sullivan's move could " could create a threat of a
judicial charge even when prosecutors agree with defendants ."
Sullivan's reaction was amplified by a group letter calling for Barr's resignation
signed by 2000 former Justice Department officials (the melodramatic group email somberly
reported as momentous news is one of many tired media tropes in the Trump era) and the
preposterous "leak" of news that the dropped case made Barack Obama sad. The former president
"privately" told "members of his administration" (who instantly told Yahoo!
News ) that there was no precedent for the dropping of perjury charges, and that the "rule
of law" itself was at stake.
Whatever one's opinion of Flynn, his relations with Turkey, his "
Lock her up!" chants , his haircut, or anything, this case was never about much. There's no
longer pretense that prosecution would lead to the unspooling of a massive Trump-Russia
conspiracy, as pundits once breathlessly expected. In fact, news that Flynn was cooperating
with special counsel Robert Mueller inspired many of the " Is this the beginning
of the end for Trump ?" stories that will someday fill whole chapters of Journalism Fucks
Up 101 textbooks.
The acts at issue are calls Flynn made to Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak on December
29th, 2016 in which he told the Russians not to overreact to sanctions. That's it. The
investigation was about to be dropped, but someone got the idea of using electronic
surveillance of the calls to leverage a case into existence.
"The record of his conversation with Ambassador Kislyak had become widely known in the
press," is how Deputy FBI chief Andrew McCabe put it, euphemistically. "We wanted to sit down
with General Flynn and understand, kind of, what his thoughts on that conversation were."
A Laurel-and-Hardy team of agents conducted the interview, then took three
weeks to write and re-write multiple versions of the interview notes used as evidence
(because why record it?). They were supervised by a counterintelligence chief who then
memorialized on paper his uncertainty over whether the FBI was trying to " get
him to lie" or "get him fired ," worrying that they'd be accused of "playing games." After
another leak to the Washington Post in early February, 2017, Flynn actually was fired, and
later pleaded guilty to lying about sanctions in the Kislyak call, the transcript of which was
of course never released to either the defense or the public.
Warrantless surveillance, multiple illegal leaks of classified information, a false
statements charge constructed on the razor's edge of Miranda, and the use of never-produced,
secret counterintelligence evidence in a domestic criminal proceeding – this is the "rule
of law" we're being asked to cheer.
Russiagate cases were often two-level offenses: factually bogus or exaggerated, but also
indicative of authoritarian practices. Democrats and Democrat-friendly pundits in the last four
years have been consistently unable to register objections on either front.
Flynn's case fit the pattern. We were told his plea was just the " tip
of the iceberg " that would "take the trail of Russian collusion" to the "center of the
plot," i.e. Trump. It turned out he had no deeper story to tell. In fact, none of the people
prosecutors tossed in jail to get at the Russian "plot" – some little more than
bystanders – had anything to share.
Remember George Papadopoulos, whose alleged conversation about "dirt" on Hillary Clinton
with an Australian diplomat created the pretext for the FBI's entire Trump-Russia
investigation? We just found out in newly-released testimony by McCabe that the FBI felt as
early as the summer of 2016 that the evidence " didn't
particularly indicate" that Papadopoulos was "interacting with the Russians ."
If you're in the media and keeping score, that's about six months before our industry lost
its mind and scrambled to make Watergate
comparisons over Jim Comey's March, 2017 "
bombshell " revelation of the existence of an FBI Trump-Russia investigation. Nobody
bothered to wonder if they actually had any evidence. Similarly Chelsea Manning insisted she'd
already answered all pertinent questions about Julian Assange, but prosecutors didn't find that
answer satisfactory, and threw her in jail for year anyway, only releasing her when she
tried to kill herself . She owed $256,000 in fines upon release, not that her many
supporters from the Bush days seemed to care much.
The Flynn case was built on surveillance gathered under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a
program that seems to have been abused on a massive scale by both Democratic and Republican
administrations.
After Edward Snowden's 2013 revelations about mass data collection, a series of internal
investigations
began showing officials were breaking rules against spying on specific Americans via this NSA
program. Searches were conducted too often and without proper justification, and the results
were shared with too many people, including private contractors. By October, 2016, the FISA
court was declaring that systematic overuse of so-called "702" searches were a "
very serious fourth Amendment issue ."
In later court documents it came out that the FBI conducted
3.1 million such searches in 2017 alone. As the Brennan Center put it, "almost certainly
the total number of U.S. person queries run by the FBI each year is well into the
millions."
Anyone who bothers to look back will find hints at how this program might have been misused.
In late 2015, Obama officials bragged to the
Wall Street Journal they'd made use of FISA surveillance involving "Jewish-American groups"
as well as "U.S. lawmakers" in congress, all because they wanted to more effectively "counter"
Israeli opposition to Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. This is a long way from using
surveillance to defuse terror plots or break up human trafficking rings.
I can understand not caring about the plight of Michael Flynn, but cases like this have
turned erstwhile liberals – people who just a decade ago were marching in the streets
over the civil liberties implications of Cheney's War on Terror apparatus – into
defenders of the spy state . Politicians and pundits across the last four years have rolled
their eyes at
attorney-client privilege , the presumption of innocence, the right to face one's accuser,
the right to counsel and a host of other issues, regularly denouncing civil rights worries as
red-herring excuses for Trumpism.
I've written a lot about the Democrats' record on civil liberties issues in the past.
Working on I Can't Breathe, a book about the Eric Garner case, I was stunned to learn the
central role
Mario Cuomo played in the mass incarceration problem, while Democrats also often
embraced hyper-intrusive "stop and frisk" or "broken windows" enforcement strategies,
usually by touting terms like "community policing" that sounded nice to white voters. Democrats
strongly supported
the PATRIOT Act in 2001, and Barack Obama continued or expanded Bush-Cheney programs like
drone assassination , rendition , and warrantless
surveillance , while also
using the Espionage Act to bully reporters and whistleblowers.
Republicans throughout this time were usually as bad or worse on these issues, but Democrats
have lately positioned themselves as more aggressive promoters of strong-arm policies, from
control of Internet speech to the embrace of domestic spying. In the last four years the
blue-friendly press has done a complete 180 on these issues, going from cheering Edward Snowden
to lionizing the CIA, NSA, and FBI and making on-air partners out of drone-and-surveillance
all-stars like John Brennan, James Clapper, and Michael Hayden. There are now too many
ex-spooks on CNN and MSNBC to count, while there isn't a single regular contributor on any
of the networks one could describe as antiwar.
Democrats clearly believe constituents will forgive them for abandoning constitutional
principles, so long as the targets of official inquiry are figures like Flynn or Paul Manafort
or Trump himself. In the process, they've raised a generation of followers whose contempt for
civil liberties is now genuine-to-permanent. Blue-staters have gone from dismissing
constitutional concerns as Trumpian ruse to sneering at them, in the manner of French
aristocrats, as evidence of proletarian mental defect.
Nowhere has this been more evident than in the response to the Covid-19 crisis, where the
almost mandatory take of pundits is that any protest of lockdown measures is troglodyte
death wish . The aftereffects of years of Russiagate/Trump coverage are seen everywhere:
press outlets reflexively associate complaints of government overreach with Trump, treason, and
racism, and conversely radiate a creepily gleeful tone when describing aggressive emergency
measures and the problems some "
dumb " Americans have had accepting them.
On the campaign trail in 2016, I watched Democrats hand Trump the economic populism argument
by dismissing all complaints about the failures of neoliberal economics. This mistake was later
compounded by years of propaganda arguing that "economic insecurity" was just a
Trojan Horse term for racism . These takes, along with the absurd kneecapping of the Bernie
Sanders movement, have allowed Trump to position himself as a working-class hero, the sole
voice of a squeezed underclass.
The same mistake is now being made with civil liberties. Millions have lost their jobs and
businesses by government fiat, there's a clamor for
censorship and contact tracing
programs that could have serious long-term consequences, yet voters only hear Trump making
occasional remarks about freedom; Democrats treat it like it's a word that should be banned by
Facebook (a recent Washington Post headline
put the term in quotation marks , as if one should be gloved to touch it). Has the Trump
era really damaged our thinking to this degree?
My family is in quarantine, I worry about a premature return to work, and sure, I laughed at
that Shaun of the Dead photo
of Ohio protesters protesting state lockdown laws. But I also recognize the crisis is also
raising serious civil liberties issues, from prisoners
trapped in deadly conditions to profound questions about speech and assembly, the limits to
surveillance and snitching, etc. If this disease is going to be in our lives for the
foreseeable future, that makes it more urgent that we talk about what these rules will be, not
less -- yet the party I grew up supporting seems to have lost the ability to do so, and I don't
understand why.
Matt Taibi says that "he doesn't understand why" the Democrats have suddenly given up on
Civil Liberties.
Of course her spent a lot of the '90s in Russia but he must have heard about the Clinton
administration and its many and varied assaults on the poor, mass incarceration and Welfare
'reform.' He can't have missed what the War Party was doing in Yugoslavia either. I guess it
just takes some people a long time to wake up.
The truth is that the Democrats-the old party of Jim Crow- have been laughing at civil
liberties and the rule of law for generations. There is nothing new about this. It goes back
to Truman and the Cold War- a deliberate choice that the party made then when Medicare for
All was the alternative on the table. A choice which involved Taft Hartley, which had so much
Democratic Party support that Congress over rode the veto, one of the most obvious assaults
on civil liberties and democratic rights in US History. And that is saying something.
As to this Taibi judgement
"..Democrats clearly believe constituents will forgive them for abandoning constitutional
principles, so long as the targets of official inquiry are figures like Flynn or Paul
Manafort or Trump himself. In the process, they've raised a generation of followers whose
contempt for civil liberties is now genuine-to-permanent..."
Compare it with the MeToo movement which positively delights in trashing every one of the
cherished civil liberties that protect people from improper conviction and false
imprisonment. That is a Democratic Party initiative (or at least it until recently and the
Tara Read accusations) and wholly consonant with the treatment meted out to Flynn.
"... What's worse than a Sheldon Adelson bankrolling President Trump's 2016 election, leading to big payoffs for him in U.S.-Israeli policy and his own people (John Bolton), nested in the inner sanctum? What's worse than a Sheldon Adelson influencing U.S. trade policy in China, mostly because of his titanic casino interests in Macau? ..."
"... How about a Sheldon Adelson providing his elite security team as an interlocutor for covert, illegal CIA operations overseas. ..."
"... If you are still not persuaded, recall that Adelson was accused of working with the CIA at his casinos in Macau, providing a recruiting ground for agents so they could spy on Beijing. This was back in 2015, long before Trump's entrance onto the scene. ..."
"... Read the whole thing. Considering the powerful role Adelson has played in the White House it is worth taking seriously, whether you think Assange is deserves one's sympathy or not. ..."
New evidence shows nexus between the casino magnate's elite security team and U.S. targeting of Julian Assange. Chairman and chief
executive officer of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation Sheldon Adelson arrives ahead of the inauguration of the US embassy in Jerusalem
on May 14, 2018. (Photo credit should read MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP via Getty Images)
What's worse than a Sheldon Adelson bankrolling President Trump's 2016 election, leading to big payoffs for him
in U.S.-Israeli policy
and his own people (John Bolton), nested in the inner sanctum? What's worse than a Sheldon Adelson influencing U.S. trade policy
in China,
mostly because of his titanic casino interests in Macau?
How about a Sheldon Adelson providing his elite security team as an interlocutor for covert, illegal CIA operations overseas.
We reported here back in December that a Spanish company, UC Global, hired to provide security for the Ecuadorian embassy in
London, was reportedly pulling double duty for the CIA by installing a separate surveillance system in the building that streamed
and recorded Assange, his lawyers, and his visitors in every room, including the bathroom. This is clearly a breach of international
law, specifically on the inviolability of diplomatic premises
. The Grayzone has since obtained more court records and conducted numerous witness interviews that establish how insidious this
spy operation was, and how close Adelson's massive private security apparatus was to it.
At the embassy, visitors' phones were seized by UC Global guards, with passwords, SIM cards and International Mobile Equipment
Identity numbers copied. Embassy officials and at least one U.S. congressman were also secretly surveilled. More:
The ongoing investigation detailed black operations ranging from snooping on the Wikileaks founder's private conversations
to fishing a diaper from an embassy trash can in order to determine if the feces inside it belonged to his son. According to witness
statements obtained by The Grayzone, weeks after Morales proposed breaking into the office of Assange's lead counsel, the office
was burglarized. The witnesses also detailed a proposal to kidnap or poison Assange. A police raid at the home of Moralesnetted two handgunswith their serial numbers filed off along with stacks of cash.
One source close to the investigation told The Grayzone an Ecuadorian official was robbed at gunpoint while carrying private
information pertaining to a plan to secure diplomatic immunity for Assange.
Throughout the black operations campaign, US intelligence appears to have worked through Adelson's Las Vegas Sands, a company
that had previously served as an alleged front for a CIA blackmail operation several years earlier. The operations formally began
once Adelson's hand-picked presidential candidate, Donald Trump, entered the White House in January 2017.
The center of this tawdry tale is a status-seeking mercenary (Morales) who was clearly bedazzled to be working in "the first division,"
which is what he told his team after a trip to a security expo in Las Vegas in 2016.
Morales had just signed on to guardQueen Miri, the $70 million yacht belonging to one of the most high profile casino tycoons in Vegas: ultra-Zionist
billionaire and Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson.
This brought Morales into contact with Israeli-American named Zohar Lahav, "who personally recruited Morales, then managed the
relationship between the Spanish security contractor and Sands on a routine basis. After their first meeting in Vegas, the two security
professionals became close friends, visiting each other overseas and speaking frequently," according to Blumenthal.
During the spying operation, Lahav worked directly under Brian Nagel, the Director of Global Security for Las Vegas Sands.
A former associate director of the US Secret Service and cyber-security expert, Nagel was officially commended by the CIA following
successful collaborations with federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
After the election in 2016, newly inaugurated President Trump appointed Mike Pomeo his CIA chief. At this point Pompeo, as you
remember,
clearly made Assange a target for termination . The security scheme at the embassy, according to Blumenthal, kicked in from there.
With meticulous reporting, including a ton of witness testimony from former UC Global employees who saw what Morales was doing as
not only illegal, but selling "all the information to the enemy, the U.S.," Blumenthal pieces together a convincing case that Morales
was working on behalf of the CIA with the elite Sands' security apparatus not only as the go-between, but the expert assist.
Today, Morales faces criminal charges ranging from violations of Assange's privacy and the secrecy of his client-attorney privileges,
as well as misappropriation, bribing a government official, and money laundering. Morales has denied the charges.
If you are still not persuaded, recall that Adelson
was accused of working with the CIA at his casinos in Macau, providing a recruiting ground for agents so they could spy on Beijing.
This was back in 2015, long before Trump's entrance onto the scene.
Read
the whole thing. Considering the powerful role Adelson has played in the White House it is worth taking seriously, whether you
think Assange is deserves one's sympathy or not.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, executive editor, has been writing for TAC since 2007, focusing on national security, foreign policy,
civil liberties and domestic politics. She served for 15 years as a Washington bureau reporter for FoxNews.com, and at WTOP News
in Washington from 2013-2017 as a writer, digital editor and social media strategist. She has also worked as a beat reporter at Bridge
News financial wire (now part of Reuters) and Homeland Security Today, and as a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. A native Nutmegger,
she got her start in Connecticut newspapers, but now resides with her family in Arlington, Va.
Doesn't matter. Like Jeffery Epstein, Adelson is protected. Also the US doesn't recognize international law even exists.
I have long suspected that US tax money is sent to Israel, part of that is funnelled off and laundered through Adelson's casinos
and then used to buy influence in the US both directly but also through super pacs to make sure the US money to Israel never stops.
No one in Washington wants to put a stop to it because every one is getting paid.
Just to follow up on this. While there are millions of unemployed Americans, many of who can't pay their bills. The top priority
over in the senate is giving Israel $38B so every one can get paid by AIPAC in time for the elections.
This is while Israel is preparing to seize the rest of Palestine which will then require another massive US tax payer funded
hand out to build infrastructure and put military forces in there.
> He will go down as The most corrupt president in history! Spied on an opponents
campaign Authorised the intelligence agencies to spy Leaker Collided with Russia
Our Fakenews networks conspired with Obama, Obama's previous Cabinet, Hillary, the CIA,
FBI, NSA, DNC, and Democrats in Congress. They were all in on it together. #Sedition #Treason
ex-president Obummer biggest legacy to the democratic world is allowing China to claim all
of the South China Sea by turning a blind eye whilst China was dredging the sea beds and
creating artificial islands all over the South China sea!!
Obama was an America hater from day one, and committed many treasons public and private.
His "legacy" is and was a fabrication of the MSM, who tolerated no end of abuses, including
Obama suing a number of journalists.
But let's just look at one item, underplayed by the MSM: Obama did everything he could to
stop the 9/11 victims bill, including a presidential veto, which was then overridden by a
gigantic (97-1) senate vote.
McCain and Graham continued to fight the LAW, undoubtedly with Obama help, using Arab
funded lawyers to the tune of 1.2 million dollars per month.
"... Sydney Powell can only appeal the conduct of the Judge. This serves as a nice distraction from the unconstitutional conduct of the Obama administration in wiretapping political opponents; as well as multiple members of Congress ..."
"... We do know Rosenstein appointed Mueller as SC to investigate Flynn, among other things. ..."
"... And we now know there was no predicate for any of the Mueller SCO appointment; thus, Rosenstein, too: what was he doing? ..."
"... We do know that at some point after Bill Barr was confirmed as AG last year, that he began to investigate outing of Flynn and release of classified information, that is, actual crimes. ..."
"... And we know Obama is an enemy of Flynn. If the CIA never took any steps, prior to the Barr confirmation as AG -- and I have no way of knowing whether they did or did not, viz. the Flynn outing and leak of classified information, ---what, if any, might or should be, if any, the consequences of that? And, ditto the DOJ. ..."
"... It appear this judge want to protect the likes of Obama, and Yates, and the long list of villains whose mission remain: Destroy Flynn at all costs. ..."
"... General Flynn's original law team belonged to Covington & Burling. That's where Eric Holder made partner. Since his time as Attorney General, Holder has returned to that law firm. Like Fred said, they sandbagged the case. ..."
"... Flynn swore before two judges under penalty of perjury that he lied to the FBI. He then swore that he didn't lie to the FBI when he asked to withdraw his guilty plea. There's the conundrum. If we had the transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations, we would know the answer to one of your questions. We could compare that to his guilty plea. We would then know if the prosecution's case was false. In that case both the prosecution and Flynn would be liable for perjuring themselves. It would also constitute prosecutorial misconduct IMO. Barr is doing Flynn a disservice by not releasing those transcripts. ..."
"... So all those mass incarcerated black men who pled guilty are really guilty because prosecutorial misconduct and defective legal advice neither happen to them nor are mitigating when a plea of guilty is made? "swore before two judges under penalty of perjury" The DOJ dropped the charges, it is up to the to prosecute for the new accusation that pleading guilty was actually perjury. Good luck at a jury trial with that. ..."
"... It seems to be a last minute desperation play by Sullivan to keep Obama out of the frying pan. ..."
"... Just today, the neocon-infested Washington Post ran an editorial, apparently by one of their DNC-affiliated writers, which attempted to jape the whole Obamagate narrative through a paroxysm of superlatives, mocking it as some gigantic and wholly imaginary conspiracy. This effort reminded me of their similar jocularity phase relative to Trump during the 2016 primary season. ..."
"... I suspect the reality is just the sleazy truth of Obama being just as much of a crooked bastard as Bush. The Obama gang, of course, is desperate to prevent the tarnishing of Saint Barry ..."
"... When Judge Sullivan said three days ago that he was going to make a schedule for outside persons and organizations to file written arguments, it was essentially an invitation for arguments against the government's request to dismiss the case. I started to put together an article about that brazen move. ..."
Firstly, Larry Johnson and Robert Willmann know more about this case than I do. It now
appears, if this report today is to be believed, that Emmett Sullivan is now inclined to
charge General Flynn with contempt of court and perjury. I have to ask; for what? This is
Kafkaesque.
For agreeing to a plea deal that Flynn knew was false? For failing to plead innocence? For
reversing his plea when it was demonstrated that the prosecution case against him was utterly
untrue and corrupt?
"Judge", I use the term loosely, Sullivan seems to be so ensnared in the coils of judicial
procedure that he has forgotten that truth and justice matter. That is the nicest construct I
can put on it. I think it's time for Sidney Powell to rip this judge to shreds. I await Larry
and Roberts comments.
Flynn was told by his lawyers from Covington & Burling that he was guilty. Covington
& Burling were not only wrong they made no effort to get the exculpatory evidence and
purposely withheld what evidence they did possess - repeatedly - from Flynn's new lawyer.
But then that has already been reported on publicly and discussed here. Perhaps your
memory is faulty.
Sydney Powell can only appeal the conduct of the Judge. This serves as a nice distraction
from the unconstitutional conduct of the Obama administration in wiretapping political
opponents; as well as multiple members of Congress, multiple governors and state health officials in response to China's
biological attack against the US and Western nations.
Yes, I agree with you. Sullivan trying to charge Flynn with perjury and contempt of court
is a deliberate distraction. I would have thought the people who should be charged are the
ones who constructed and prosecuted the bogus charge in the first place.
How many defendants automatically claim they are "not guilty, your honor" when asked to enter
their plea, even when there is still gunpowder on their hands?
Do they also get charged with perjury after their guilt is established, beyond a
reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers? You lied to the court - you said you were
innocent. Double time in the slammer for you.
Defendant statements of either their own guilt or innocence should be "privileged" and
therefore not actionable. Those statements are fundamental to our trust in our judicial
system, and should never later be claimed perjury or false statements if the defendant
changes their mind or a jury makes their ultimate finding.
Although different people at different times, and different circumstances: a
comparison.
Then CIA Agent Valerie Plame outing [she is currently a Democrat candidate for a New
Mexico congressional seat].
And, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn [NSA-designee] outing.
Outing, that is: leaking their identities, by government officials[s], to . . . .and
release of classified information.
How do the actions taken by government compare and contrast, at the time of outing/leaking
crimes.
1] Both leaks went to the Washington Post.
2] Substance of the Plame and Flynn leaks related to . . .
WAP published Plame's identity, July 14, 2003. George Bush the younger, then president.
Robert David Sanders "Bob" Novak put his name to this at WAP. [Her husband, Joseph C. Wilson
4th, "What I Didn't Find in Africa", in The New York Times, July 6, 2003, disputed
Bush/Cheney administration claims, their claims of WMD in Iraq.]
WAP published Flynn's identify, Jan. 12, 2017. Barack Obama, then president. David
Reynolds Ignatius put his name to it at WAP. Flynn disputed Obama administration "facts"
about their Syrian war in particular, and more generally, in west Asia/near East/middle
east.]
3] Investigation at the time or no investigation at the time.
Executive Order 12333 of Dec. 4, 1981 requires actions on such matters.
In the Plame matter, the CIA, on July 24, 2003 made a phone call to the DOJ about this,
according to the CIA. They followed this up with a July 30, 2003 letter.
Government records show "on 24 July 2003, a CIA attorney left a phone message for the
Chief of the Counterespionage Section of DoJ noting concerns with recent articles on this
subject and stating that the CIA would forward a written crimes report pending the outcome of
a review of the articles by subject matter experts. By letter dated 30 July 2003, the CIA
reported to the Criminal Division of DoJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the
unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The letter also informed DoJ that the
CIA's Office of Security had opened an investigation into this matter. This letter was sent
again to DoJ by facsimile on 5 September 2003."
Sept. 30, 2003, Bush famously stated, viz. the identities of the leaker[s]: "I want to
know who it is ... and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
Dec. 30, 2003 a Special Counsel was also appointed to investigate the Plame matter, as
well.
Then AG John Ashcroft recused himself and thus declined to make this SC appointment.
Patrick Fitzgerald was named the Special Counsel by then Deputy AG James Comey. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We know many more details now about the Plame matter, than about what, if any,
investigation may, or may not have, begun, at the time of the Flynn outing and release of
classified information.
What we do know, so far, about the Flynn matter is that, at the time, there was no attempt
-- or at least, we don't know if there was -- any attempt from the Flynn outing on Jan. 12,
2017, to Jan. 20 of that year, when Obama was still president: a] if the CIA asked for an investigation b] if then AG Lynch did c] if DAG at the time Yates did d] if Obama did
We also don't know if, beginning Jan. 20 a] if then acting AG Yates did b] if President Trump did c] if the CIA did
Once Jeff Sessions was confirmed as AG, we don't know if he did, nor do we know if DAG Rod
Rosenstein did.
Nor do we know if the CIA did.
We do know Rosenstein appointed Mueller as SC to investigate Flynn, among other
things.
And we now know there was no predicate for any of the Mueller SCO appointment; thus,
Rosenstein, too: what was he doing?
We do know that at some point after Bill Barr was confirmed as AG last year, that he began
to investigate outing of Flynn and release of classified information, that is, actual
crimes.
It is a fair question to ask when he actually began investigation on the Flynn outing, and
leaking of classified material related to that.
And to ask when, or if, the CIA, since Jan. 20, 2017, ever did.
We do know there were many public enemies of Flynn at highest levels of DOJ, FBI, CIA, and
the office Clapper was in charge of at the time, Director of National Intelligence.
And we know Obama is an enemy of Flynn. If the CIA never took any steps, prior to the Barr confirmation as AG -- and I have no way
of knowing whether they did or did not, viz. the Flynn outing and leak of classified
information, ---what, if any, might or should be, if any, the consequences of that? And, ditto the DOJ.
As an aside: Judge Emmett Sullivan's ongoing tomfoolery and slapdash in the Flynn criminal
case puts in relief, sharp relief, just how upside down this entire issue has become.
It appear this judge want to protect the likes of Obama, and Yates, and the long list of
villains whose mission remain: Destroy Flynn at all costs.
Flynn's guilty plea being sworn to under penalty of perjury is no small matter, and the
DOJs actions have been, in total, extremely odd.
It may be unwise to read too much into this at this point. The DOJ has wasted a couple of
years and no doubt millions of dollars worth of the court's time. Sullivan is providing a
platform wherein the DOJ will have to fully explain itself in this matter. Both past and
present DOJs, that is.
As a general observation, there has been a tidal wave of criticism in American media over
the DOJ dropping the charges against Flynn.
I have made an attempt to follow what the American MSM are saying about this, and the
hostility to both Flynn and Barr is just overwhelming. Surely that overwhelming media opinion had an effect on Judge Sullivan's bad
decision.
Perhaps I'm missing something. I know the FBI can listen in on phone calls made to foreign
nationals, but how can the FBI legally listen in on phone calls made by the NSC Director of
the President-Elect, regardless of who he is talking to?
General Flynn's original law team belonged to Covington & Burling. That's where Eric
Holder made partner. Since his time as Attorney General, Holder has returned to that law
firm. Like Fred said, they sandbagged the case.
My husband's default TV channel is MSNBC, programming which I often overhear. A fair-minded
observer can't help but notice that Obama apologists only mention that Flynn plead guilty
twice. They NEVER emphasize the beyond-mitigating aspects of the matter, e.g., that his
counsel at the time (which was a law firm also employing former Obama AG Eric Holder) was
either incompetent or purposefully negligent in advising him to do so. Nor do they mention
that Flynn was threatened with the prospect of his son being prosecuted using rarely-enforced
FARA laws. The apologists also fail to remind their audiences that the FBI investigation of
Flynn was about to be closed -- much less do they report that he was NEVER charged with
perjury in the first place!
The convenient and expedient failure to fully inform people has become typical among the
MSM/Democrats/NeverTrumpers, et al. Their efforts to misinform, to perpetuate ignorance,
continue to play out not only in the entire Obamagate scandal but it seems also when it comes
to COVID-19 policy. No wonder zombie-themed entertainment is so popular in recent years.
SMFH...
Flynn wasn't outed. He was a widely known public figure for years. Trump and Pence
announced Flynn lied to them and the FBI when he was fired. I'm not if this was mentioned in
the press before Trump's announcement.
Flynn swore before two judges under penalty of perjury that he lied to the FBI. He then
swore that he didn't lie to the FBI when he asked to withdraw his guilty plea. There's the
conundrum. If we had the transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations, we would know the
answer to one of your questions. We could compare that to his guilty plea. We would then know
if the prosecution's case was false. In that case both the prosecution and Flynn would be
liable for perjuring themselves. It would also constitute prosecutorial misconduct IMO. Barr
is doing Flynn a disservice by not releasing those transcripts.
TTG, there is this legal thing called the litigation privilege that, I think, covers what an
accused can say in a trial. Plenty of people plead guilty to charges that they know to be
false without the slightest demur by anyone..
Furthermore, Flynn may have become convinced by his lawyers that he had, in effect lied to
the FBI. In addition, since he was not under oath or cautioned by the FBI at the time, even
if he deliberately did lie for perhaps political or strategic reasons how is that a crime?
People lie to people all the time.
To put that another way, is telling a female FBI agent "I'll still respect you in the
morning" going to get you 20 years?
So all those mass incarcerated black men who pled guilty are really guilty because
prosecutorial misconduct and defective legal advice neither happen to them nor are
mitigating when a plea of guilty is made? "swore before two judges under penalty of perjury"
The DOJ dropped the charges, it is up to the to prosecute for the new accusation that
pleading guilty was actually perjury. Good luck at a jury trial with that.
Mark,
"Sullivan is providing a platform wherein the DOJ will have to fully explain itself in
this matter."
So he is willfully refusing to dismiss the case so the DOJ can give him an explanation -
other than the one they already gave him in the motion to dismiss? Justice Sullivan, on
behalf of the Judiciary, is now taking it upon itself to determine what the executive branch
of government was thinking in this case? To get that explanation he has appointed a former
member of the judiciary, one who had previously worked side by side with Andrew Weissman. No
bias there. You don't need to be a lawyer to see how ludicrous the suggestion and the judges
actions appear.
Sullivan, like most of the Federal judiciary, is just another swamp creature. He apparently slept through the class in law school where they said that the state has to
prosecute the case, a judge can't - even as much as he may want to.
The issue is both: the criminal leak of classified information; and the criminal outing --
the identity of Flynn -- related to classified information leak. Those are indissolubly
linked.
The issue is also this, thanks to Judge Emmett Gilbert & Sullivan, who wrote May 13,
2020:
"ORDERED that amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show
Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury. . . and any other
applicable statutes, rules, or controlling law."
Who would be charging Flynn with "criminal contempt for perjury"? And/Or, "and any other
applicable statutes, rules, or controlling law"?
Perhaps Gilbert & Sullivan will keep the case open until after the November
presidential election, or the November 2024 election, or the next one, so that another DOJ --
not headed by Bill Barr -- can so charge Flynn.
Or perhaps Gilbert & Sullivan is inviting Congress to name a Special Prosecutor.
Who might that be? James Comey? Andrew Weissmann? Sally Yates?
After all, how dare anyone expose Barry as anything but "the scandal free" administration.
This is Gilbert & Sullivan's motive, as I see it, my opinion, based on what I have seen
so far: To protect Barry, among others. And do that via keeping alive a prosecution of Flynn,
based on DOJ/FBI/CIA skullduggery. [Another theory is the judge wants to throw the book at
Covington for misconduct; perhaps both or one or the other are at play, I don't have the
evidence at this time to clearly say.]
As for Trump and Pence, that is grist for another mill.
For all we know, Trump and Pence may have wanted Flynn gone and they did not care how it
was done. And they did not want their finger prints on it; and for all we know, Trump and
Pence were not opposed to the Mueller SC appointment.
These are also things we actually just don't have clear answers to, just yet.
But that sideshow is irrelevant to this legal proceeding/circus per the May 13 order.
However, it may [or may not] be relevant to whether or not Trump and Pence actually wanted
Flynn gone – using the "Flynn lied" as an excuse to be rid of him.
Pence, at the time, had no business speaking about what was essentially classified
information, at the time, by the way; he did, on national TV, and Flynn was the patsy.
Did Trump and Pence, and their administration, sit on their hands as well, and do nothing
about the criminal leak of classified information linked to the outing of Flynn?
Claiming he lied could suggest they also were not interested in the crime of leaking
classified information and his outing.
At least Bush said or claimed to wanted to get to the bottom of the Plame matter. Did
Trump and Pence, at the time?
And if they did want to get to the bottom of it, I would like to see evidence that they
did so, and/or evidence that they were thwarted in doing so.
Surely, Trump and Pence can argue this was why they were not opposed to Mueller
appointment.
We don't know all the contents of the scope memo Rosenstein wrote, as the boss of Mueller,
-- whether or not investigation of the criminal leak and outing of Flynn was or was not part
of Mueller's scope of work.
We don't know because chunks of scope memo are still redacted and not available to the
public.
Presumably, AG Barr is investigation this; he came back on the scene last year.
What happened before him, going back to Jan. 20, 2017? And, what happened from Jan. 12 to
Jan. 2020, with respect to the Obama administration, on this crime?
Did anyone, prior to Barr, do anything, or try to do anything?
If this was not part of Rosenstein's scope memo to Mueller, what can one conclude? -30-
In recent years we have seen numerous individuals released from jail due to their innocence
being found by DNA and other scientific processes. A good number of those individuals had
plead guilty. In the Sullivan courtroom Flynn plead quietly twice (once to Sullivan the other
to Contreras) but now pleads innocent and the government has decided to drop the case. But
Judge Sullivan now questions what to do with Flynn and is asking for help from the legal
community to determine what to do. It has become a circus or Sullivan wants his pound of
flesh. Time will tell but if it is not to the benefit of Flynn then it's off to the Appeals
Court where it will be justly determined. After insinuating that Flynn was a traitor this Judge should drop the case quickly but no he
wants make himself like a bigger Idiot.
Flynn's case never went to trial. It went straight to a guilty plea and was awaiting the
sentencing phase. If the DOJ dropped charges before this guilty plea or at any time during a
trial, I doubt we would be in this mess. What Flynn signed onto is straightforward. I don't
know if this litigation privilege would apply to this Defendant's Acceptance.
"The preceding statement is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the Court with a
factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all of the
facts known to me regarding this offense. I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and
because I am, in fact, guilty o f the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I
under the influence o f anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement o
f the Offense fully." "I have read every word of this Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me. Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, after consulting with my attorneys, I agree and
stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is
true and correct."
Sullivan is addressing the guilty plea by Flynn and his subsequent withdrawal of that plea.
creating the charge of perjury to the court.
Barr is opening up the DOJ to prosecutorial misconduct if the reason for the withdrawal is
exculpatory information that was not provided defendant prior to his guilty plea.
Sullivan is exploiting this discrepancy. I am neither a legal expert nor lawyer so will
stand corrected.
It seems to be a last minute desperation play by Sullivan to keep Obama out of the frying
pan.
Just today, the neocon-infested Washington Post ran an editorial, apparently by one of
their DNC-affiliated writers, which attempted to jape the whole Obamagate narrative through a
paroxysm of superlatives, mocking it as some gigantic and wholly imaginary conspiracy. This
effort reminded me of their similar jocularity phase relative to Trump during the 2016
primary season.
I suspect the reality is just the sleazy truth of Obama being just as much of a crooked
bastard as Bush. The Obama gang, of course, is desperate to prevent the tarnishing of Saint
Barry.
If Flynn does get off in the end, might he sue Obama and at some point depose him? An
interesting thought experiment.
I find this hilarious. It is like POTUS is a helpless bystander. Does he not realize it is
his DOJ that has "stolen or destroyed" the 302? Does he not know that he can declassify all
of "Obamagate"?
Or is his intent to just troll everyone?
And what about him throwing Flynn to the hyenas by firing him?
When Judge Sullivan said three days ago that he was going to make a schedule for outside
persons and organizations to file written arguments, it was essentially an invitation for
arguments against the government's request to dismiss the case. I started to put together an
article about that brazen move.
Now Sullivan has abandoned that move and has exposed himself as an advocate singularly
against the defendant Flynn, which of course is not his role. His order of Wednesday, 13 May,
appointed John Gleeson, a former federal judge in the Eastern District of New York, to
present arguments against the motion to dismiss Flynn's case and whether Flynn should be the
subject of a proceeding for criminal contempt of court for perjury.
Judge Sullivan's new order indicates that he has improperly invested his ego in the case,
and that something is likely going on behind the curtain.
With all that is emerging from the recent releases of sworn testimony from various
actors surrounding the Flynn case, and the Russiagate hoohaw exposing the motivations of
these individuals, can it be doubted that given the depth of the duplicity on exhibit here
that it is entirely possible (indeed, likely) that something as incriminating as the
"missing" 302 was destroyed to cover the tracks?
Although some of the principals left of their own volition, and others were removed
through being fired, it is clear that others acted as "stay behind" forces of the Deep State
to continue the coup from inside the DOJ, FBI, and IC. Under these circumstances, it is not
at all clear that President Trump was (and is now) substantially in command of these
agencies. Incriminating documents and recordings may well have been preemptively destroyed on
the sayso of the "stay behind" plotters still in high positions, so calls for
declassification of already disappeared evidence would be futile.
No, it doesn't look good that Flynn was fired, but at the time, and with what was known
at that time , and given Flynn's plea, what could be expected? Now that things have
subsequently been revealed, it looks like a bad call; hindsight is, as the saying has it,
20/20.
"... According to these transcripts of congressional testimony by some of the participants, the FBI decided all by itself after Comey was fired to consider acting against Trump by pursuing him for suspicion of conspiracy with Russia to give the Russians the president of the US that they supposedly wanted. ..."
"... Following these seditious and IMO illegal discussions the FBI and Sessions/Rosenstein's Justice Department sought FISA Court warrants for surveillance against associates of Trump and members of his campaign for president. ..."
"... IMO this collection of actions when added to whatever Clapper, Brennan and "the lads" of the Deep State were doing with the British intelligence services amount to an attempted "soft coup" against the constitution and from the continued stonewalling of the FBI and DoJ the coup is ongoing ..."
The president of the US was made head of the Executive Branch (EC) of the federal government by Article 2 of the present constitution
of the US. He is also Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the federal government. As head of the EC, he is head of all the
parts of the government excepting the Congress and the Federal courts which are co-equal branches of the federal government. The
Department of Justice is just another Executive Branch Department subordinate in all things to the president. The FBI is a federal
police force and counter-intelligence agency subordinate to the Department of Justice and DNI and therefore to the president in
all things. The FBI actually IMO has no legal right whatever to investigate the president. He is the constitutionally elected
commander of the FBI. Does one investigate one's commander? No. The procedures for legally and constitutionally removing a president
from office for malfeasance are clear. He must be impeached by the House of Representatives for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
and then tried by the US Senate on the charges. Conviction results in removal from office.
According to these transcripts of congressional testimony by some of the participants, the FBI decided all by itself after
Comey was fired to consider acting against Trump by pursuing him for suspicion of conspiracy with Russia to give the Russians
the president of the US that they supposedly wanted. Part of the discussions among senior FBI people had to do with whether
or not the president had the legal authority to remove from office an FBI Director. Say what? Where have these dummies been all
their careers? Do they not teach anything about this at the FBI Academy? The US Army lectures its officers at every level of schooling
on the subject of the constitutional and legal basis and limits of their authority.
Following these seditious and IMO illegal discussions the FBI and Sessions/Rosenstein's Justice Department sought FISA
Court warrants for surveillance against associates of Trump and members of his campaign for president. Their application
for warrants were largely based on unsubstantiated "opposition research" funded by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign.
The judge who approved the warrants was not informed of the nature of the evidence. These warrants provided an authority for surveillance
of the Trump campaign.
IMO this collection of actions when added to whatever Clapper, Brennan and "the lads" of the Deep State were doing with
the British intelligence services amount to an attempted "soft coup" against the constitution and from the continued stonewalling
of the FBI and DoJ the coup is ongoing. pl
"... The majority of U.S. media will most likely try and find appropriate excuses so they can minimize Obama's role in these scandals. It is completely clear that the battle over who will be in the White House in the next four years is now taking focus on the Obama era as of opposed to Trump's mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 80,000 Americans and infected more than 1.3 million people. ..."
"... With endless tweets by Donald Trump dedicated to Obama over the past few days, it is as if the presidential battle in November will be fought between him and Obama, and not Democrat сandidate Joe Biden . ..."
"... It is likely Obama is becoming more public as Trump's opponent Biden is proving inadequate and incapable of defeating Trump ..."
"... Trump also retweeted statements from CIA agent Buck Sexton, in which he accused Obama of sabotaging the Trump administration in the first days of his term. Sexton also called former FBI Director Andrew McCabe "a dishonorable partisan scumbag who has done incalculable damage to the reputation of the FBI and should be sitting in a cell for lying under oath" ..."
"... As for the affair with the secret operation of selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels, journalists of Forbes in 2011 wondered whether that operation would become Obama's "Watergate," ..."
Source: InfoBricsFormer
U.S. President Barack Obama is coming under increasing pressure, led by what President Donald
Trump is calling "Obamagate." This comes as Mexico has requested to finally clarify the affair
with the secret sale of American weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Mexico is asking for the case
to be clarified after almost ten years.
In this secret operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives, weapons from the U.S. were sold to Mexican drug cartels. The U.S. claimed that
about 2,000 automatic weapons were sold to Mexicans so that the Barack Obama administration
could follow their path to the drug cartels. Instead, these weapons were used in massacres.
Mexican authorities are now seeking answers from the United States.
In addition to selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels, Obama is responsible for a lot of
global upheaval on the world stage – primarily the so-called "Arab Spring" that should be
more accurately described as the "Arab Winter" as it brought death and destruction across the
Arab world.
The sale of these weapons to Mexican drug cartels is another ugly legacy of Obama's rule
that liberals like to view as one of the best periods of American history. Let's not forget
that in 2009 Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for his apparent "extraordinary efforts to
strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people."
The majority of U.S. media will most likely try and find appropriate excuses so they can
minimize Obama's role in these scandals. It is completely clear that the battle over who will
be in the White House in the next four years is now taking focus on the Obama era as of opposed
to Trump's mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 80,000
Americans and infected more than 1.3 million people.
With endless tweets by Donald Trump dedicated to Obama over the past few days, it is as if
the presidential battle in November will be fought between him and Obama, and not Democrat
сandidate Joe Biden .
The reason for Trump's many tweets against the former president was because of Obama's
private conversation that was leaked to the public in which he criticized the suspension of the
investigation against Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn , while he called
Trump's fight against the coronavirus epidemic a "chaotic disaster."
The American president started tweeting on the morning of May 10 and stopped late in the
evening, making over a hundred tweets against Obama. This exchange between Obama and Trump is
not common in American politics as former presidents usually do not interfere in the politics
of their successors. However, there are suggestions that Obama still has connections to the
deep state and is actively undermining Trump.
Obama, who openly admitted he would remain active in politics and wished he could contend
for a third term, could be exerting influence through Hillary Clinton and Biden. It is likely
Obama is becoming more public as Trump's opponent Biden is proving inadequate and incapable of
defeating Trump.
The battle between Obama and Trump started with the announcement that the Ministry of
Justice is terminating the investigation against former Trump's national security adviser
Michael Flynn. Flynn, who was probably the shortest-serving national security adviser in
history, was sacked at the beginning of his term on charges of lying to Vice President Mike
Pence about talks with the Russian ambassador to Washington. His removal triggered a chain of
failed investigations and campaigns against Trump and his alleged links to Russian interference
during the U.S. presidential election, which also ended in a failed impeachment.
In private conversations that leaked to the public, Obama described Flynn's acquittal as a
threat to the rule of law.
Trump also retweeted statements from CIA agent Buck Sexton, in which he accused Obama of
sabotaging the Trump administration in the first days of his term. Sexton also called former
FBI Director Andrew McCabe "a dishonorable partisan scumbag who has done incalculable damage to
the reputation of the FBI and should be sitting in a cell for lying under oath"
Trump then continued with accusations on Twitter and said that Obama
committed "the biggest political crime in American history, by far!" and ended briefly with
"Obamagate."
As for the affair with the secret operation of selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels,
journalists of Forbes in 2011 wondered whether that operation would become Obama's "Watergate,"
and it appears that it very well could be. Obama's attempts to smear Trump has not only
backfired, but it could have very serious legal ramifications against him and others in his
administration.
Hawk Elliot Abrams, reborn as a U.S. envoy, is at the spear point of recent aggressive moves
in Venezuela. US Special Representative for Venezuela Elliot Abrams addresses the Atlantic
Council on the future of Venezuela in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2019. (Photo credit NICHOLAS
KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)
Called the "neocon zombie" by officials at the State Department, Abrams is known as an
operator who doesn't let anything stand in his way. He has a long history of pursuing
disastrous policies in government.
"Everything Abrams is doing now is the same thing he was doing during the Reagan
administration. He's very adept at manipulating the levers of power without a lot of
oversight," a former senior official at the State Department told The American
Conservative. The official added that Abrams is "singularly focused" on pursuing regime
change in Venezuela.
A little background on Abrams: when he served as Reagan's assistant secretary of state for
human rights, he concealed a
massacre of a thousand men, women, and children by U.S.-funded death squads in El Salvador.
He was also involved in the Iran Contra scandal, helping to secure covert funding for Contra
rebels in Nicaragua in violation of laws passed by Congress. In 1991, he pled guilty to
lying to Congress about the America's role in those two fiascos -- twice.
But then-president George H.W. Bush pardoned Abrams. He went on to support "measures to
scuttle the Latin American peace process launched by the Costa Rican president, Óscar
Arias" and use "the agency's money to unseat the Sandinistas in Nicaragua's 1990 general
elections," according
to Brian D'Haeseleer.
Under President George W. Bush, Abrams promoted regime change in Iraq.
Abrams was initially blocked from joining the Trump administration on account of a Never
Trump op-ed he'd penned. But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo succeeded in bringing him onboard
last year, despite his history of support for disastrous regime change policies.
It's no surprise that with Abrams at the helm, U.S. rhetoric and actions towards Venezuela
are constantly "escalating," Dr. Alejandro Velasco, associate professor of Modern Latin America
at New York University, said an interview with TAC.
In just the last month, Washington has placed bounties on the heads of President
Nicolás Maduro and a dozen current and former Venezuelan officials. The U.S. also
deployed the largest fleet ever to the Southern Hemisphere.
Meanwhile, Abrams announced the " Democratic
Transition Framework for Venezuela ," which calls on Maduro's government to embrace a
power-sharing deal. The plan doesn't explain how Venezuelan leaders with bounties on their
heads are supposed to come to the table and negotiate with Juan Guaido, whom the U.S.
recognizes as Venezuela's legitimate leader. Abrams has also said that the U.S. does not
support a coup.
A few days after recommending a power-sharing arrangement, and 18 years after the U.S.
backed a putsch against Hugo Chavez, Abrams
warned that if Maduro resisted the organization of a "transitional government," his
departure would be far more "dangerous and abrupt." To many, Abrams'
aggressive rhetoric against Maduro made it sound like the U.S. was "effectively threatening
him with another assassination attempt," like the one Washington had "tacitly
supported" in 2018.
Two weeks after Abrams' warning, Operation Gideon began. Jordan Goudreau, an American
citizen, former Green Beret, and three-time Bronze Star recipient for bravery in Iraq and
Afghanistan, along with Javier Nieto, a retired Venezuelan military captain, posted a video
from an undisclosed location saying they had launched an attack that was meant to begin a
rebellion that would lead to Maduro's arrest and the installation of Juan Guaido.
In a public relations coup for Maduro, the plot was quickly foiled. Given that American
citizens were involved and have produced a contract allegedly signed by Guaido,
the incident has severely harmed the reputations of both the U.S. and the Venezuelan
opposition.
Both President Trump and Pompeo have denied that the U.S. had any "direct" involvement with
Goudreau's plot.
However, the Trump administration has given billions of dollars from USAID to Venezuela, and
that money is largely untraceable due to concerns about outing supporters of Guaido.
"With all the cash and arms sloshing around in Venezuela," it is not hard to imagine how
U.S. funding could inadvertently wind up supporting something like this, said Velasco.
There are other signs that the U.S. may have been more involved in the plot than they are
saying publicly.
For one, American mercenaries don't carry passports identifying themselves as American nor
do they return to the U.S. where they can be brought up on charges for their work, said Sean
McFate, professor of war and strategy at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and
the National Defense University.
In order to sell weapons or training to another nation, it is necessary to receive
permission from the State Department. It's unclear whether Goudreau and his band did so. But
Goudreau's social media posts look like a pretty "clear cut" violation of the International
Convention Against the Recruitment, Financing and Training of Mercenaries and the U.S.
International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) said Peter Singer, a senior fellow at New
America.
We know that months before the fated coup, the CIA met with Goudreau in Jamaica and
allegedly warned him off the project. According to the AP, Goudreau is now under
investigation for arms trafficking . Members of Congress have asked the State Department
what they knew of Goudreau's plans. Given the illegal nature of the supposedly unauthorized
project, it's very strange that the ringleader is at present in Florida, talking to the press
and posting on social media.
Besides that warning, it seems no one in government tried to stop this calamitous
operation.
And it's not just regime change. Last year, Abrams
advocated granting special immigration status for the 70,000 Venezuelans residing illegally
in the U.S. as a way to "pressure Maduro" even though Trump ran on the promise to severely
limit the number of people granted Temporary Protected Status.
It was in pursuit of special status for Venezuelans that Abrams showed himself to be
"incredibly pompous, bull-headed, and willing to destroy anyone who opposes him, in a personal
way, including by trashing their reputations in the media," another senior State Department
official told TAC. Abrams is not above hiding policy options he doesn't like and
offering only those he favors to Pompeo to present to Trump, sources said.
Abrams ultimately prevailed and Venezuelans received refugee status from the Trump
administration, despite the fact that it betrayed Trump's campaign promises.
According to Velasco, there are some people in the administration who believe that
Venezuelans are the "new Cubans" -- that they will become a solid, loyal Republican vote in the
swing state of Florida if they're granted special status. They also believe that Venezuelan
expats want to see the U.S. remove Maduro. There are "many Cold Warriors" who believe all it
will take is a "little push" for Venezuelans to rise up and take out Maduro, said Velasco.
The State Department did not respond to a request for comment on whether Abrams is pursuing
a military confrontation in Venezuela.
"Cold Warrior" beliefs are dangerous. While "Operation Gideon" was especially clownish, had
it been more sophisticated, it could have easily sparked a world war. The Russians, Iranians,
and Chinese are all operating in Venezuela.
That specter is even more concerning now that Russia's Foreign Minister Lavrov has
said that Russian special
services are on standby to help Venezuela's investigation of the mercenaries. about the
author Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter.
Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She is
the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about General George Patton in World War II, and
her work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill , UK Spectator , and elsewhere.
Boland is a graduate from Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter
@BBatDC .
Biden is the Democratic Party's presumptive
presidential nominee, he's running as the heir to Obama's legacy, and he was at that meeting
with Rice. He had denied even knowing anything about the FBI investigation into Flynn before
being forced to
correct himself after ABC's George Stephanopoulos pointed out that he was mentioned in
Rice's email. It's completely legitimate to wonder what he knew about the investigation.
> I can't for the life of me understand why Democrats have such an obsession with
"Trump colluding with Russia" when the Democrats are continually cosying up to CHINA. So it's
bad if Russia interferes with the US, but it's OK if China does? I don't for a moment believe
Trump has ever colluded with Russia, but would 100% believe that the Democrats are in the
pockets of the Chinese. How much Chinese money has Pėlosí & Co pocketed in
exchange for spouting pro-Chinese anti-American propaganda?
The USA is going to have to make a big decision in prosecuting Obama and all his
accomplices for the crimes of using the intel agencies to create and implement a
fraudulent/illegal scheme to remove a legally elected president. My guess is that everything
will be delayed until Trump wins his second term. Then the full force of the government will
hold all Obama officials responsible for their crimes. That is my guess.
"If you can't beat them, smear them," say the Democrats. Nobody is brainless enough to
vote to the Democrats, so they are importing their votes as cast by the illegal immigrants!
Then they accuse the Republicans of foreign influence in our elections!!??
So-called "experts" are too narrow in their focus and too often wrong in their
judgments to be able to decide the sorts of life-and-death issues a nation's political leaders
are asked to decide. If " War is too important to be left to the generals ," as
Georges Clemenceau, (France's prime minister during World War I) claimed, then foreign policy
is too important to be left to the intelligence agencies, and public policy is too important to
be left to the scientists.
From the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, politicians and media fell over themselves in their
rush to defer to the " experts. " Apparently, it was up to scientists to decide
whether a country should shut down its economy and keep its citizens locked up in their homes
in perpetuity. It was up to scientists to determine whether a country can, if ever, resume
normal life. As for the consequences -- economic depression, exploding national debt, lost
businesses and means of livelihood, growing alcoholism and drug abuse, rise in suicides,
spiraling untreated medical problems -- those are things the public would just have to live
with, because there could be no second-guessing of the scientists.
"Wasn't completely honest"... mistress of understatements. She lied. The left's narrative
is imploding. Corrupt Ambassador, and the left whined when she was fired. Belongs in
prison... in Ukraine.
During the impeachment sham hearing, Yovanovitch said she had not recall anything about
the well known national scandal Burisma in Ukraine. Surprising, isn't it?
The entire Obama Administration was, for eight long years, a string of crimes and
cover-ups by the then President and all his partners in wrongdoings. When is Lady Justice
going to prevail?
On the other side, evidence has emerged that makes it clear there were organized efforts to
collude against candidate Donald Trump - and then President Trump. For example:
Anti-Russian Ukrainians allegedly helped coordinate and execute a campaign against Trump
in partnership with the Democratic National Committee and news reporters.
A Yemen-born ex-British spy reportedly delivered political opposition research against
Trump to reporters, Sen. John McCain, and the FBI; the latter of which used the material--in
part--to obtain wiretaps against one or more Trump-related associates.
There were orchestrated leaks of anti-Trump information and allegations to the press,
including by ex-FBI Director James Comey.
The U.S. intel community allegedly engaged in questionable surveillance practices and
politially-motivated "unmaskings" of U.S. citizens, including Trump officials.
Alleged conflicts of interests have surfaced regarding FBI officials who cleared Hillary
Clinton for mishandling classified information and who investigated Trump's alleged Russia
ties.
But it's not so easy to find a timeline pertinent to the investigations into these
events.
(Please note that nobody cited has been charged with wrongdoing or crimes, unless the charge
is specifically referenced. Temporal relationships are not necessarily evidence of a
correlation.)
"Collusion against Trump" Timeline2011
U.S. intel community vastly expands its surveillance authority, giving itself permission to
spy on Americans who do nothing more than "mention a foreign target in a single, discrete
communication." Intel officials also begin storing and entering into a searchable database
sensitive intelligence on U.S. citizens whose communications are accidentally or "incidentally"
captured during surveillance of foreign targets. Prior to this point, such intelligence was
supposed to be destroyed to protect the constitutional privacy rights the U.S. citizens.
However, it's required that names U.S. citizens be hidden or "masked" --even inside U.S. intel
agencies --to prevent abuse.
July 1, 2012: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton improperly uses unsecured, personal email
domain to email President Obama from Russia.
2013
June 2013: FBI interviews U.S. businessman Carter Page, who's lived and worked in Russia,
regarding his ongoing contacts with Russians. Page reportedly tells FBI agents their time would
be better spent investigating Boston Marathon bombing (which the FBI's Andrew McCabe helped
lead). Page later claims his remark prompts FBI retaliatory campaign against him. The FBI,
under McCabe, will later wiretap Page after Page becomes a Donald Trump campaign adviser.
FBI secretly records suspected Russian industrial spy Evgeny Buryakov . It's later
reported that Page helped FBI build the case.
Sept. 4, 2013: James Comey becomes FBI Director, succeeding Robert Mueller.
2014
Russia invades Ukraine. Ukraine steps up hiring of U.S. lobbyists to make its case against
Russia and obtain U.S. aid. Russia also continues its practice of using U.S. lobbyists.
Ukraine forms National Anti-Corruption Bureau as a condition to receive U.S. aid. The
National Anti-Corruption Bureau later signs evidence-sharing agreement with FBI related to
Trump-Russia probe.
Ukrainian-American Alexandra Chalupa, a paid consultant for the Democratic National
Committee (DNC), begins researching lobbyist Paul
Manafort's Russia ties.
FBI investigates, and then wiretaps, Paul Manafort for allegedly not properly disclosing
Russia-related work. FBI fails to make a case, according to CNN, and discontinues wiretap.
August 2014: State Dept. turns over 15,000 pages of documents to Congressional Benghazi
committee, revealing former secretary of state Hillary Clinton used private server for
government email. Her mishandling of classified info on this private system becomes subject of
FBI probe.
2015
FBI opens
investigation into Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, including for donations from a
Chinese businessman and Clinton Foundation donor.
FBI official Andrew McCabe meets with Gov. McAuliffe, a close Clinton ally. Afterwards,
"McAuliffe-aligned political groups donated about $700,000 to Mr. McCabe's wife for her
campaign to become a Democrat state Senator in Virginia." The fact of the McAuliffe-related
donations to wife of FBI's McCabe, while FBI was investigating McAuliffe and Clinton later
becomes the subject of
conflict of interest inquiry by Inspector General.
Feb. 9, 2015: U.S. Senate forms Ukrainian caucus to further Ukrainian interests. Sen. John
McCain (R-Ariz.) is a member.
March 4, 2015: New York Times breaks news about Clinton's improper handling of classified
email as secretary of state.
In internal emails , Clinton campaign chairman (and
former Obama adviser) John Podesta suggests Obama withhold Clinton's emails from Congressional
Benghazi committee under executive privilege.
March 2015: Attorney General Loretta Lynch privately directs FBI Director James Comey to
call FBI Clinton probe a "matter" rather than an "investigation." Comey follows the
instruction, though he later testifies that it made him
"queasy."
March 7, 2015: President Obama says he first learned of Clinton's improper email practices
"through news reports." Clinton campaign staffers privately
contradict that claim emailing: "it looks like [President Obama] just said he found out
[Hillary Clinton] was using her personal email when he saw it on the news." Clinton aide Cheryl
Mills responds, "We need to clean this up, [President Obama] has emails from" Clinton's
personal account.
May 19, 2015: Justice Dept. Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Peter Kadzik
emails
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta from a private Gmail account to give him a "heads ups"
involving Congressional questions about Clinton email.
Summer 2015: Democratic National Committee computers are hacked.
Sept. 2015: Glenn Simpson, co-founder of political opposition research firm Fusion GPS, is
hired by conservative website Washington Free Beacon to compile negative research on
presidential candidate Donald Trump and other Republicans.
Oct. 2015: President Obama uses a "confidentiality tradition" to keep his Benghazi emails
with Hillary Clinton secret.
Oct. 12, 2015: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of FBI Counterintelligence Division at New York Field Office with Louis
Bladel.
Oct. 22, 2015: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
publicly states that Clinton is "not under criminal investigation."
Clinton testifies to House Benghazi committee.
Oct. 23, 2015: Clinton campaign chair John Podesta meets for dinner with small group of
friends including a top Justice Dept. official Peter Kadzik.
Late 2015: Democratic operative Chalupa expands her
political opposition research about Paul Manafort to include Trump's ties to Russia. She
"occasionally shares her findings with officials from the Democratic National Committee and the
Clinton campaign."
Dec. 4, 2015: Donald Trump is beating his nearest Republican presidential competitor by 20
points in latest CNN poll .
Dec. 9, 2015: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of FBI Counterintelligence Division at Washington Field Office with Charles
Kable.
Dec. 23, 2015: FBI Director Comey
names Bill Priestap as assistant director of Counterintelligence Division.
2016
Obama officials vastly expand their searches through NSA database for Americans and the
content of their communications. In 2013, there were 9,600 searches involving 195 Americans.
But in 2016, there are 30,355 searches of 5,288 Americans.
Justice Dept. associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr
meets with Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele, the Yemen-born ex-British spy leading anti-Trump
political opposition research project.
January 2016: Democratic operative Ukrainian-American Chalupa tells a
senior Democratic National Committee official that she feels there's a Russia connection with
Trump.
Jan. 29, 2016: FBI Director Comey promotes
Andrew McCabe to FBI Deputy Director.
McCabe takes lead on Clinton probe even though his wife received nearly $700,000 in campaign
donations through Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe, who's also under FBI investigation.
March 2016: Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's email gets hacked.
Carter Page is named
as one of the Trump campaign's foreign policy advisers.
March 2, 2016: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of Intelligence Division of Washington Field Office with Gerald Roberts,
Jr.
March 11, 2016: Russian Evgeny Buryakovwhich pleads guilty to spying in FBI case that Carter
Page reportedly assisted with.
March 25, 2016: Ukrainian-American operative for Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chalupa
meets with top Ukrainian officials at Ukrainian Embassy in Washington D.C. to "expose ties
between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia," according to Politico. Chalupa
previously worked for the Clinton administration.
Ukrainian embassy proceeds to work "directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and
Russia to point them in the right directions," according
to an embassy official (though other officials later deny engaging in election-related
activities.)
March 29, 2016: Trump campaign hires Paul Manafort as manager of July Republican
convention.
March 30, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa briefs
Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff on Russia ties to Paul Manafort and Trump.
With "DNC's encouragement," Chalupa asks Ukrainian embassy to arrange meeting with Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko to discuss Manafort's lobbying for Ukraine's former president Viktor
Yanukovych. The embassy declines to arrange meeting but becomes "helpful" in trading info and
leads.
Ukrainian embassy officials and Democratic operative Chalupa "coordinat[e] an investigation
with the Hillary team" into Paul Manafort, according to a source in Politico. This effort
reportedly includes working with U.S. media.
April 2016: There's a second breach of Democratic National Committee computers.
Washington Free Beacon
breaks off deal with Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS for political opposition research against
Trump.
Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee lawyer Mark Elias and his law firm,
Perkins Coie, hire Fusion GPS for anti-Trump political research project.
Ukrainian member of parliament Olga Bielkova reportedly seeks meetings with
five dozen members of U.S. Congress and reporters including former New York Times reporter Judy
Miller, David Sanger of New York Times, David Ignatius of Washington Post, and Washington Post
editorial page editor Fred Hiatt.
April 5, 2016: Convicted spy Buryakov is turned over to Russia.
Week of April 6, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa and office of Rep.
Mary Kaptur (D-Ohio), co-chair of Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, discuss possible
congressional investigation or hearing on Paul Manafort-Russia "by September."
Chalupa begins working with investigative reporter Michael Isikoff, according to her later
account.
April 10, 2016: In national TV interview, President Obama states that Clinton did not intend
to harm national security when she mishandled classified emails. FBI Director James Comey later
concludes that Clinton should not face charges because she did not intend to harm national
security.
Around this time, the FBI begins drafting Comey's remarks closing Clinton email
investigation, though Clinton had not yet been interviewed.
April 12, 2016:" Ukrainian parliament member Olga Bielkova and a colleague meet"
with Sen. John McCain associate David Kramer with the McCain Institute. Bielkova also meets
with Liz Zentos of Obama's National Security Council, and State Department official Michael
Kimmage.
April 26, 2016: Investigative reporter Michael Isikoff publishes
story on Yahoo News about Paul Manafort's business dealings with a Russian oligarch.
April 27, 2016 : The BBC publishes
an article titled, "Why Russians Love Donald Trump."
April 28, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa is invited to discuss her
research about Paul Manafort with 68 investigative journalists from Ukraine at Library of
Congress for Open World Leadership Center, a U.S. congressional agency. Chalupa invites
investigative reporter Michael Isikoff to "connect(s) him to the Ukrainians."
After the event, reporter Isikoff accompanies Chalupa to Ukrainian embassy reception.
May 3, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa emails Democratic National Committee (DNC)
that she'll share
sensitive info about Paul Manafort "offline" including "a big Trump component that will hit in
next few weeks."
May 4, 2016: Trump locks up Republican nomination.
May 19, 2016: Paul Manafort is named Trump campaign chair.
May 23, 2016: FBI probe into Virginia governor and Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe
becomes public. (McAuliffe is ultimately not charged with a crime.)
Justice Department Inspector General confirms it's looking into FBI's Andrew McCabe for
alleged conflicts of interest in handling of Clinton and Gov. McAuliffe probes in light of
McAuliffe directing campaign donations to McCabe's wife.
FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, who are reportedly having an illicit affair, text
each other that Trump's ascension in the campaign will bring "pressure to finish" Clinton
probe.
Nellie Ohr, wife of Justice Dept. associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr and former CIA
worker, goes on the payroll of Fusion GPS and assists with anti-Trump political opposition
research. Her husband, Bruce, reportedly fails to disclose her specific employer and work in
his Justice Dept. conflict of interest disclosures.
June 2016: Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson "
hires Yemen-born ex-British spy Christopher
Steele for anti-Trump political opposition research project."Steele uses info from Russian
sources "close to Putin" to compile unverified "dossier" later provided to reporters and FBI,
which the FBI uses to obtain secret wiretap.
The
Guardian and Heat Street report that the FBI applied for a FISA warrant in June 2016 to
"monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials"
but that the "initial request was denied."
June 7, 2016: Hillary Clinton locks up the Democrat nomination.
June 9, 2016: Meeting in Trump Tower includes Donald Trump Jr., Trump campaign chair Paul
Manafort and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner with Russian lawyer who said he has political
opposition research on Clinton. (No research was ultimately provided.) According to
CNN , the FBI has not yet restarted a wiretap against Manafort but will soon do so.
June 10, 2016: Democratic National Committee (DNC) tells employees that its computer system
has been hacked. DNC blames Russia but refuses to let FBI examine its systems.
June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" publishes first hacked document from Clinton campaign chair
John Podesta.
June 17, 2016: Washington Post publishes front page story linking Trump to Russia: "Inside
Trump's Financial Ties to Russia and His Unusual Flattery of Vladimir Putin."
June 20, 2016: Christopher Steele
proposes taking some of Fusion GPS' research about Trump to FBI.
June 22, 2016: WikiLeaks begins publishing embarrassing, hacked emails from Clinton campaign
and Democratic National Committee.
June 27, 2016: Attorney General Loretta Lynch meets
privately with former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona.
Late June 2016: DCLeaks website begins publishing Democratic National Committee emails.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine signs evidence-sharing agreement with FBI and
will later publicly release a "ledger" implicating Paul Manafort in allegedly improper
payments.
June 30, 2016: FBI circulates internal draft of public remarks for FBI Director Comey to
announce closing of Clinton investigation. It refers to Mrs. Clinton's "extensive" use of her
personal email, including "from the territory of sophisticated adversaries," and a July 1, 2012
email to President Obama from Russia. The draft concludes it's possible that hostile actors
gained access to Clinton's email account.
Comey's remarks are revised to replace reference to "the President" with the phrase:
"another senior government official." (That reference, too, is removed from the final
draft.)
Attorney General Lynch tells FBI she plans to publicly announce that
she'll accept whatever recommendation FBI Director Comey makes regarding charges against
Clinton.
July 2016: Ukraine minister of internal affairs Arsen Avakov attacks Trump and Trump
campaign adviser Paul Manafort on Twitter and Facebook, calling Trump "an even bigger danger to
the US than terrorism."
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk writes on Facebook that Trump has
"challenged the very values of the free world."
Carter Page travels to Russia to give
a university commencement address. (Fusion GPS political opposition research would later quote
Russian sources as saying Page met with Russian officials, which Page denies under oath and is
not proven.)
One-time CIA operative Stefan Halper reportedly begins meetings with Trump advisers Carter
Page and George Papadopoulos, secretly gathering information for the FBI. These contacts begin
"prior to the date FBI Director Comey later claimed the Russian investigation began."
July 1, 2016: Under fire for meeting with former President Clinton amid the probe into his
wife, Attorney General Lynch publicly states she'll " accept
whatever FBI Director Comey recommends" without interfering.
FBI official Lisa Page texts her boyfriend, FBI official Peter Strzok, sarcastically
commenting that Lynch's proclamation is "a real profile in courage, since she knows no charges
will be brought."
Ex-British spy Christopher Steele writes Justice Department official Bruce Ohr that he wants
to discuss "our favourite business tycoon!" (apparently referencing Trump.)
July 2, 2016: FBI official Peter Strzok and other agents interview Clinton. They don't
record the interview. Two potential subjects of the investigation, Cheryl Mills and Heather
Samuelson, are allowed to attend as Clinton's lawyers.
July 5, 2016: FBI Director Comey recommends no charges against Clinton, though he concludes
she's been extremely careless in mishandling of classified information. Comey claims he hasn't
coordinated or reviewed his statement in any way with Attorney General Lynch's Justice
Department or other government branches. "They do not know what I am about to say," says
Comey.
Fusion GPS' Steele, an ex-British spy,
approaches FBI at an office in Rome with allegations against Trump, according to
Congressional investigators. Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr schedules a Skype conference call
with Steele.
Days after closing Clinton case, FBI official Peter Strzok signs document opening FBI probe
into Trump-Russia collusion.
July 10, 2016: Democratic National Committee (DNC) aide Seth Rich, reportedly a Bernie
Sanders supporter, is shot twice in the back and killed. Police suspect a bungled robbery
attempt, though nothing was apparently stolen. Conspiracy theorists speculate that Rich "not
the Russians" had stolen DNC emails after he learned the DNC was unfairly favoring Clinton. The
murder remains unsolved.
July 2016: Trump adviser Carter Page makes a business trip to Russia.
Obama national security adviser Susan Rice begins to show increased interest in National
Security Agency (NSA) intelligence material including "unmasked Americans" identities,
according to news reports referring to White House logs.
July 18-21, 2016: Republican National Convention
Late July 2016 : FBI agent Peter Strzok opens counterintelligence investigation based on
Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.
Democratic operative and Ukrainian-American Chalupa leaves the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) to work full-time on her research into Manafort, Trump and Russia; and provides
off-the-record guidance to "a lot of journalists."
July 22, 2016: WikiLeaks begins publishing hacked Democratic National Committee emails.
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange denies the email source is Russian.
July 25-28, 2016 : Democratic National Convention
July 30, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr meets with ex-British spy Christopher
Steele at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. Ohr brings his wife, Nellie, who -- like Steele --
works at Fusion GPS on the Trump-Russia oppo research project. Ohr
calls FBI Deputy Director McCabe.
July 31, 2016 : FBI's Peter Strzok formally begins
counterintelligence investigation regarding Russia and Trump. It's dubbed "Crossfire
Hurricane."
Aug. 3, 2016: Ohr reportedly meets with
McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page to discuss Russia-Trump collusion allegations relayed by
ex-British spy Steele. Ohr will later testify to Congress that he considered Steele's
information uncorroborated hearsay and that he told FBI agents Steele appeared motivated by a
"desperate" desire to keep Trump from becoming president.
Aug. 4, 2016: Ukrainian ambassador to U.S.
writes op-ed against Trump.
Aug. 8, 2016: FBI attorney Lisa Page texts her lover, FBI's head of Counterespionage Peter
Strzok,"[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Strzok replies,"No. No
he won't. We'll stop it."
Aug. 14, 2016: New York Times breaks story about cash payments made a decade ago to Paul
Manafort by pro-Russia interests in Ukraine. The ledger was released and publicized by the
National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.
Aug. 15, 2016: CNN reports the FBI is conducting an inquiry into Trump campaign chair Paul
Manafort's payments from pro-Russia interests in Ukraine in 2007 and 2009.
After a meeting discussing the election in FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's office, FBI's
Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok texts FBI attorney Lisa Page referring to the possibility
of Trump getting elected. "We can't take that risk," he writes. And they speak of needing an
"insurance policy."
Aug. 19, 2016: Paul Manafort resigns as Trump campaign chairman.
Ukrainian parliament member Sergii Leshchenko
holds news conference to draw attention to Paul Manafort and Trump's "pro-Russia" ties.
Aug. 22, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr meets with Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson who
identifies several "possible intermediaries" between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Late August 2016:
Reportedly working for the FBI, one-time CIA operative Professor Halper meets with Trump
campaign co-chair Sam Clovis offering his services as a foreign-policy adviser, according to
The Washington Post. Halper would later offer to hire Carter Page.
Approx. Aug. 2016: FBI initiates a new
wiretap against ex-Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, according to CNN, which extends at
least through early 2017.
Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS's Steele becomes FBI source and uses associate deputy attorney
general Bruce Ohr as point of contact. Steele tells Ohr that he's "desperate that Donald Trump
not get elected."
President Obama
warns Russia not to interfere in the U.S. election
Sept. 2, 2016: FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text that "[President Obama] wants
to know everything we're doing."
Sept. 13, 2016 : The nonprofit First Draft, funded by Google, whose parent company is run by
major Hillary Clinton supporter and donor Eric Schmidt, announces initiative to tackle "fake
news." It appears to be the first use of the phrase in its modern context.
Sept. 15, 2016: Clinton computer manager Paul Combetta appears before House Oversight
Committee but refuses to answer questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights.
Sept. 19, 2016: At UN General Assembly meeting, Ukrainian President Poroshenko meets with
Hillary Clinton.
Mid-to-late Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS's Christopher Steele's FBI contact tells him the agency
wants to see his opposition research "right away" and offers
to pay him $50,000, according to the New York Times, for solid corroboration of his salacious,
unverified claims. Steele
flies to Rome , Italy to meet with FBI and provide a "full briefing."
Sept. 22, 2016: Clinton computer aide Brian Pagliano is held in contempt of Congress for
refusing to comply with subpoena.
Sept. 23, 2016: It's revealed that Justice Department has granted five Clinton officials
immunity from prosecution: former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, State Department staffers John
Bentel and Heather Samuelson, and Clinton computer workers Paul Combetta and Brian
Pagliano.
Yahoo News publishes
report by Michael Isikoff about Carter Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. (The article is
apparently based on leaked info from Fusion GPS Steele anti-Trump "dossier" political
opposition research.)
Sept. 25, 2016 : Trump associate Carter Page writes letter
to FBI Comey objecting to the so-called "witch hunt" involving him.
Sept. 26, 2016 : Obama administration asks secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISC) court to allow National Counter Terrorism Center to access sensitive, "unmasked" intel
on Americans acquired by FBI and NSA. (The Court later approves the request.)
FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
emails his mistress FBI attorney Lisa Page that Carter Page's letter (dated the day before)
"...provides us a pretext to interview."
Sept. 27, 2016: Justice Department Assistant Attorney General of National Security Division
John Carlin announces he's stepping down. He was former chief of staff and senior counsel to
former FBI director Robert Mueller.
End of Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele
meet with reporters, including New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, the New Yorker
and CNN or ABC. One meeting is at office of Democratic National Committee general counsel.
Early October 2016: Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele, the Yemen-born author of anti-Trump
"dossier," meets in New
York with David Corn, Washington-bureau chief of Mother Jones.
According to
The Guardian, the FBI submits a more narrowly focused FISA wiretap request to replace one
turned down in June to monitor four Trump associates.
Oct. 3, 2016: FBI seizes computers belonging to Anthony Weiner, who is accused of sexually
texting an underage girl. Weiner is married to top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. FBI learns
there are Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop but waits several weeks before
notifying Congress and reopening investigation.
Oct. 4, 2016: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of Counterintelligence Division, New York Field Office with Charles
McGonigal.
Oct. 7, 2016: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Department of Homeland
Security issue statement saying Russian government is responsible for hacking Democrat emails
to disrupt 2016 election.
Oct. 13, 2016: President Obama gives a speech in support of the crackdown on "fake news" by
stating that somebody needs to step in and "curate" information in the "wild, wild West media
environment."
Oct. 14, 2016: FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
emails his mistress FBI attorney Lisa Page discussing talking points to convince FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe to persuade a high-ranking Dept. of Justice official to sign a warrant
to wiretap Trump associate Carter Page. The email subject line is "Crossfire FISA." "Crossfire
Hurricane" was one of the code names for four separate investigations the FBI conducted related
to Russia matters in the 2016 election.
"At a minimum, that keeps the hurry the F up pressure on him," Strzok emailed Lisa Page less
than four weeks before Election Day.
Mid-Oct. 2016: Fusion GPS' Steele again
briefs reporters about Trump political opposition research. The reporters are from the New
York Times, the Washington Post, and Yahoo News.
Oct. 16, 2016: Mary McCord is named Assistant Attorney General for Justice Department
National Security Division.
Oct. 18, 2016: President Obama
advises Trump to "stop whining" after Trump tweeted the election could be rigged. "There is
no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even you could even rig
America's elections," said Obama. He also calls Trump's "flattery" of Russian president Putin
"unprecedented."
In FBI emails, head of counterespionage Peter Strzok and his mistress FBI lawyer Lisa Page
discuss rushing approval for a FISA warrant for a Russia-related investigation code-named
"Dragon."
Oct. 19, 2016: Ex-British spy Christopher Steele writes his last memo for anti-Trump
"dossier" political opposition research provided to FBI. The FBI reportedly authorizes payment
to Steele. Fusion GPS has reportedly paid him $160,000.
Approx. Oct. 21, 2016: For the second time in several months, Justice Department and FBI
apply to wiretap former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. FBI Director James Comey and Deputy
Attorney General Sally Yates sign the application. This time, the request is approved based on
new FBI "evidence" including parts of Fusion GPS' "Steele dossier" and Michael Isikoff Yahoo
article. The FBI
doesn't tell the court that Trump's political opponent, the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee, funded the "evidence."
Oct. 24, 2016: Benjamin Wittes, confidant of FBI Director James Comey and editor-in-chief of
the blog Lawfare, writes
of the need for an "insurance policy" in case Trump wins. It's the same phrase FBI officials
Lisa Page and Peter Strzok had used when discussing the possibility of a Trump win.
Obama intel officials orally inform Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of an earlier
Inspector General review uncovering their "significant noncompliance" in following proper "702"
procedures safeguarding the National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence database with sensitive
info on US citizens.
Late Oct. 2016: Fusion GPS' Steele again
briefs reporter from Mother Jones by Skype about Trump political opposition research.
Oct. 26, 2016: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court holds hearing with Obama intel
officials over their "702" surveillance violations. The judge criticizes
NSA for "institutional lack of candor" and states "this is a very serious Fourth Amendment
issue."
Oct. 28, 2016: FBI Director Comey notifies Congress that he's reopening Clinton probe due to
Clinton emails found on Anthony Wiener laptop several weeks earlier.
Oct. 30, 2016: Mother Jones writer David Corn is first to report on the anti-Trump
"dossier," quoting unidentified former spy, presumed to be Christopher Steele. FBI general
counsel James Baker had reportedly been in touch with Corn but Corn later denies Baker was the
leaker.
FBI terminates its relationship with Steele because Steele had
leaked his FBI involvement in Mother Jones article.
Steele reportedly maintains backchannel contact with Justice Dept. through Deputy Associate
Attorney General Bruce Ohr.
Oct. 31, 2016: New York Times
reports FBI is investigating Trump and found no illicit connections to Russia.
Nov. 1, 2016: FBI concludes ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled anti-Trump
"dossier" using Russian sources, leaked to press and is not suitable for use as a confidential
source. However, Steele continues to "help," according to Jan. 31, 2017 texts to Justice Dept.
official Bruce Ohr.
Nov. 3, 2016: FBI Attorney Lisa Page texts FBI's Peter Strzok about her concerns that
Clinton might lose and Trump would become president: "The [New York Times] probability numbers
are dropping every day. I'm scared for our organization."
Nov. 6, 2016: FBI Director Comey tells Congress that Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner
computer do not change earlier conclusion: she should not be charged.
Nov. 8, 2016: Trump is elected president.
Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice's interest in NSA materials accelerates,
according to later news reports.
Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr
meets with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson shortly after election.
The FBI interviews Ohr about his ongoing contacts with Fusion GPS.
Nov. 9, 2016: An unnamed FBI attorney (later quoted in Dept. of Justice Inspector General
probe) texts another FBI employee, "I'm just devastated...I just can't imagine the systematic
disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone. Who knows if the
rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going
to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids.
And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to
fight this again. Also Pence is stupid....Plus, my god damned name is all over the legal
documents investigating [Trump's] staff."
Nov. 10, 2016 : Emails
imply top FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and Bill Priestap engaged in
a new mission to "scrub" or research lists of associates of President-elect Trump, looking for
potential "derogatory" information.
President Obama
meets with President-elect Trump in the White House and reportedly advises Trump not to
hire Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Nov. 2016: National Security Agency Mike Rogers
meets with president-elect Trump and is criticized for "not telling the Obama
administration."
Nov. 17, 2016: Trump
moves his Friday presidential team meetings out of Trump Tower.
Nov. 18, 2016: Trump names Flynn his national security adviser. Over the next few weeks,
Flynn communicates with numerous international leaders.
Nov. 18-20, 2016: Sen. John McCain and his longtime adviser, David Kramer--an ex-U.S. State
Dept. official--attend a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia where former UK ambassador
to Russia Sir Andrew Wood
tells them about the Fusion GPS anti-Trump dossier. (Kramer is affiliated with the anti-Russia "Ukraine
Today" media organization). They discuss confirming the info has reached top levels of FBI for
action.
Nov. 21, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr, works for Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates, meets with FBI officials including Peter Strzok, Strzok's girlfriend--FBI attorney Lisa
Page, and another agent. Ohr's notes indicate the FBI "may go back to [ex-British spy] Chris
Steele" of Fusion GPS just 20 days after dismissing him.
Nov. 28, 2016: Sen. McCain associate David Kramer flies to London to meet Christopher Steele
for a briefing on the anti-Trump research. Afterward, Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson gives Sen.
McCain a copy of the "dossier." Steele also
passes anti-Trump info to top UK government official in charge of national security. Sen.
McCain soon arranges a meeting with FBI Director Comey.
Late Nov. 2016: Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr officially tells
FBI about his contacts with Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele and about Ohr's wife's contract work
for Fusion GPS.
Nov. 30, 2016 : UN Ambassador Samantha Power makes request to unmask the name of Trump
National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was "incidentally" captured by intel
surveillance.
Dec. 2016: Text messages between FBI officials Strzok and Page are later said to be "lost"
due to a technical glitch beginning at this point.
Dec. 2, 2016: UN Ambassador Samantha Power and Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper request to unmask the name of Trump National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn,
who was "incidentally" captured by intel surveillance.
Dec. 6, 2016: Two more Obama administration officials request to unmask the name of
Flynn.
Dec. 7, 2016 : Power makes another Flynn unmasking request.
Dec. 8 or 9, 2016: Sen. John McCain
meets with FBI Director Comey at FBI headquarters and
hands over Fusion GPS anti-Trump research, elevating the FBI's investigation into the
matter. The FBI compiles a classified two-page summary and attaches it to intel briefing note
on Russian cyber-interference in election for
President Obama .
Hillary Clinton makes a public appearance denouncing "fake news."
Hillary Clinton and Democratic operative David Brock of Media Matters announces he's leaving
board of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), one of his many
propaganda and liberal advocacy groups, to focus on "fake news" effort.
Brock later claims credit, privately to donors, for convincing Facebook to crack down on
conservative fake news.
Dec. 14, 2017 : There are
10 more requests to unmask Flynn's name in intelligence, including two by Power, CIA
Director Brennan, and six officials from the Treasury Dept.
Dec. 15, 2016: Obama intel officials "incidentally" spy on Trump officials meeting with the
United Arab Emirates crown prince in Trump Tower. This is taken to mean the government was
wiretapping the prince and "happened to capture" Trump officials communicating with him at
Trump Tower. Identities of Americans accidentally captured in such surveillance are strictly
protected or "masked" inside intel agencies for constitutional privacy reasons.
Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice
secretly "unmasks" names of the Trump officials, officially revealing their identities.
They reportedly include: Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Director of National Intelligence Clapper expands rules to allow the National Security
Agency (NSA) to widely disseminate classified surveillance material within the government. The
same day,
17 Obama officials request the unmasking of Lt. Gen. Flynn in intelligence.
Dec. 16, 2016 : Five more Obama officials request unmasking of intelligence materials
regarding Lt. Gen. Flynn.
Dec. 23, 2016 : Power request another Flynn unmasking.
Dec. 28, 2016 :
Lt. Gen. Flynn speaks with Russia ambassador.
Clapper and the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey request Flynn unmasking.
Dec. 29, 2016: President Obama imposes sanctions against Russia for its alleged election
interference.
President-elect Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn
speaks with Russian Ambassador to U.S. Sergey Kislyak. The calls are wiretapped by U.S.
intelligence and later leaked to the
press.
State Department
releases 2,800 work-related emails from Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, found
by FBI on laptop computer of Abedin's husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner.
2017
Jan. 2017: According to CNN: a
wiretap reportedly continues against former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, including
times he speaks to Trump, meaning U.S. intel officials could have "accidentally" captured
Trump's communications.
Justice Dept. Inspector General confirms it's investigating several aspects of FBI and
Justice Department actions during Clinton probe.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testifies to Congress that Russia interfered
in U.S. elections by spreading fake news on social media.
Justice Dept. official Peter Kadzik, who "tipped off" Hillary Clinton campaign regarding
Congressional questions about Clinton's email, leaves government work for private practice.
The FBI interviews a main source of Christopher Steele's "dossier" and learns the
information was merely bar room gossip and rumor never meant to be taken as fact or submitted
to the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Carter Page. (The FBI
does not notify the court and applies for, and receives, another wiretap against Page).
Early Jan. 2017: FBI renews
wiretap against Carter Page. FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates
again sign the application.
Jan. 3, 2017: Obama Attorney General Lynch signs rules Director of National Intelligence
Clapper expanded Dec. 15 allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to widely disseminate
surveillance within the government.
Jan. 5, 2017: Intelligence Community leadership including FBI Director Comey, Yates, CIA
Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, provides classified
briefing to President Obama, Vice President Biden and National Security Adviser Susan Rice on
alleged Russia hacking during 2016 campaign, according to notes later written by national
security adviser Susan Rice.
After briefing, according notes made later by Rice, President Obama convenes Oval Office
meeting with her, FBI Director Comey, Vice President Biden and Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates. The "Steele dossier" is reportedly discussed. Also reportedly discussed: Trump National
Security Adviser Flynn's talks with Russia's ambassador.
Jan. 6, 2017: FBI Director Comey and other Intel leaders meet with President-Elect Trump and
his national security team at Trump Tower in New York to brief them on alleged Russian efforts
to interfere in the election.
Later, Obama national security adviser Susan Rice would write herself an email stating that
President Obama suggested they hold back on providing Trump officials with certain info for
national security reasons.
After Trump team briefing, FBI Director Comey meets alone with Trump to "brief him" on
Fusion GPS Steele allegations "to alert the incoming President to the existence of this
material," even though it was salacious and unverified. Comey later says Director of National
Intelligence Clapper asked him (Comey) to do the briefing personally.
Jan. 7, 2017 : Clapper and two other Obama administration officials request Flynn
unmasking.
Jan. 10, 2017: The 35-page Fusion GPS anti-Trump "dossier" is leaked to the media and
published. It reveals that sources of the unverified info are Russians close to President
Putin.
Email written by FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
indicates the FBI has been given the anti-Trump "dossier" by at least 3 different
anti-Trump sources.
A CIA official makes a Flynn unmasking request.
Jan. 11, 2017 : Power makes another Flynn unmasking request.
Jan. 12, 2017: Obama administration finalizes new rules allowing NSA to spread "certain
intel to" other U.S. intel agencies without normal privacy protections.
Justice Dept. inspector general announces review of alleged misconduct by FBI Director Comey
and other matters related to FBI's Clinton probe as well as FBI leaks.
Vice President Joe Biden and the Treasury Secretary request the unmasking of Flynn in
intelligence communications.
Someone leaks to to David Ignatius of the Washington Post that Trump National Security
Adviser Flynn had called Russia's ambassador. "What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the US
sanctions?" asked Ignatius in the article.
Jan. 13, 2017: Senate Intelligence Committee
opens investigation into Russia and U.S. political campaign officials.
Jan. 15, 2017: After leaks about Flynn's call with Russia's ambassador, Vice President-elect
Mike Pence tells the press that Flynn did not discuss U.S. sanctions on the call.
Jan. 20, 2017: Trump becomes president.
Fifteen minutes after Trump becomes president, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice
emails memo to herself purporting to summarize the Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting with President
Obama and other top officials. She states that Obama instructed the group to investigate "by
the book" and asked them to be mindful whether there were certain things that "could not be
fully shared with the incoming administration."
Jan. 22, 2017: Intel info leaks to Wall Street Journal which reports
"US counterintelligence agents have investigated communications" between Trump aide Gen.
Michael Flynn and Russia ambassador to the U.S. Kislyak to determine if any laws were
violated.
Jan. 23, 2017: Leak to Washington Post falsely claims Trump National Security Adviser Flynn
is not the subject of an investigation.
Jan. 24, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates sends two FBI agents, including Peter
Strzok, to the White House to question Gen. Flynn. FBI Director Comey later takes credit for
"sending a couple of guys" to interview Flynn, circumventing normal processes.
Notes kept
hidden until May 2020 show FBI officials discussing whether the goal of the meeting with Flynn
was to "get him to lie" so that he would be fired or prosecuted.
Jan. 26, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and a high-ranking colleague go to White
House to tell counsel Don McGahn that Flynn had lied to Pence about the content of his talks
with Russian ambassador and "the underlying conduct that Gen. Flynn had engaged in was
problematic in and of itself."
Jan. 27, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates again visits the White House.
Jan. 31, 2017: President Trump fires Acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she refuses
to enforce his temporary travel ban on Muslims coming into U.S. from certain countries.
Ex-British spy Christopher Steele texts Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr who worked for
Yates: "B, doubtless a sad and crazy day for you re- SY."
Dana Boente becomes Acting Attorney General. (It's later revealed that Boente signed at
least one wiretap application against former Trump adviser Carter Page.)
Feb. 2, 2017: It's reported
that five men employed by House of Representatives Democrats, including leader Debbie Wasserman
Schultz (D-Florida), are under criminal investigation for allegedly "accessing House IT systems
without lawmakers' knowledge." Suspects include three Awan brothers "who managed office
information technology for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and
other lawmakers."
Feb. 3, 2017: A Russian tech mogul named in the Steele "dossier" files defamation lawsuits
against BuzzFeed in the U.S. and Christopher Steele in the U.K. over the dossier's claims he
interfered in U.S. elections.
Feb. 8, 2017: Jeff Sessions becomes Attorney General and Dana Boente moves to Deputy
Attorney General.
Feb. 9, 2017: News of FBI wiretaps capturing Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen.
Michael Flynn speaking with Russia's ambassador is leaked to the press. New York Times and
Washington Post report Flynn discussed U.S. sanctions, despite his earlier denials. The Post
also reports the FBI "found nothing illicit" in the talks. The Post headline in an article by
Greg Miller, Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima reads, "National Security Adviser Flynn Discussed
Sanctions with Russian Ambassador, Despite Denials, Officials Say."
Feb. 13, 2017 : Washington Post
reports Justice Dept. has opened a "Logan Act" violation investigation against Trump
national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Feb. 14, 2017: New York Times reports
that FBI had told Obama officials there was no "quid pro quo" (promise of a deal in exchange
for some action) discussed between Gen. Flynn and Russian ambassador Kislyak.
Gen. Flynn resigns, allegedly acknowledging he misled vice president Mike Pence about the
content of his discussions with Russia.
Comey says that, in a meeting, Trump states, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting
this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Comey says he
replies "he is a good guy." Trump later takes issue with Comey's characterization of the
meeting.
Feb. 15, 2017 : NPR
reports on "official transcripts of Flynn's calls" (saying they show no wrongdoing but that
doesn't rule out illegal activity).
Feb. 17, 2017: Washington Post reports that "Flynn told FBI he did not discuss sanctions"
with Russia ambassador and that "Lying to the FBI is a felony offense."
Feb. 24, 2017 : FBI interviews Flynn, according to later testimony from Deputy Attorney
General Sally Yates.
March 1, 2017: Washington Post reports Attorney General Jeff Sessions has met with Russian
ambassador twice in the recent past (as did many Democrat and Republican officials). His
critics say that contradicts his earlier testimony to Congress. The article by Adam Entous,
Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller raises the idea of a special counsel to investigate.
March 2017: FBI Director James Comey
gives private briefings to members of Congress and reportedly says he does not believe Gen.
Flynn lied to FBI.
House Intelligence Committee requests list of unmasking requests Obama officials made. The
intel agencies do not provide the information, prompting a June 1 subpoena.
March 2, 2017: Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuses himself from Russia-linked
investigations.
Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, becomes Acting Attorney General for Russia
Probe. It's later revealed that Rosenstein singed at least one wiretap application against
former Trump adviser Carter Page.
March 4, 2017: President Trump tweets: "Is it legal for a sitting President to be 'wire
tapping' a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"
and "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election
process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"
March 10, 2017: Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, steps forward to support
Trump's wiretapping claim, revealing that the Obama administration intel officials recorded his
own communications with a Libyan official in Spring 2011.
March 14, 2017 : FBI Attorney Lisa Page texts FBI official Peter Strzok: "Finally two pages
away from finishing [All the President's Men]. Did you know the president resigns in the end?!"
Strzok replies, "What?!?! God, that we should be so lucky. [smiley face emoji]"
March 20, 2017 : FBI Director Comey tells House Intelligence Committee he has "no
information that supports" the President's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by
the prior administration. "We have looked carefully inside the FBI," Comey says. "(T)he answer
is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components."
FBI Director Comey tells Congress there is "salacious and unverified" material in the Fusion
GPS dossier used by FBI, in part, to obtain Carter Page wiretap. (Under FBI "Woods Procedures,"
only facts carefully verified by the FBI are allowed to be presented to court to obtain
wiretaps.)
March 22, 2017: Chairman of House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) publicly
announces he's seen evidence of Trump associates being "incidentally" surveilled by Obama intel
officials; and their names being "unmasked" and illegally leaked. Nunes briefs President Trump
and holds a news conference. He's criticized for doing so. An ethics investigation is opened
into his actions but later clears him of wrongdoing.
In an interview on PBS, former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice responds to Nunes
allegations by stating: "I know nothing about this, I really don't know to what Chairman Nunes
was referring." (She later acknowledges unmasking names of Trump associates.)
March 2017: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) writes Justice Dept. accusing Fusion GPS of
acting as an agent for Russia "without properly registering" due to its pro-Russia effort to
kill a law allowing sanctions against foreign human rights violators. Fusion GPS denies the
allegations.
March 24, 2017: Fusion GPS declines to answer Sen. Grassley's questions or document
requests.
March 27, 2017: Former Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas admits she encouraged
Obama and Congressional officials to "get as much information as they can" about Russia and
Trump officials before inauguration. "That's why you have the leaking," she told MSNBC.
Early April, 2017: A third FBI wiretap on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page is
approved.
Again, FBI Director James Comey, and acting attorney general Dana Boente sign the application.
Trump officials including Mike Pompeo at the CIA are now leading the intel agencies during the
wiretap.
April 3, 2017: Multiple news reports state that Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice
had requested and reviewed "unmasked" intelligence on Trump associates whose information was
"incidentally" collected by intel agencies.
April 4, 2017: Obama former National Security Adviser Rice admits, in an interview, that she
asked to reveal names of U.S. citizens previously masked in intel reports. She says her
motivations were not political. When asked if she leaked names, Rice states, "I leaked nothing
to nobody."
April 6, 2017: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes recuses himself from Russia
part of his committee's investigation.
April 11, 2017: FBI Director Comey
appoints Stephen Laycock as special agent in charge of Counterintelligence Division for
Washington Field Office.
Washington Post reports FBI secretly obtained wiretap against Trump campaign associate
Carter Page last summer. (Later, it's revealed the summer wiretap had been turned down, but a
subsequent application was approved in October.)
April 20, 2017: Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord resigns as acting head of
Justice Dept. National Security Division. She'd led probes of Russia interference in election
and Trump-Russia ties.
April 28, 2017: Dana Boente is appointed acting assistant attorney general for national
security division to replace Mary McCord. (Boente has signed one of the questioned wiretap
applications for Carter Page.)
National Security Agency (NSA) submits remedies for its egregious surveillance violations
(revealed last October) to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court promising to "no longer
collect certain internet communications that merely mention a foreign intelligence target." The
NSA also begins deleting collected data on U.S. citizens it had been storing.
May 3, 2017: FBI Director Comey
testifies he's "mildly nauseous" at the idea he might have affected election with the 11th
hour Clinton email notifications to Congress.
Comey also testifies
he's "never" been an anonymous news source on "matters relating to" investigating the Trump
campaign.
Obama's former national security adviser Susan Rice declines Republican Congressional
request to testify at a hearing about unmaskings and surveillance.
May 8, 2017: Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper testify to Congress. They
admit having reviewed "classified documents in which Mr. Trump, his associates or members
of Congress had been unmasked," and possibly discussing it with others under the Obama
administration.
May 9, 2017: President Trump fires FBI Director James Comey. Andrew McCabe becomes acting
FBI Director.
May 12, 2017: Benjamin Wittes, confidant of ex-FBI Director James Comey and editor in chief
of Lawfare, contacts New York Times reporter Mike Schmidt to
leak conversations he'd had with Comey as FBI Director that are critical of President
Trump.
May 16, 2017: New York Times
publishes leaked account of FBI memoranda recorded by former FBI Director James Comey.
Comey later acknowledges engineering the leak of the FBI material through his friend, Columbia
Law School professor Daniel Richman, to spur appointment of special counsel to investigate
President Trump.
Trump reportedly
interviews , but passes over, former FBI Director Robert Mueller for position of FBI
Director.
May 17, 2017: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints Robert Mueller as Special
Counsel, Russia-Trump probe. Mueller and former FBI Director Comey are friends and worked
closely together in previous Justice Dept. and FBI positions.
The gap of missing text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ends. The
couple is soon assigned to the Mueller team investigating Trump.
May 19, 2017: Anthony Wiener, former Congressman and husband of Hillary Clinton confidant
Huma Abedin, turns himself in to FBI in case of underage sexting ; his third major
kerfuffle over sexting in six years.
May 22, 2017 : FBI Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok texts FBI Attorney Lisa Page about
whether Strzok should join Special Counsel Mueller's investigation of Trump-Russia collusion.
Strzok spoke of "unfinished business" that he "unleashed" with the Clinton classified email
probe and stated: "Now I need to fix it and finish it." He also referred to the Special Counsel
probe, which hadn't yet begun in earnest, as an "investigation leading to impeachment." But he
also stated he had a "gut sense and concern there's no big there there."
June 1, 2017: House Intelligence Committee issues 7 subpoenas, including for information
related to unmaskings requested by ex-Obama officials national security adviser Susan Rice,
former CIA Director John Brennan, and former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power.
June 8, 2017: Former FBI Director James Comey admits having engineered
leak of his own memo to New York Times to spur appointment of a special counsel to
investigate President Trump.
June 20, 2017: Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe names Philip Celestini as Special Agent in
Charge of the Intelligence Division, Washington Field Office.
Late June, 2017: FBI renews
wiretap against Carter Page for the fourth and final time that we know of. It lasts through
late Sept. 2017. (Page is never ultimately charged with a crime.) FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein sign the renewal application.
Late July, 2017: FBI reportedly searches Paul Manafort's Alexandria, Virginia home.
Summer 2017: FBI lawyer Lisa Page is reassigned from Mueller investigation. Her boyfriend,
FBI official Peter Strzok is removed from Mueller investigation after the Inspector General
discovers compromising texts between Strzok and Page. Congress is not notified of the
developments.
Aug. 2, 2017: Christopher Wray is named FBI Director.
August 2017: Ex-FBI Director Comey signs a book deal for a reported $2 million.
Sept. 13, 2017: Under questioning from Congress, Obama's former National Security Adviser
Susan Rice reportedly admits having requested to see the protected identities of Trump
transition officials "incidentally" captured by government surveillance.
Approx. Oct. 10, 2017: Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
pleads guilty to lying to FBI about his unsuccessful efforts during the campaign to
facilitate meetings between Trump officials and Russian officials.
Oct. 17, 2017: Obama's former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power reportedly tells Congressional
investigators that many of the hundreds of "unmasking" requests in her name during the election
year were not made by her.
Oct. 24, 2017: Congressional Republicans announce new investigations into a 2010
acquisition that gave Russia control of 20% of U.S. uranium supply while Clinton was secretary
of state; and FBI decision not to charge Clinton in classified info probe.
Oct. 30, 2017: Special Counsel Mueller
charges ex-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and business associate Rick Gates with tax
and money laundering crimes related to their foreign work. The charges do not appear related to
Trump.
Nov. 2, 2017: Carter Page
testifies to House Intelligence committee under oath without an attorney and asks to have
the testimony published. He denies ever meeting the Russian official that Fusion GPS claimed
he'd met with in July 2016.
Nov. 5, 2017: Special Counsel Robert Mueller
files charges against ex-Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for
allegedly lying to FBI official Peter Strzok about contacts with Russian ambassador during
presidential transition.
Dec. 1, 2017: Former national security adviser Gen. Flynn pleads guilty of
lying to the FBI. Prosecutors recommend no prison time (but later reverse their
recommendation).
James Rybicki steps down as chief of staff to FBI Director.
Dec. 6, 2017: Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr is reportedly stripped of one of
his positions at Justice Dept. amid controversy over his and his wife's role in anti-Trump
political opposition research.
Dec. 7, 2017: FBI Director Wray incorrectly testifies that there have been no "702"
surveillance abuses by the government.
Dec. 19, 2017: FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly testifies that the wiretap
against Trump campaign official Carter Page would not have been approved without the Fusion GPS
info. FBI general counsel James Baker, who is himself subject of an Inspector General probe
over his alleged leaks to the press, attends as McCabe's attorney. McCabe acknowledges that if
Baker had met with Mother Jones reporter David Corn, it would have been inappropriate.
FBI general counsel James Baker is
reassigned amid investigation into his alleged anti-Trump related contacts with
media.
2018
Jan. 4, 2018: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
refer criminal
charges against Christopher Steele to the FBI for investigation. There's an apparent
conflict of interest with the FBI being asked to investigate Steele since the FBI has used
Steele's controversial political opposition research to obtain wiretaps.
Jan. 8, 2018: Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr loses his second title at the agency.
Jan. 10, 2018: Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen files defamation
suits against Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed News for publishing the "Steele dossier," which he says
falsely
claimed he met Russian government officials in Prague, Czech Republic, in August of
2016.
Jan. 11, 2018: House of Representatives approves government's
controversial "702" wireless surveillance authority. The Senate follows suit.
Jan. 19, 2018: Justice Dept. produces to Congress some text messages between FBI officials
Lisa Page and Peter Strzok but states that FBI lost texts between December 14, 2016 and May 17,
2017 due to a technical glitch.
President Trump signs six-year extension of "702" wireless surveillance authority.
Jan. 23, 2018: Former FBI Director Comey friend who leaked on behalf of Comey to New York
Times to spur appointment of special counsel is now Comey's attorney.
Jan. 25, 2018: Justice Dept. Inspector General notifies Congress it has recovered missing
text messages between FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.
Jan. 27, 2018: Edward O'Callaghan is
named Acting Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division.
Jan. 29, 2018: Andrew McCabe steps down as Deputy
FBI Director
ahead of his March retirement.
Jan. 30, 2018: News reports
allege that Justice Department Inspector General is looking into why FBI Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe appeared to wait three weeks before acting on new Clinton emails found right
before the election.
Feb. 2, 2018: House Intelligence Committee (Nunes) Republican memo is released. It
summarizes classified documents revealing for the first time that Fusion GPS political
opposition research was used, in part, to justify Carter Page wiretap; along with Michael
Isikoff Yahoo News article based on the same opposition research.
Memo also states that Fusion GPS set up back channel to FBI through Nellie Ohr, who
conducted opposition research on Trump and passed it to her husband, associate deputy attorney
general Bruce Ohr.
Feb. 7, 2018: Justice Department official David Laufman, who helped oversee the Clinton and
Russia probes, steps down as chief of National Security Division's Counterintelligence and
Export Control Section.
Feb. 9, 2018: Former FBI Director Comey assistant Josh Campbell leaves FBI for job at
CNN.
Justice Department Associate Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, Rachel Brand,
resigns.
Feb. 16, 2018: Special counsel Mueller obtains guilty plea from a Dutch attorney for
lying to federal investigators about the last time he spoke to Rick Gates regarding a 2012
project related to Ukraine. The
plea does not appear to relate to 2016 campaign or Trump. The Dutch attorney is married to
the daughter of a Russian oligarch who's suing Buzzfeed and Christopher Steele for alleged
defamation in the "dossier."
Feb. 22, 2018: Former State Dept. official and Sen. John McCain associate David Kramer
invokes his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before House Intelligence Committee. Kramer
reportedly picked up the anti-Trump political opposition research in London and delivered it to
Sen. McCain who delivered it to the FBI.
Special counsel Mueller
files new charges against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and former campaign
aide Rick Gates, accusing them of additional tax and bank fraud crimes. The allegations appear
to be unrelated to Trump.
Fri. Feb. 23, 2018: Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates,
pleads guilty to conspiracy and lying to investigators (though he issues a statement saying
he's innocent of the indictment charges). The allegations and plea have no apparent link to
Trump-Russia campaign collusion.
Sat. Feb. 24, 2018: Democrats on House Intel Committee release
their rebuttal memo to the Republican version that summarized alleged FBI misconduct re: using
the GPS Fusion opposition research to get wiretap against Carter Page.
March 12, 2018 : House Intelligence Committee
closes Russia-Trump investigation with no evidence of collusion.
Fri. March 16, 2018 : Attorney General Jeff Sessions fires Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe, based on recommendation from FBI ethics investigators.
Thurs. March 22, 2018 : President Trump announces plans to replace
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster with former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John
Bolton.
House Judiciary Committee issues
subpoenas to Department of Justice after Department failed to produce documents.
May 4, 2018 : Amid allegations that he was responsible for improper leaks, FBI attorney
James Baker resigns and joins the Brookings Institution, writing for the anti-Trump blog
"Lawfare" that first discussed the need for an "insurance policy" in case Trump got
elected.
2019
March 2019 : Special Counsel Robert Mueller signs off on his final report stating
that there was no collusion or coordination between Trump -- or any American -- and Russia. He
leaves as an open question the issue of whether Trump took any actions that could be considered
obstruction. No new charges are recommended or filed with the issuance of the report.
June 2019 : Former Trump National Security Adviser Flynn fire his defense attorneys and
hires Sidney Powell.
Oct. 25, 2019 : Flynn files a motion to dismiss the case against him due to prosecutorial
misconduct. Among other claims, Flynn says prosecutors failed to turn over exculpatory material
tending to show his innocence. Prosecutors claim they were not required to turn over the
information.
Dec. 19, 2019 : An investigation by Inspector General
Michael Horowitz finds egregious abuses by FBI and Justice Department officials in obtaining
wiretaps of former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. The report also says an FBI attorney
doctored a document, providing false information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court, to get the wiretaps.
2020
Jan. 7, 2020 : Prosecutors reverse their earlier recommendation for no prison time, and ask
for up to six months in prison for Flynn.
Jan. 16, 2020 : Flynn files a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Jan. 23, 2020 : The Dept. of Justice
finds that two of its wiretaps against former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page were
improperly obtained and are therefore invalid.
Feb. 10, 2020: The Dept. of Justice asks a judge to sentence Trump associate Roger Stone to
7 to 9 years in prison for lying about his communications with WikiLeaks.
Feb. 11, 2020 : The Dept. of Justice reduces its recommendation for prison time for Stone
after President Trump and others criticized the initial representation as excessive. Stone
receives three years and four months in prison.
Feb. 20, 2020: President Trump
appoints Richard Grenell as acting Director of National Intelligence. Grenell begins
facilitating the release of long withheld documents regarding FBI actions against Trump
campaign associates.
March 31, 2020 : A Justice Dept. Inspector General's
analysis of more than two dozen wiretap applications from eight FBI field offices over two
months finds "we do not have confidence" that the bureau followed standards to ensure the
accuracy of the wiretap requests.
April 3, 2020 : Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court asks FBI to review whether it
wiretaps are valid in light of information about problems and abuses.
April 29, 2020 : Newly-released documents show FBI officials, prior to
their original interview with Flynn, discussing whether the goal was to try to get him to lie
to get him fired or so that he could be prosecuted.
May 7, 2020 : The Department of Justice announces a decision to drop the case against
Flynn.
CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic
Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long
Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete
evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee's server.
Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry: "We just don't have the evidence..."
CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry's admission under oath, in a recently declassified
December 2017 interview before the House Intelligence Committee, raises new questions about
whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public.
The allegation that Russia stole Democratic Party emails from Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and
others and then passed them to WikiLeaks helped trigger the FBI's probe into now debunked
claims of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the 2016 election. The
CrowdStrike admissions were released just two months after the Justice Department retreated
from its its other central claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election when it dropped
charges against Russian troll farms it said had been trying to get Trump elected.
Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being
warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by the DNC, which refused to turn
over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the
DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at
all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically]
from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.
Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions:
"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in
this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence
that says it actually left."
"There's not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial
evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."
" There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network... We
didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the
circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."
"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but
we believe it left, based on what we saw."
Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out
of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."
Rep. Adam Schiff: Democrat held up interview transcripts, but finally relented after acting
intel director Richard Grenell suggested he would release them himself. (Senate Television via
AP)
In a later exchange with Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, Henry offered an explanation
of how Russian agents could have obtained the emails without any digital trace of them leaving
the server. The CrowdStrike president speculated that Russian agents might have taken
"screenshots" in real time. "[If] somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all
the email," Henry said. "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they
would have knowledge of what was in the email. There would be ways to copy it. You could take
screenshots."
Henry's 2017 testimony that there was no "concrete evidence" that the emails were stolen
electronically suggests that Mueller was at best misleading in his 2019 final report, in which
he stated that Russian intelligence "appears to have compressed and exfiltrated over 70
gigabytes of data from the file server."
It is unlikely that Mueller had another source to make his more confident claim about
Russian hacking.
The stolen emails, which were published by Wikileaks – whose founder, Julian Assange
has long denied they came from Russia – were embarrassing to the party because, among
other things, they showed the DNC had favored Clinton during her 2016 primary battles against
Sen. Bernie Sanders for the presidential nomination. The DNC eventually issued an apology to
Sanders and his supporters "for the inexcusable remarks made over email." The DNC hack was
separate from the FBI's investigation of Clinton's use of a private server while serving as
President Obama's Secretary of State.
The disclosure that CrowdStrike found no evidence that alleged Russian hackers exfiltrated
any data from the DNC server raises a critical question: On what basis, then, did it accuse
them of stealing the emails? Further, on what basis did Obama administration officials make far
more forceful claims about Russian hacking?
Michael Sussmann: This lawyer at Perkins Coie hired CrowdStrike to investigate the DNC
breach. He was also involved with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele in producing the
discredited Steele dossier.
The January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which formally accused Russia of a
sweeping influence campaign involving the theft of Democratic emails, claimed the Russian
intelligence service GRU "exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC." A July 2018
indictment claimed that GRU officers "stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC
employees."
According to everyone concerned, the cyber-firm played a critical role in the FBI's
investigation of the DNC data theft. Henry told the panel that CrowdStrike "shared intelligence
with the FBI" on a regular basis, making "contact with them over a hundred times in the course
of many months." In congressional testimony that same year, former FBI Director James Comey
acknowledged that the FBI "never got direct access to the machines themselves," and instead
relied on CrowdStrike, which "shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."
According to Comey, the FBI would have preferred direct access to the server, and made
"multiple requests at different levels," to obtain it. But after being rebuffed, "ultimately it
was agreed to [CrowdStrike] would share with us what they saw."
Henry's testimony seems at variance with Comey's suggestion of complete information sharing.
He told Congress that CrowdStrike provided "a couple of actual digital images" of DNC hard
drives, out of a total number of "in excess of 10, I think." In other cases, Henry said,
CrowdStrike provided its own assessment of them. The firm, he said, provided "the results of
our analysis based on what our technology went out and collected." This disclosure follows
revelations from the case of Trump operative Roger Stone that CrowdStrike provided three
reports to the FBI in redacted and draft form. According to federal prosecutors, the government
never obtained CrowdStrike's unredacted reports.
CrowdStrike's newy disclosed admissions raise new questions about whether Special Counsel
Robert Mueller (above), intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public.
There are no indications that the Mueller team accessed any additional information beyond
what CrowdStrike provided. According to the Mueller report, "the FBI later received images of
DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs." But if the FBI obtained only "copies" of data
traffic – and not any new evidence -- those copies would have shown the same absence of
"concrete evidence" that Henry admitted to.
Adding to the tenuous evidence is CrowdStrike's own lack of certainty that the hackers it
identified inside the DNC server were indeed Russian government actors. Henry's explanation for
his firm's attribution of the DNC hack to Russia is replete with inferences and assumptions
that lead to "beliefs," not unequivocal conclusions. "There are other nation-states that
collect this type of intelligence for sure," Henry said, "but what we would call the tactics
and techniques were consistent with what we'd seen associated with the Russian state." In its
investigation, Henry said, CrowdStrike "saw activity that we believed was consistent with
activity we'd seen previously and had associated with the Russian Government. We said that we
had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government."
But CrowdStrike was forced to retract a similar accusation months after it accused Russia in
December 2016 of hacking the Ukrainian military, with the same software that the firm had
claimed to identify inside the DNC server.
The firm's work with the DNC and FBI is also colored by partisan affiliations. Before
joining CrowdStrike, Henry served as executive assistant director at the FBI under Mueller.
Co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the
Atlantic Council, the pro-NATO think tank that has consistently promoted an aggressive policy
toward Russia. And the newly released testimony confirms that CrowdStrike was hired to
investigate the DNC breach by Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie – the same Democratic-tied
law firm that hired Fusion GPS to produce the discredited Steele dossier, which was also
treated as central evidence in the investigation. Sussmann played a critical role in generating
the Trump-Russia collusion allegation. Ex-British spy and dossier compiler Christopher Steele
has
testified in British court that Sussmann shared with him the now-debunked Alfa Bank server
theory, alleging a clandestine communication channel between the bank and the Trump
Organization.
Henry's recently released testimony does not mean that Russia did not hack the DNC. What it
does make clear is that Obama administration officials, the DNC and others have misled the
public by presenting as fact information that they knew was uncertain. The fact that the
Democratic Party employed the two private firms that generated the core allegations at the
heart of Russiagate -- Russian email hacking and Trump-Russia collusion – suggests that
the federal investigation was compromised from the start.
The 2017 Henry transcript was one of dozens just released after a lengthy dispute. In
September 2018, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee unanimously voted to
release witness interview transcripts and sent them to the U.S. intelligence community for
declassification review. In March 2019, months after Democrats won House control, Rep. Adam
Schiff ordered the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to withhold the
transcripts from White House lawyers seeking to review them for executive privilege. Schiff
also refused to release vetted transcripts, but finally relented after acting ODNI Director
Richard Grenell suggested this month that he would release them himself.
Several transcripts, including the interviews of former CIA Director John Brennan and Comey,
remain unreleased. And in light of the newly disclosed Crowdstrike testimony, another secret
document from the House proceedings takes on urgency for public viewing. According to Henry,
Crowdstrike also provided the House Intelligence Committee with a copy of its report on the DNC
email theft.
@Sgt.
Joe Friday "Actually, Maddow considers herself a Serious Journalist. She "speaks truth to
power," and she'd probably be the first to tell you that. Repeatedly.
Limbaugh on the other hand, if asked to pick a word to describe his profession would
likely say "entertainer.""
While in actuality, the roles are very nearly reversed. (Nearly only because I don't find
Maddow amusing)
Chancellor Angela Merkel that stupid? "Chancellor Angela Merkel used strong words on Wednesday condemning an "outrageous"
cyberattack by Russia's foreign intelligence service on the German Parliament, her personal
email account included. Russia, she said, was pursuing "a strategy of hybrid warfare."
Notable quotes:
"... That alleged attack happened in 2015. The attribution to Russia is as shoddy as all attributions of cyberattacks are. ..."
"... Intelligence officials had long suspected Russian operatives were behind the attack, but they took five years to collect the evidence, which was presented in a report given to Ms. Merkel's office just last week. ..."
"... This is really funny because we recently learned that the company which investigated the alleged DNC intrusion, CrowdStrike, had found no evidence , as in zero, that a Russian hacker group had targeted the DNC or that DNC emails were exfiltrated over the Internet: ..."
"... CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee's server. ..."
"... The DNC emails were most likely stolen by its local network administrator, Seth Rich , who provided them to Wikileaks before he was killed in a suspicious 'robbery' during which nothing was taken. ..."
"... The whole attribution of case of the stolen DNC emails to Russia is based on exactly nothing but intelligence rumors and CrowdStrike claims for which it had no evidence. As there is no evidence at all that the DNC was attacked by a Russian cybergroup what does that mean for the attribution of the attack on the German Bundestag to the very same group? ..."
The New York Times continues its anti-Russia campaign with a report about an old
cyberattack on German parliament which also targeted the parliament office of Chancellor Angela
Merkel.
Chancellor Angela Merkel used strong words on Wednesday condemning an "outrageous"
cyberattack by Russia's foreign intelligence service on the German Parliament, her personal
email account included. Russia, she said, was pursuing "a strategy of hybrid warfare."
But asked how Berlin intended to deal with recent revelations implicating the Russians,
Ms. Merkel was less forthcoming.
"We always reserve the right to take measures," she said in Parliament, then immediately
added, "Nevertheless, I will continue to strive for a good relationship with Russia, because
I believe that there is every reason to always continue these diplomatic efforts."
That alleged attack happened in 2015. The attribution to Russia is as shoddy as all
attributions of cyberattacks are.
Intelligence officials had long suspected Russian operatives were behind the attack, but they
took five years to collect the evidence, which was presented in a report given to Ms.
Merkel's office just last week.
Officials say the report traced the attack to the same Russian hacker group that targeted
the Democratic Party during the U.S. presidential election campaign in 2016.
This is really funny because we recently learned that the company which investigated the
alleged DNC intrusion, CrowdStrike,
had found no evidence , as in zero, that a Russian hacker group had targeted the DNC or
that DNC emails were exfiltrated over the Internet:
CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic
Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the
years-long Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had
no concrete evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National
Committee's server.
...
[CrowdStrike President Shawn] Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of
the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by
the DNC, which refused to turn over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged
Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in
fact know if such a theft occurred at all : "We did not have concrete evidence that the data
was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was
exfiltrated," Henry said.
The DNC emails were most likely stolen by its local network administrator, Seth Rich , who provided
them to Wikileaks before he was killed in a suspicious 'robbery' during which nothing was
taken.
The whole attribution of case of the stolen DNC emails to Russia is based on exactly nothing
but intelligence rumors and CrowdStrike claims for which it had no evidence. As there is no
evidence at all that the DNC was attacked by a Russian cybergroup what does that mean for the
attribution of the attack on the German Bundestag to the very same group?
While the NYT also mentions that NSA actually snooped on Merkel's private phonecalls
it tries to keep the spotlight on Russia:
As such, Germany's democracy has been a target of very different kinds of Russian
intelligence operations, officials say. In December 2016, 900,000 Germans lost access to
internet and telephone services following a cyberattack traced to Russia.
That mass attack on internet home routers, which by the way happened in November 2016 not in
December, was done with the Mirai
worm :
More than 900,000 customers of German ISP Deutsche Telekom (DT) were knocked offline this
week after their Internet routers got infected by a new variant of a computer worm known as
Mirai. The malware wriggled inside the routers via a newly discovered vulnerability in a
feature that allows ISPs to remotely upgrade the firmware on the devices. But the new Mirai
malware turns that feature off once it infests a device, complicating DT's cleanup and
restoration efforts.
...
This new variant of Mirai builds on malware
source code released at the end of September . That leak came a little more a week after
a botnet based on Mirai was used in a record-sized
attack that caused KrebsOnSecurity to go offline for several
days . Since then, dozens of new Mirai botnets have emerged , all
competing for a finite pool of vulnerable IoT systems that can be infected.
The attack has not been attributed to Russia but to a British man who offered attacks as a
service.
He was arrested in February 2017:
A 29-year-old man has been arrested at Luton airport by the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA)
in connection with a massive internet attack that disrupted telephone, television and
internet services in Germany last November. As regular readers of We Live Security will
recall, over 900,000 Deutsche Telekom broadband customers were knocked offline last November
as an alleged attempt was made to hijack their routers into a destructive botnet.
...
The NCA arrested the British man under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Germany's Federal
Criminal Police Office (BKA) who have described the attack as a threat to Germany's national
communication infrastructure.
According to German prosecutors, the British man allegedly offered to sell access to the
botnet on the computer underground. Agencies are planning to extradite the man to Germany,
where – if convicted – he could face up to ten years imprisonment.
During the trial, Daniel admitted that he never intended for the routers to cease
functioning. He only wanted to silently control them so he can use them as part of a DDoS
botnet to increase his botnet firepower. As discussed earlier he also confessed being paid by
competitors to takedown Lonestar.
In Aug 2017 Daniel was
extradited back to the UK to face extortion charges after attempting to blackmail Lloyds
and Barclays banks. According to press reports, he asked the Lloyds to pay about
£75,000 in bitcoins for the attack to be called off.
The Mirai attack is widely known to have been attributed to Kaye. The case has been
discussed
at length . IT security journalist Brian Krebs, who's site was also attacked by a Mirai bot
net, has written several
stories about it. It was never 'traced to Russia' or attributed it to anyone else but Daniel
Kaye.
Besides that Kennhold writes of "Russia's foreign intelligence service, known as the
G.R.U.". The real Russian foreign intelligence services is the SVR. The military intelligence
agency of Russia was once called GRU but has been renamed to GU.
The New York Times just made up the claim about Russia hacking in Germany from
absolutely nothing. The whole piece was published without even the most basic research and fact
checking.
It seems that for the Times anything can be blamed on Russia completely independent
of what the actually facts say.
Posted by b on May 14, 2020 at 14:38 UTC |
Permalink
Along the same lines, it always bothered me that among all the (mostly contrived)
arguments about who might have been responsible for the alleged "hacking" of DNC as well as
Clinton's emails, we never heard mentioned one single time the one third party that we
absolutely KNOW had intercepted and collected all of those emails--the NSA! Never a peep
about how US intelligence services could be tempted to mischief when in possession of
everyone's sensitive, personal information.
The "Fancy Bear" group (also knowns as advanced persistent threat 28) that is claimed to be
behind the hacks is likely little more than the collection of hacking tools shared on the
open and hidden parts of RuNet or Russian-speaking Internet. Many of these Russian-speaking
hackers are
actually Ukrainians .
Some of the Russian hackers also worked for the FSB, like the members of Shaltai
Boltai group that were later arrested for treason. George Eliason claims Shaltai Boltai
actually worked for Ukrainians. For a short version of the story read this:
Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the
"Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian
intelligence linked to the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at
one of his recent essays...
Patrick
Armstrong , May 14 2020 15:27 utc |
3 Wow! You've done it again. I was just writing my Sitrep and thinking what an amazing
coincidence it is that, just as the Russian pipelaying ship arrived to finish Nord Stream,
Merkel is told that them nasty Russkies are doing nasty things. I come here and you've
already solved it. Yet another scoop. Congratulations.
The NYT has removed that sentence about the attack on internet/phone access:
"Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed responsibility for a 2016
cyberattack in which 900,000 Germans lost access to internet and telephone services. The
attack was carried out by a British citizen, not Russia. The article also misstated when the
attack took place. It was in November, not December. The sentence has been removed from the
article. "
From this we can learn that anything can be blamed by MSM, completely independent of what the
facts are. It is not limited to allegations related to Russia or China, but any and all
claims by MSM that have no direct reference to provable fact.
great coverage b... thank you... facts don't matter.. what matters is taking down any
positive image of russia, or better - putting up a constantly negative one... of this the
intel and usa msm are consistent... the sad reality is a lot of people will believe this
bullshit too...
i was just reading paul robinsons blog last night -
#DEMOCRACY RIP AND THE NARCISSISM OF RUSSIAGATE .. even paul is starting to getting
pissed off on the insanity of the media towards russia which is rare from what i have read
from him!
@ 3 patrick armstrong.. keep up the good work!! thanks for your work..
There is already a correction made to the DT attack - someone reads MofA! Shame they don't
get more of their new interpretation form here.
Whole piece reads here like it started as a Merkel gets close to Russia piece, shown
around to colleagues and politicians for feedback, and a ton of fake "why Merkel actually
hates the Russians" nonsense was added in.
After all pretty much everyone has tapped Merkel's phone by now.
Absolutely remarkable; in fact, 'stunning', as he uses it, is not too much of a stretch. The
'liberal elites' just go right on lying even though the sworn testimony of FBI interviewers
is available for anyone to read, as well as the chilling manipulations of Strozk and Page,
both of whom should be in prison and perhaps will be. And that fucker Schiff should swing. I
can't believe the transformation of Carlson from Bush shill to the reincarnation of Edward R.
Murrow. He makes this case so compellingly that nobody could watch that clip and not believe
that Flynn was railroaded from the outset. And what were they allegedly going to jail Flynn's
son for? Does anyone know? Were they just going to make something up? That is terrifying, and
almost argues for the disbanding of the FBI, although it demonstrably still contains honest
agents – as Carlson asks rhetorically, how many times have they done this already, and
gotten away with it?
It's hard to imagine anyone would vote Democrat now.
Couldn't have been too much of a crime, if they offered to let him go in exchange for Flynn
pleading guilty to lying. Actually, you'd kind of think their business was prosecuting crimes
whoever committed them, and that offering to excuse a crime in exchange for a guilty plea is
.kind of a crime.
Man, they have to clean house at the FBI. And there probably are several other
organizations that need it, too. Not the political culling based on ideology that was a
feature of the Bush White House, but the crowd that's in now just cannot be allowed to get
off with nothing.
Greetings Mark and all, I am a new arrival as Jen suggested the company is fine here for
barflies to ponder the world. Can I surmise that if Flynn and son were the FBI targets for
nefarious business dealings then surely Biden and son fall in to that same category. After
all Biden and son filched millions after arranging a USA loan of $1Billion to Ukraine and
then did it again after the IMF loaned a few million more. Carpetbagging and its modern day
practice is a crime in the USA last I looked.
If that conspicuous bias isn't enough cause to dismember the FBI then consider the Uranium
One deal that Hillary Clinton and family set up or perhaps the Debbie Wasserman Shultz
fostering the Awan family spy and blackmail ring.
Good day, Uncle, and welcome! For some reason I can't fathom, the Democrats seem to own or
control all the 'respectable' media in the USA. FOX News is an exception, and has been a
mouthpiece for the Republicans since its inception. But the Democrats control the New York
Times and the Washington Post, which together represent the bulk of American public feeling
to foreigners, and probably to the domestic audience as well. They are extremely active on
conflicts between the two parties, ensuring the Democratic perspective gets put forward in
calm, reasonable why-wouldn't-a-sensible-person-think-this-way manner. At the same time they
cast horrific aspersions at the Republicans. Not that either are much good; but the news
coverage is very one-sided – the position of the Democrats on the sexual-assault furor
over the Kavanaugh appointment compared with their wait-and-see attitude to very similar
accusations against Biden is a classic example.
I don't think its the Democrats that control the NYT &WP, so much as plutocrats.
They're also the ones who fund both the Democrats & the Republicans. The only significant
difference between the parties is largely in the arena of the social "culture war" issues.
But on the issues plutocrats care about, like economic policy & foreign policy, the
differences are shades of grey, rather than actual distinctions.
Just remember the coverage of both papers in the run up to George W Shrub's catastrophic
Iraq war. They're stenographers, not journalists.
That may well be true, but the NYT and WP historically champion the Democrats, endorse the
Democratic candidate for president, and pander to Democratic issues and projects. The Wall
Street Journal is the traditional Republican print outlet, and there might be others but I
don't know them. CNN is overwhelmingly and weepily Democratic in its content – Wolf
Blitzer's eyes nearly roll back in his head with ecstasy whenever he mentions Saint Hillary
– while FOX News is Repubican to the bone and openly contemptuous of liberals. It could
certainly be, on reflection probably is, that the same cabal of corporatists control them
all, and a fine joke they must think it. And I certainly and emphatically agree there is
almost no difference between the parties in execution of external policy.
"... Ideally, they should each be prosecuted with an attempt to discern their connections to the political establishment, and specifically to the Clintons. What does that woman have to do to get jailed – blow somebody away on the 6 o'clock news? ..."
After a prescient 2017 tip from inside the FBI, a slow drip of revelations exposed the
deep problems with the Flynn prosecution.
####
All at the link.
I should add that the author, seasoned investigative reporter John Soloman, wrote much of
this over at TheHill.com and was targeted for review over his clearly labelled 'opinion'
pieces reporting on the Bidens in the Ukraine. The Hill's conclusion is piss weak and accuses
him of what just about every other journalist in the US does and reads in particular of
holding him up to a much higher standard than others. As you will see from his twatter bio,
he's worked for AP, Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Hill. Some things you are
just not supposed to investigate, let alone report.
At an absolute minimum, the FBI officials involved – except those who did their jobs
properly and stated their judgments at the outset that there was no evidence Flynn was not
telling the truth, or believed he was – should be fired and their pensions, if
applicable, rescinded.
Ideally, they should each be prosecuted with an attempt to discern their connections
to the political establishment, and specifically to the Clintons. What does that woman have
to do to get jailed – blow somebody away on the 6 o'clock news?
@Al
Lipton He strikes me as just another leader out for his own self image, and legacy. I
took this opinion given his foreign policy – the shows for his isolationist base, and
his continuous almost wars for the MIC. I do say almost wars, and that says something. We're
I a US citizen, and one to vote for humans, I would vote for Trump this time, but he is
imperfect imo, and it's only a coincidence that on some issues what benefits him, aligns with
what benefits the nation.
The timing of ObamaGate for example – we all knew it, it would go from snail's pace
to a decent speed just as the election cycle was heating up. But this is playing politics and
electioneering with the most critical misdirection and criminality of US officials in a long
time. A real leader who worked for the nation and its Constitution only, would bugger all
that and start draining as soon as could be done.
Of course that could be coincidence, and they could have been building a strong case, but
as someone else said, I will take my conspiracy theory over some coincidence theory any
day.
I can't imagine that without ObamaGate, he would have even tried to drain the swamp. Made
showpieces of it sure, but no thing major. But now he can do what he promised and maybe even
wanted to do, without reputational damage, and he will do it.
But how he will be in his second term, through a depression that was on its way in 6
months before corona? Like FDR I'd guess – war war war.
Although amica, or amicus briefs can be routine in civil cases, in a criminal case, it is
a prosecutor's duty to decide things as basic as whether to prosecute a case.
But in the Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn matter, Sullivan says he now needs outside help.
The need, the judge says, came following the DOJ decision to end prosecution of the
general, having determined there was no crime; the heretofore prosecution of him was a
phantom of the opera.
Sullivan now wants an encore.
What might that be?
Pirates of Penzance?
Sullivan Flies Over the Cuckoo's Nest?
In a recent order the judge said he will invite outside parties -- outside of the DOJ --
to provide this judge "unique information or perspective that can help the court."
The absurdity of Sullivan notwithstanding, it could be: he recognizes he is sitting on a
volcano, partly of his own making because of decisions he made; and those of Judge Rudy
Contreras, the man who was on the bench when Flynn plead to the false charges, circa Dec. 1,
2017.
Neither Contreras, nor Flynn's Covington lawyers, prior this plea, demanded the DOJ
produce original FBI 302s -- of the Jan. 24, 2017 FBI interview of Flynn -- to show the
concrete substance, that is, actual evidence, that would purportedly show the general
lied.
The DOJ never produced this. Ever.
Sullivan, he never asked nor demanded nor got to read those original 302s either, even
though he has been sitting on this case since Dec. 7, 2017.
After a year of sitting on the case, Flynn said he was ready to be sentenced: the
prosecutors had said they were fine with no jail time for him.
During this Dec. 18, 2018 hearing, Sullivan Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
[If you have not, read transcript of this hearing, it's at least a half-hour read.]
Sullivan told Flynn he could face 15 years in jail, implied he committed treason, was a
traitor to his country, blah blah blah.
The prosecutor at the time, Brandon Van Grack, told the Pirate of Penzance that more
assistance of Flynn was needed for the bogus Mueller investigation.
Sullivan [Gilbert was not in the courtroom] then allowed Flynn's sentencing hearing to be
continued, so long as Mueller submitted monthly progress reports to ascertain the general was
cooperating with the special counsel office's "investigation" of nonexistent "crimes" against
who knows what at that point.
To recap: Sullivan threatened Flynn with 15 years in prison; Flynn withdrew his
willingness to be sentenced at that time; Van Grack out of nowhere said the general needed to
cooperate some more with Mueller.
Had Sullivan not gone rouge at this hearing; had he demanded and gotten the original 302s,
I would give more credence to what I'll say next.
The only rational reason, I think, Sullivan said he needs "help" -- before consummating
the DOJ's request to end this matter – is simple.
Sullivan knows he is sitting on a volcano, and he can't take the heat.
Thus, he might be creating conditions for a last hurrah of nonsense from the enemies of
justice who are the enemies of Flynn, who want to file amica with the court.
Put another way, the judge is inviting the very circus he claim to want to avoid, in his
Minute Order.
Reason I'm not necessarily opposed to this circus is practical: more sunshine can be
brought to this prosecution, this malicious and political perecution of Flynn –
sunshine, via the DOJ release document after document that just piles onto the record
DOJ/FBI/CIA lawlessness that was directed against and targeted Flynn. And perhaps other
delicious nuggets, too.
When the smoke clears, the fat lady finally sings, Sullivan can say or claim he did
everything to give everyone their say, blah blah blah, and hope like hell everyone forgets
this Pirate's dereliction of duty, as a judge with a lifetime appointment.
Perhaps, should this show go on, we might discover why Contreras mysteriously recused
himself right after the Flynn pleas.
Perhaps we will read all of the Covington law firm Eric Holder and Michael Chertoff
emails, and what they were saying about Flynn, the good, the bad, the ugly.
And, since Barry decided to directly and publicly insert himself in this fiasco last week,
with his remark about Flynn and "perjury," who knows what other documents will be filed on
the docket. [Obama's pre meditated use of "perjury" when he knows it was not about that,
indicates just how sinister his public involvement now is.]
I would like to see all of Sullivan's communications, work related and private, involving
the Flynn case.
Please file all of them on the docket, Judge Sullivan, un-redacted, you who opened this
can of worms. [So we can see if you, by your own "standards" might be a "security threat" or
"sold out your country," etc.]
Sullivan didn't start this fire; he did pour gasoline on it.
". . . .Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. . . ."[Epistle
to the Galatians]
There several fuzzy, unexplainable moments in this whole story:
1. Why Flynn intentionally violated White House protocol for questioning of Trump
administration officials? He was fired by Obama-Brennan mafia for questioning Obama policies
and during this period he should obtain more or less complete understanding of the modus of
operation of this mafia and should not have any illusions about them, should he ?
2. How he did not sense the danger? Why no lawyer was present during the interview? It is
impossible that Flynn did not understand that both Strzok and his boss were essentially
plants from CIA in FBI and indirectly reported to Brennan ?
3. Why in this chess party between former paratrooper and former DIA chief (who has a
Master of Business Administration in Telecommunications from Golden Gate University) and such
a sleazy, feminine second, if not third rate individual as Strzok, the simplest defensive
move was to ask for transcripts of his talks with conversations with Kislyak was not used?
Why Flynn so easily fall a victim of a primitive, textbook entrapment? It is inconceivable
that he does not understand that such a full transcript exist. Why he behaved like a 17 year
old detailed by a police officer?
4. On Jan 23, 2017 Russiagate hysteria was in full bloom. So any normal individual would
understand where are the legs of questions that Strzok asked him during the interview just
based on this simple fact. Also it is unconceivable that neither he, not Trump has no
information about the actions of Comey and his henchmen from former Flynn colleagues in DIA.
Why no preemptive strikes against McCabe and Strzok plot were fired?
5. How important was the fact that Comey and his henchmen have Flynn by the balls due to
his lobbing efforts for Turkey in this whole story ?
"... In light of such a history of distrust – the president who'd promised to not only shutter the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison but also end the seemingly eternal wars in the Middle East had not only failed to deliver on those promises, but actually launched several new wars in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan – it's no surprise Americans are reluctant to embrace the Trump administration's Covid-19 narrative. ..."
"... Like the fabled boy who cried wolf, it doesn't matter if the emergency is real this time – the government has simply worn out its welcome by making demands on false pretenses. ..."
Just over a third of Americans trust President Donald Trump's information about the
Covid-19 pandemic, according to a new poll. But given decades of crises mishandled by the
government, the only surprise is that it isn't lower. A CNN poll showing that just 36 percent
of Americans trust Trump for reliable information about the coronavirus was held up
triumphantly by the president's critics on Tuesday as proof his credibility is circling the
drain. But it's more likely to be the fallout not just from Trump, but from the two preceding
presidential administrations' misrepresentation of crises, that has created epidemic levels of
distrust among the people.
Trump's own approval rating is hovering around 45 percent, according to the poll, conducted
by CNN in conjunction with SSRS and released on Tuesday. While it's been presented as a
scathing mass rejection of Trump, the same pollsters are actually seeing an uptick in support
for the president – the approval rating last month stood at 44 percent, and the previous
month's was 43. But Americans can't be faulted for distrusting the Trump administration's
narratives, given prior presidents' tendencies toward crying wolf in ways that have invariably
left the American people worse off.
The last time Washington tried to mobilize the US with the threat of an invisible enemy was
during George W. Bush's 'War on Terror' after the September 11 attacks. While it soon became
apparent that the many deaths that occurred on that day had nothing to do with the subsequent
US invasions of Afghanistan and then Iraq, it was too late by the time Americans found out they
had been lied to. Not only had the Afghan government willingly offered up Osama bin Laden, but
Saddam Hussein was found to have had no 'weapons of mass destruction', and the entire narrative
was the concoction of a secretive entity that had been set up to create a casus belli for war
with Iraq despite the facts.
Bush's approval ratings declined
steadily following 9/11, as the nation was forced into one war after another on false
pretenses. At his lowest point, just 25 percent of Americans trusted him. The 'invisible enemy'
of terrorism – supposedly lurking around every corner and requiring Americans to
practically disrobe at entrances to airports – had lost its luster, and Bush's poor
handling of real-life crises like Hurricane Katrina put the final nail in the coffin of his
credibility.
While Barack Obama entered office on a high note with a promise of " hope and
change ," his approval rating also plunged quickly – especially when he refused to
stand in the way of the wildly unpopular 2008 'Wall Street bailout' –
sinking to 41 percent in 2011 as Americans grew restive after years of recession with no
change in sight. By 2014, 70 percent of
respondents to an MSNBC poll stated the country was headed in the wrong direction, with 80
percent singling out the political system as the primary culprit. Congress enjoyed an
appallingly low 14 percent approval rating.
In light of such a history of distrust – the president who'd promised to not only
shutter the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison but also end the seemingly eternal wars in the
Middle East had not only failed to deliver on those promises, but actually launched several new
wars in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan – it's no surprise Americans are reluctant
to embrace the Trump administration's Covid-19 narrative.
Another invisible enemy that requires
them to sacrifice their livelihoods – a
third of Americans couldn't pay their rent last month, while even the paltry $1,200
stimulus checks supposedly heading to 130 million Americans have apparently not reached
half their intended recipients yet – is reminding Americans of what happened last
time they were told to put aside their real-life concerns and fall in line behind a narrative
that turned out to be false.
Like the fabled boy who cried wolf, it doesn't matter if the
emergency is real this time – the government has simply worn out its welcome by making
demands on false pretenses.
"... former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing Russians and Iranians covertly" ). ..."
"... Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute : ..."
"... He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus. As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government." ..."
Washington now says it's all about defeating the Russians . While it's not the first time
this has been thrown around in policy circles (recall that a year after Russia's 2015 entry
into Syria at Assad's invitation, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell
admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing
Russians and Iranians covertly" ).
"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."
Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to
Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His
comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute :
Asked why the American public should tolerate US involvement in Syria, Special Envoy James
Jeffrey points out the small US footprint in the fight against ISIS. "This isn't Afghanistan.
This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the
Russians."
He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as
part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in
exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus.
As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of
Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria -
international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of
government."
"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."
Special US envoy to Syria - James Jeffery
He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding,
reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government. https://t.co/MSAkQqAmdh
But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's real proxy war interests all
along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300 into the hands of Assad (and
amid constant Israeli attacks). But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's
real proxy war interests all along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300
into the hands of Assad (and amid constant Israeli attacks).
As for oil, currently Damascus is well supplied by the Iranians, eager to dump their stock
in fuel-starved Syria amid the global glut. Trump has previously voiced that part of US troops
"securing the oil fields" is to keep them out of the hands of Russia and Iran.
* * *
Recall the CIA's 2016 admission of what's really going on in terms of US action in
Syria:
"... it's clear that Obama was always the vector through which the entire investigation into Donald Trump pointed. He's the only one with the power to have marshaled the forces arrayed against Trump for the past four years. ..."
"... What's clear now is the President Obama's administration was regularly engaged in illegally using NSA database access to spy on Americans and political opponents . This operation pre-dates Trump by a few years ..."
"... On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the database after he learned FISA-702 "about"(17) and "to/from"(16) search queries were being done without authorization ..."
"... And that's when everything changed. Because at that point, having lost access Obama's spy team needed another way into the NSA database. Enter Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele and the ridiculous dossier used to issue FISA warrants on Carter Page and all the rest of it. ..."
"... Obama is guilty of the highest crimes a President can be guilty of, utilizing Federal law enforcement and intelligence services to spy on a political opponent during an election. This is after eight years of ruinous wars, coups both successful and not, drone-striking U.S. citizens and generally carrying on like the vandal he is. ..."
"... Obama's people have been covering for him for nearly four years now. They have been exposed as bald-faced liars by the transcripts of their impeachment testimonies to Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee. ..."
"... Now that the heat is rising and the apparatus they used to control turns its attention to what they did, enough of them will roll over and give Attorney General William Barr what he wants. ..."
"... And here we are coming into the home stretch and the bitter end is staring these people in the face. They've lost all credibility, corrupted whole swaths of the Federal government beyond recognition and activated every resource they have in the media and the chattering classes to make manifest a bald-faced lie. And it didn't work. Now the desperation sets in. The exoneration of Gen. Michael Flynn, the release of the transcripts and conflicting stories told by John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and the rest all point to something beyond sinister. ..."
"... You can smell the fear now. From Bill Kristol to John Brennan they can see the end of their project, whether it was for a New American Neocon Century or just the cynical push for a transnational oligarchy based around the European Union, their Utopian dreams have run into the immovable object of a people refusing to believe their lies anymore. ..."
From the beginning of the story RussiaGate was always about Barack Obama . I didn't always see it that way, certainly. My seething
hatred for all things Hillary Clinton is a powerful blind spot I admit to freely.
But, it's clear that Obama was always the vector through which the entire investigation into Donald Trump pointed. He's the
only one with the power to have marshaled the forces arrayed against Trump for the past four years.
We've known this for a couple of years now but there were a seemingly endless series of distractions put in place to obfuscate
the truth...
Donald Trump was not a Russian agent.
What's clear now is the President Obama's administration was regularly engaged in illegally using NSA database access to spy
on Americans and political opponents . This operation pre-dates Trump by a few years.
It was de rigeur by the time the election cycle ramped up in 2016. The timing of events is during that time period paints a very
damning picture.
This article from Zerohedge by way of
Conservative Treehouse lays out the timing, the activities and the shifts in the narrative that implicate Obama beyond any doubt.
On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the
database after he learned FISA-702 "about"(17) and "to/from"(16) search queries were being done without authorization. Thus
begins the first discovery of a much bigger background story.
And that's when everything changed. Because at that point, having lost access Obama's spy team needed another way into the
NSA database. Enter Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele and the ridiculous dossier used to issue FISA warrants on Carter Page and all
the rest of it.
The details are all there for anyone with eyes willing to see, the question is whether anyone deep in the throes of Trump Derangement
Syndrome will take their eyes off the shadow play in front of them long enough to look.
I'm not holding my breath.
Obama is guilty of the highest crimes a President can be guilty of, utilizing Federal law enforcement and intelligence services
to spy on a political opponent during an election. This is after eight years of ruinous wars, coups both successful and not, drone-striking
U.S. citizens and generally carrying on like the vandal he is.
-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
May 12, 2020
... ... ...
These people obviously missed the key point about Goebbels' Big Lie theory of propaganda. For it to work there has to be a nugget
of truth to wrap the lie in before you can repeat it endlessly to make it real. And that's why RussiaGate is dead. Long live ObamaGate.
Obama's people have been covering for him for nearly four years now. They have been exposed as bald-faced liars by the transcripts
of their impeachment testimonies to Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee.
None of them were willing to testify under oath, and be guilty of perjury, to the effect that Trump was colluding with the Russians.
But, they'd say it on TV, Twitter and anywhere else they could to attack Trump with patent nonsense.
Now that the heat is rising and the apparatus they used to control turns its attention to what they did, enough of them will
roll over and give Attorney General William Barr what he wants. Some of them will fall on their sword for Obama.
But I don't think Trump will be satisfied with that. He has to know that Obama is the key to truly draining the Swamp if that
is, in fact, his goal. Because if he doesn't attack Obama now, Obama will be formidable in October. Both men are fighting for their
lives at this point.
Trump was supposed to roll over and play nice. But Pat Buchanan rightly had him pegged at the beginning of this back in January
of 2017, saying that Trump wasn't like Nixon, he wouldn't walk away to protect the office of the Presidency. He would fight to the
bitter end because that's who he is.
And here we are coming into the home stretch and the bitter end is staring these people in the face. They've lost all credibility,
corrupted whole swaths of the Federal government beyond recognition and activated every resource they have in the media and the chattering
classes to make manifest a bald-faced lie. And it didn't work. Now the desperation sets in. The exoneration of Gen. Michael Flynn,
the release of the transcripts and conflicting stories told by John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and the rest all point to
something beyond sinister.
You can smell the fear now. From Bill Kristol to John Brennan they can see the end of their project, whether it was for a
New American Neocon Century or just the cynical push for a transnational oligarchy based around the European Union, their Utopian
dreams have run into the immovable object of a people refusing to believe their lies anymore.
"... House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election . ..."
"... Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment. ..."
"... Fox 's Henry said that he has obtained independent confirmation of the pro-Clinton Russia claim made by Fleitz . ..."
"... Brennan's concealment of this key information was yet another link in the chain of the Obama administration's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian asset - a hoax supported by the Clinton-funded Steele dossier, which the FBI knew was Russian disinformation (or, more likely, Steele's Russophobic fantasies) before they used it as a predicate to spy on Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 election. ..."
Former CIA director John Brennan suppressed intelligence which
indicated that Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because "she was a known quantity," vs. the
unpredictable Donald Trump, according to Fox News ' Ed Henry.
During a Tuesday night discussion with Tucker Carlson, Henry said that Brennan "also had
intel saying, actually, Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because she was a known quantity,
she had been secretary of state, and Vladimir Putin's team thought she was more malleable,
while candidate Donald Trump was unpredictable."
Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin has fond memories of the time Bill Clinton
hung out at his 'private homestead' during the same trip where he collected a $500,000
payday for a speech at a Moscow bank, right before the Uranium One deal was approved.
And as
Breitbart 's Joel Pollak notes, Henry's claim backs up a similar
allegation by former National Security Council chief of staff Fred Fleitz , who said on
April 22:
House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation
reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan
suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more
predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election .
Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet
intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted
Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also
objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment.
Fox 's Henry said that he has obtained independent confirmation of the pro-Clinton Russia
claim made by Fleitz .
Brennan's concealment of this key information was yet another link in the chain of the Obama
administration's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian asset - a hoax supported by the
Clinton-funded Steele dossier, which the FBI
knew was Russian disinformation (or, more likely, Steele's Russophobic fantasies) before
they used it as a predicate to spy on Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 election.
And now, Brennan is a contributor on MSNBC. How fitting.
Recently, there's been rather heated
debate – a sort of progressive civil war – over what's being called "
lesser
evil " voting. To Biden, or not to Biden; that seems the existential question. However,
most discussion centers on whether Joe Biden would be a meaningfully better than Donald Trump
on domestic policy: healthcare, taxes, immigration, and – of course – the
coronavirus response. Fair questions, all; but on one subject – over which presidents
have near
limitless power – Biden's extensive record provides clear answers. For when it
comes to foreign – especially military – policy, the man has hardly ever been
right. On war, Biden's is a blood-soaked litany indeed.
Biden's foreign policy has been one big series of gambles. In the past, he's even framed
it as such. Undoubtedly, few remember the time way back in Barack Obama's first term, when
Biden – assigned as the administration's point-man on all
things Iraq – predicted with absolute certainty that the Baghdad government would
accede to the enduring presence of small numbers of American troops after the December 31,
2011 "end of combat operations." In fact, the ever-folksy Biden told the New York
Times
he would bet his vice presidency that Iraq would extend this Status of Forces Agreement
(SoFA). It didn't. Nevertheless, Joe reneged on the wager and kept the number two spot in the
land. Biden, like just about every establishment policymaker in both major parties,
underestimated the independence and growing
hostility of the Shia strongman Nouri al-Maliki, whom the
vice president himself helped install after
the prime minister had lost an election.
Yet Biden's Iraq War record goes far deeper. Sure, he voted for Bush's
initial invasion. Only that's not the half of it. From his senior perch as chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the future vice president quite literally sold the
war to his more doubtful colleagues – twisting arms, making calls, and applying the
classic Biden-charm – and to the American people writ large. Then, months after it was
crystal clear that the invasion had been built on lies
(no WMDs, no Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, etc.) – and by which point chaos and local
resistance already reigned – Biden continued to defend the war and
the "popular" president who orchestrated it. Biden didn't just vote for aggression and mayhem
in Iraq; he championed it.
Beyond Baghdad, Biden's national security positions have also been abysmal. What's more,
based on his own published campaign
vision , other than the discrete Iraq War vote itself, the presumptive Democratic nominee
is unwilling to apologize for, or meaningfully alter, his past formulas for failure. It's
what Biden's "vision"
doesn't mention that's most troubling: Obama-
destroyed Libya, his old boss's floundering quagmire in Syria, any meaningful challenge
to Israeli apartheid , or
commitment to a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Mideast disaster areas. Better
yet, the word "drone" doesn't appear once – so one assumes the terror bombing won't
abate under Biden. In the final analysis, Joe offers little more than the
status quo from West Africa to Central Asia – an intolerable situation he himself
crafted over decades as the Democrats' leading foreign policy guru.
When it comes to war and peace, nominating Biden is like assigning the criminal with
solving the crime. Indeed, so consistently wrong has he been on these issues, that one
wonders whether he's a secret (if nefarious) genius. As I've sardonically theorized , being policy-wrong
every time – like scoring zero on a multiple-choice test – almost requires
knowing all the right answers and choosing to fail. Yet it seems unlikely that this
sort of cynical savvy applies to ole Joe.
Is he better alternative than Trump on foreign affairs? Yes and no. Despite his populist
"bring home the troops" campaign rhetoric – and occasional reprises
in office – The Donald has hardly followed through. Often he's escalated
bombings and
boots-on-the-ground in the Greater Middle East. And admittedly, Biden seems more likely
– but hardly
certain – to reinstate the Iran nuclear deal and modestly tone down the
march-to-war rhetoric. Then again, so far – though the colluding duo of
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu try to gin up
real combat – Trump has shown eleventh-hour restraint and
eschewed full-blown war with Tehran. Not to say that The Donald, who has aggressively
upped-the-ante on
unwarranted conflict with Iran merits apologia. However, so far at least – an
inconvenient admission for some – Trump is the first president since Jimmy Carter who
hasn't attempted an overt violent foreign regime change. True, this is a low bar indeed.
Make no mistake, Donald Trump is temperamentally, intellectually, and morally unfit to
serve as commander-in-chief. His ignorant and bellicose position on nuclear weapons makes him
a potentially
existential threat to life well beyond America's borders. Still, even Trump's more
vociferous opponents should know what they're getting when they gamble on Biden: nothing more
than a
polite emperor to replace the rather coarse and clothes-less current occupant of the
throne.
Even if he's preferable on some individual foreign policy issues, Biden has never
questioned the imperium itself. That he won't change his spots and suddenly do so, is
undergirded by the fact – as Chris Hedges recently
pointed out – that "the ruling elites would prefer Biden" over the "vulgar
embarrassment" of Donald Trump. Thus, selecting an emperor – given a presidency long
unfettered
by constitutional checks and balances – amounts to a matter of taste; of style over
substance.
The "masters of the universe" that Hedges describes aren't remotely troubled by reliable,
known-quantity-Joe's sordid foreign policy past. Neither, apparently, are Washington
insiders, mainstream media pundits, or – if we're being honest – most common
citizens. There's certainly been no penalty for Biden – or anyone else – being
repeatedly dead wrong on the most decisive decisions a leader can make. American politics
positively reinforces failure.
In even a marginally healthy republic, Biden's championing of the Iraq War alone –
and decades worth of pathological lying
about that record – ought to have disqualified him. That it hasn't
exposes – like the COVID crisis – the structural and societal rot
undergirding this country. Among the senior ranks of politicians, soldiers
, and corporate oligarchs ,
obvious and undeniable failure carries few consequences. Blame and punishment is reserved for
the lowest level of practitioners whilst power and profits continue to accrue to existing
national security elites.
In contemporary America, there's zero accountability for top policymakers – even
those a heartbeat away from the presidency – who repeatedly gamble soldiers (and
foreigners) lives in far-flung adventures and regularly lose big. Neoconservative and
neoliberal militarist leaders who drummed up disasters like the 2003 Iraq invasion should've
been forever discredited. Instead, they've been laundered like dirty money,
rehabilitated , and born-again as expert analysts on CNN or MSNBC. These, of course,
being the very networks that – in the case of the Bush-era figures, at least –
once lambasted them. As for the real heavy-hitters – Iraq cheerleading Biden and Libya
regime change
architect Hillary Clinton – the Democratic Party "opposition" runs them for
president.
The narrowness of permitted debate on US war policy – and of the electoral options
the two-party duopoly provides – is obscene. It's also proof positive that real
challenges to American militarism must come from outside the system. At stake this November
is more than what some sardonically call " choosing
between two rapists ." What's really on the ballot is the minor matter of emperor
selection. And the choices ain't great. Throughout his nearly 50 years of senior-level public
service, Biden consistently made high-stakes war wagers – playing on credit with blood
and treasure. So far his losses amount to $6.4 trillion in taxpayer cash,
more than 7,000 dead troopers, 21 million refugees, and 335,000 civilian lives.
With that sort of track record at the life-and-death tables, Biden should really seek a
meeting .
Instead, he's become the last great white hope of polite liberals everywhere. And make no
mistake, this doesn't end well. So be careful gambling on Biden. Like Joe betting his vice
presidency on Iraqi elections, it might be a sure loser.
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and contributing editor atAntiwar.com. His work has appeared in
the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Popular Resistance, and
Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units
in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. His forthcoming book,
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is now available forpre-order. Sjursen was recently selected as a 2019-20 Lannan FoundationCultural Freedom Fellow. Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVet. Visit his
professionalwebsitefor contact info, to schedule speeches or media appearances, and access to his past
work.
Here is some theory from what I read/hear over there...No idea which side play the
informants, but so as to make some sense due the last tendences at least in Europe and the
moves y Trump and the "deep state"
According to Daniel Estulin ( and not sure whether I take him right, due his Spanish
)there is a current fight amongst the liberal financial banking elites and the old European
aristocratic elites and old ( very old )money, being the later those who lost the last WWII
by betting it all on fascism ( overtly or covertly ), and who try to redesign the world by
undoing current nation-states to then try to rebuilt and recover former European empires,
like Austro-Hungarian one ( in fact, there have been already moves these past days, even
during the pamdemic lockdown, amongst the Visegrads in this sense, on the part of Hungary and
Romania...), the IV Reich, and so on...
Trump would be, what he calls "international black", not an accident rised to power y the
deplorables, but a well planned move by those elites behind supporting him, who think the
world has become unmanageable under liberal democracy. These, what they seek, is a
middle-ageization of the world, with a hierarchical order kept tight through authoritarian
rule where, after the galloping advance of the 6th technological paradygm, about 90% of known
jobs will be lost, without time for the population to reconvert into something useful. To
justify that and advance it without intercourse of a decade or so, plus without facing any
resistance at all, the virus came, one would say, like fallen from the sky...
In the middle, are us all, the working class, the peasants, and the middle class ( upper,
middle, and low ) who never left being working class, eventhough the brainsucking by loans,
hollywood, hyperconsum through big malls cheap fashion clothes, a bit of travelling, and TV.
All disposable people....as got demonstrated during the "live exercise"....All jobs related
to services, tourism, clothing, cosmetics, will be lost if not those related to the luxury
sector, feed by the elites.
What is left for us is what got well illustrated in the hunger games, some will run to
aspire to get some crumbs, but at such price...
Of course, some amongst us, as always, are already positioning themselves as the new brown
shirts, online... and on terrain....
What all those calls for denouncing your breaking lockdown neighbor, or even the one not
clapping down at 8pm ( like authomats every day, during two months! )do you think were
for?
To test....
Flashback: Obama Ordered Comey To Conceal FBI Activities Right Before Trump Took
Office by Tyler
Durden Mon, 05/11/2020 - 14:05 With weeks to go before Donald Trump's inauguration, former
President Obama and VP Joe Biden were briefed by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI
Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper on matters related to the Russia investigation.
The January 5, 2017 meeting - also attended by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice,
has taken on a new significance in light of revelations of blatant misconduct by the FBI - and
the fact that the agency decided not to brief then-candidate Trump that a "friendly foreign
government" (Australia) advised them that Russia had offered a member of his campaign 'dirt' on
Hillary Clinton.
The rumored 'dirt' was in fact told to Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos by Joseph
Mifsud - a shadowy Maltese professor and self-described member of the Clinton Foundation.
Papadopoulos then told Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, who told Aussie intelligence,
which tipped off the FBI, which then launched Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Papadopoulos was
then surveiled by FBI spy Stefan Halper and his honeypot 'assistant' who went by the name "Azra
Turk" - while in 2017, Papadopoulos claims a spy handed him $10,000 in what he says goes "all
the way back to the DOJ, under the previous FBI under Comey, and even the Mueller team."
Meanwhile, the Trump DOJ decided last week to drop the case against former Director of
National Security, Mike Flynn, after it was revealed that the FBI was trying to ensnare him in
a 'perjury trap,' and that Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty to lying about his very legal
communications with the Russian Ambassador.
And let's not forget that the FBI used the discredited Steele Dossier to spy on Trump
campaign associate Carter Page - and all of his contacts . Not only did the agency lie to the
FISA court to obtain the warrant, the DOJ knew the outlandish claims of Trump-Russia ties in
the Steele Dossier - funded by the Clinton Campaign - had no basis in reality.
And so, it's worth going back in time and reviewing that January 5, 2017 meeting which was
oddly documented by Susan Rice in an email to herself on January 20, 2017 - inauguration day,
which purports to summarize that meeting.
Rice later wrote an
email to herself on January 20, 2017 -- Trump's inauguration day and her last day in the
White House -- purporting to summarize that meeting. "On January 5, following a briefing by
IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election," Rice wrote,
"President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy
Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also
present."
According to Rice, "President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued
commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law
enforcement communities 'by the book.'" But then she added a significant caveat to that
"commitment": "From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants
to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is
any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia . "
The next portion of the email is classified, but Rice then noted that " the President
asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we
share classified information with the incoming team . Comey said he would."
At the time Obama suggested to Yates and Comey -- who were to keep their posts under the
Trump administration -- that the hold-overs consider withholding information from the
incoming administration, Obama knew that President Trump had named Flynn to serve as national
security advisor. Obama also knew there was an ongoing FBI investigation into Flynn premised
on Flynn being a Russian agent. -
The Federalist
And so, instead of briefing Trump on the Flynn investigation, Comey "privately briefed Trump
on the most salacious and absurd 'pee tape' allegation in the Christopher Steele dossier."
The fact that Comey did so leaked to the press, which used the briefing itself as
justification to report on, and publish the dossier .
What Comey didn't brief Trump on was the FBI's bullshit case against Michael Flynn -
accusing the incoming national security adviser of being a potential Russian agent. And
according to The Federalist , " Even after Obama had left office and Comey had a new
commander-in-chief to report to, Comey continued to follow Obama's prompt by withholding intel
from Trump. "
The Federalist also raises questions about former DNI James Clapper - specifically, whether
Clapper lied to Congress in July of 2017 when he said he never briefed Obama on the substance
of phone calls between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.
According to the report, accounts from Comey and McCabe directly contradict Clapper's
claim.
" Did you ever brief President Obama on the phone call, the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls? "
asked Rep. Francis Rooney (R0FL) during Congressional testimony, to which Clapper replied: "
No. "
Except, Comey told Congress that Clapper directly briefed Obama ahead of the January 5
meeting.
"[A]ll the Intelligence Community was trying to figure out, so what is going on here?" Comey
testified. "And so we were all tasked to find out, do you have anything [redacted] that might
reflect on this. That turned up these calls [between Flynn and Kislyak] at the end of December,
beginning of January," Comey testified. "And then I briefed it to the Director of National
Intelligence, and Director Clapper asked me for copies [redacted], which I shared with him ...
In the first week of January, he briefed the President and the Vice President and then
President Obama's senior team about what we found and what we had seen to help them understand
why the Russians were reacting the way they did. "
And now to see if anything comes of the ongoing Durham investigation, or if Attorney General
Bill Barr will simply tie a bow on the matter and call it a day.
Do the Democratic Party's leadership and its many allied mainstream media outlets have no
shame? They are determined to run Joe Biden, a presidential candidate who embodies many of the
evils for which they condemn Donald Trump. Corporate Joe
Democrats rightly charge the reputed billionaire Donald Trump with
serving the wealthy few . Yes, but what about Joe? His corporatist and pro-Wall Street
record in
Congress included votes to rollback bankruptcy
protections for college graduates (1978) and vocational school graduates (1984) with
federal student loans.
He
worked with Republicans to pass the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act, which put " clean slate " Chapter-7 bankruptcy out of reach for millions of
ordinary Americans (2005).
Biden voted against a bill that would have compelled credit card companies to warn customers
of the costs of only making minimum payments. He honored campaign
cash from Coca-Cola by cosponsoring a bill that permitted soft-drink producers to skirt
antitrust laws (1979).
He joined just one other Congressional Democrat to vote against a Judiciary Committee
measure to increase consumers' rights to sue corporations for price-fixing (1979).
He strongly
backed the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which permitted the re-merging of investment and
commercial banking by repealing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act. (This helped create the
2007-8 financial crisis and subsequent recession, which led to a massive taxpayer bailout of
the rich combined with little for the rest of the population – a policy that Biden backed
as vice presidential candidate and as Vice President).
During his time as a US Senator, " lunch bucket Joe " Biden
supported the globalist investor rights North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which
cost millions of US manufacturing workers their jobs.
Adding neoliberal insult to neoliberal injury, presidential candidate Biden has criticized
those who advocate a universal basic income (a fundamental need, in the wake of the current
Covid-19 crash) of "
selling American workers short " and undermining the "dignity" of work.
Biden opposes calls for supposedly " too expensive " universal Single Payer health
insurance, going so far as to say he would
veto a Medicare for All bill as president! He defends Big Business and the rich from
popular criticism, mocking those who "want to single out big corporations for all the blame"
and
proclaiming " I don't think five hundred billionaires are the reason we're in trouble.
The folks at the top aren't bad guys. "
Biden even says he has "no empathy" for Millennials' struggle to get by in the savagely
unequal precariat economy he helped create over his many years of service to the Lords of
Capital. " The younger generation now tells me how tough things are -- give me a
break, " said Biden, while speaking to Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times two years
ago. " No, no, I have no
empathy for it, give me a break ."
Biden has not spoken one critical word about Trump and Congress's taxpayer-funded bailout
for the American capitalist "elite" and its top corporations and financial institutions in the
wake of Covid-19 – a massive and largely
unaccountable giveaway that puts no caps on executive compensation and elite profits while
offering little more than a pittance to the nation's working-class majority.
The Democrats and their media
rightly accuse Trump of serial deception, misstatement, and lying. Okay, but what about
Joe? In
a lie told twice , in 2001 and 2007, Biden falsely and viciously claimed that his first
wife and baby boy were killed by a drunk truck driver in 1972.
On the campaign trail last year, Biden told a ridiculous tale (a longstanding recurrent
Biden fib) about his supposed heroic role in honoring a medal-winning US soldier in a war zone
as vice president.
Last February, at a campaign event in South Carolina, Biden tried to win Black votes by
falsely claiming to have been arrested while trying to visit Nelson Mandela in jail during
the apartheid era in South Africa.
Last January, during a debate, Biden claimed that he argued against George W. Bush's
invasion of Iraq immediately after it began. In fact, it took Biden two years
to admit that Bush's war and Biden's own Senate vote to authorize it were "mistakes" (try
'crimes').
Sleepy Joe
The Democrats and their media raise legitimate questions about Trump's mental health and
fitness. Fine, but what about Joe? Earlier this year, he strangely invaded centrist MSNBC host
Joy Reid's physical space to accuse her of being a radical who wants "
a physical revolution ."
As a presidential candidate in the current cycle, Biden has forgotten
what state he's in,
confused his wife with his sister , and claimed that he would have " beaten the
hell out of Trump " in high school. Last September , he tried to woo Black voters
with a bizarre and rambling story about an alleged past adolescent swimming pool confrontation
with a young Black tough named " Corn Pop ."
On the campaign trail in Iowa, an unhinged Biden
said this to an older white male Elizabeth Warren supporter who dared to ask about the
corruption involved in Hunter Biden's lucrative presence on the board of a gas company in
Ukraine: " You're a damn liar .Look, fat you're too old to vote for me ."
Speaking in Texas last March, Biden made audience members cringe when he called Super
Tuesday " Super
Thursday " and tried to quote from the American Declaration of Independence. " We hold
these truths to be self-evident ," Biden gaffed: " All men um, are created by the, um,
co, oh, YOU KNOW THE THING !"
Biden responded
to a debate question about racial inequality, segregation, and the legacy of slavery last
September by smirkng and then awkwardly telling Black parents to " put on the television, I
mean the record player " for their children.
Last February, he called a young female voter in New Hampshire
" a lying dog-faced pony soldier. " He also said that
"150 million" Americans – almost half of the US population – " have been
killed " due to gun violence.
In debates and interviews, the 77-year old Biden routinely loses his train of thought in
mid-sentence, mis-pronounces his words, forgets basic facts, and generally looks confused while
seeming to rave and be on the verge of punching someone.
Bodyguards have had to stand between Biden and voters because he lacks the impulse control
to stop himself from
touching, sniffing, and massaging women in his vicinity.
It's not for nothing that the Democratic National Committee and the Biden campaign are
keeping "Sleepy Joe" as much
out of the public eye – almost literally locked in his basement – as
possible.
But just as FOX News looks the other way when it comes to Trump's mental illness and
difficulties, the liberal mainstream media is shockingly silent on Biden's clearly fading cognitive health.
In 2020 as in previous US elections, Democrats are telling American progressives yet again
that they must vote for an inadequate, duplicitous, imperial, and corporate-captive
presidential candidate as " the lesser evil. " In reality, however, Lesser Evil-ism is
a self-fulfilling prophecy that helps move the narrow American major-party spectrum further to
the right while channeling popular political energies into an electoral system that does not
represent the nation's working- and middle-class majority.
Aptly described by the late left political scientist Sheldon Wolin as " the
Inauthentic Opposition, " the neoliberal Democratic Party offers no serious resistance,
electoral or otherwise, to the corporate and financial class rule advanced by the rightmost of
the only two viable political organizations. The mentally declining liar and corporatist Joe
Biden is graphic and depressing evidence for Wolin's thesis.
Paul Street is the author of numerous books, including They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy
(Routledge, 2014) and The Empire's New Clothes: Barack Obama in the Real World of Power
(Routledge, 2011).
This is nationwide gaslighting by Clinton gang of neoliberals who attempted coup d'état, and Adam Schiff was just one of the
key figures in this coupe d'état, king of modern Joe McCarthy able and willing to destroy a person using false evidence
What is interesting is that Tucker attacked Republicans for aiding and abetting the coup
d'état against Trump
"... "This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts ... and we're looking at the whole pattern of conduct," Barr added, saying that they're investigating actions taken before "and after ... the election." ..."
"... And according to Fox' s source, Durham is investigating a "pattern of conduct" which includes lying to the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page . ..."
"... "Barr talks to Durham every day," a source recently told Fox News . " The president has been briefed that the case is being pursued, and it's serious. " ..."
"... " It was a very dangerous situation what they did ," Trump said during an interview with "Fox & Friends" Friday. " These are dirty politicians and dirty cops and some horrible people and hopefully they're going to pay a big price in the not too distant future. ..."
"... Durham's probe is expected to wrap up by the end of the summer. Right as Trump is expected to face off against Joe Biden - who was VP while most of this was going on . ..."
John Durham has supercharged his review into the origins of the
Russiagate hoax orchestrated by the Obama administration during and after the 2016 US election
- adding additional top prosecutors to explore different components of the original probe,
according to
Fox News .
Durham, the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut tasked with by Attorney General Bill Barr with
investigating the actions taken against the Trump team, has tapped Jeff Jensen - U.S. attorney
for the Eastern District of Missouri who had been investigating the Michael Flynn case. Also
added to the team is interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Timothy Shea,
according to Fox 's sources.
" They farmed the investigation out because it is too much for Durham and he didn't want to
be distracted ," said one source, adding "He's going full throttle, and they're looking at
everything. "
Word of Durham's beefed-up team comes amid worsening tensions between the Trump
administration and congressional Democrats, who have been making the case that the Justice
Department's reviews have become politicized given the decision last week to drop the Flynn
case - a move which House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called
"outrageous."
" The evidence against General Flynn is overwhelming ," said Nadler - who probably wasn't
referring to handwritten notes by one of the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn which
exposed their perjury trap . Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his perfectly
legal communications with a Russian ambassador - a plea he made while under severe financial
strain due to legal expenses, and to save his son from the FBI 'witch hunt.' Flynn would later
withdraw his plea as evidence mounted that he was set up.
The DOJ determined that the bureau's 2017 Flynn interview -- which formed the basis for
his guilty plea of lying to investigators -- was "conducted without any legitimate
investigative basis."
Breadcrumbs were being dropped in the days preceding the decision that his case could be
reconsidered. Documents unsealed the prior week by the Justice Department revealed agents
discussed their motivations for interviewing him in the Russia probe – questioning
whether they wanted to "get him to lie" so he'd be fired or prosecuted, or get him to admit
wrongdoing. Flynn allies howled over the revelations, arguing that he essentially had been
set up in a perjury trap. In that interview, Flynn did not admit wrongdoing and instead was
accused of lying about his contacts with the then-Russian ambassador – to which he
pleaded guilty. -
Fox News
Jensen, the U.S. attorney now working with Durham, was reportedly the one who recommended
dropping the Flynn case to Barr.
Barr speaks
When asked whether he thought the FBI conspired against Flynn, Barr told CBS News on
Thursday "I think, you know, that's a question that really has to wait [for] an analysis of all
the different episodes that occurred through the summer of 2016 and the first several months of
President Trump's administration," adding that Durham is "still looking at all of this."
"This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts ... and
we're looking at the whole pattern of conduct," Barr added, saying that they're investigating
actions taken before "and after ... the election."
And according to Fox' s source, Durham is investigating a "pattern of conduct" which
includes lying to the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page .
President Trump has long-referred to the investigation as a "witch hunt" - which Barr and
Durham are now untangling.
"Barr talks to Durham every day," a source recently told Fox News . " The president has been
briefed that the case is being pursued, and it's serious. "
President Trump on Friday offered a vague, but ominous, warning as the Durham probe
proceeds.
" It was a very dangerous situation what they did ," Trump said during an interview with
"Fox & Friends" Friday. " These are dirty politicians and dirty cops and some horrible
people and hopefully they're going to pay a big price in the not too distant future. "
Trump
was specifically reacting to newly released transcripts of interviews from the House
Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation
that revealed top Obama officials acknowledged they knew of no "empirical evidence" of a
conspiracy despite their concerns and suspicions. -
Fox News
Durham's probe is expected to wrap up by the end of the summer. Right as Trump is expected
to face off against Joe Biden - who was VP while most of this was going on .
R ep. Lee Zeldin demanded that Rep. Adam Schiff be stripped
of his post as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and resign because of his role in
the Russia investigation.
"Adam Schiff should not be the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. His gavel should
be removed. He should be censured. He should resign," Zeldin said Monday on Fox News. "There's
a lot that should happen, but Nancy Pelosi isn't going to punish Adam Schiff. In fact, that's
the reason why he has the gavel in the first place."
Republicans have been critical of Schiff in recent weeks after reports suggested that
Schiff was trying to block the release of some of the transcripts of the investigation's 53
witness interviews.
Some of the transcripts were eventually released and
undercut claims used by Democrats to push for impeachment.
"He's the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, which became the House Impeachment
Committee because of the way he writes these fairy-tale parodies," Zeldin said.
The Republican from New York suggested that Schiff and Democrats who impeached Trump and
tried to remove him from office were aided by friends in the media.
"It's actually one that the Democrats reward. It's one that the media rewards," Zeldin said.
"So, I'm not going to expect any repercussions even though he should resign today."
So the RussiaGate was giant gaslighting of the US electorate by Clinton gang and intelligence
agencies rogues.
Notable quotes:
"... For two and a half years the House Intelligence Committee knew CrowdStrike didn't have the goods on Russia. Now the public knows too. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee documents released Thursday reveal that the committee was told two and half years ago that the FBI had no concrete evidence that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee computers to filch the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks ..."
"... Henry testifies that "it appears it [the theft of DNC emails] was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left." ..."
"... This, in VIPS view, suggests that someone with access to DNC computers "set up" selected emails for transfer to an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example. The Internet is not needed for such a transfer. Use of the Internet would have been detected, enabling Henry to pinpoint any "exfiltration" over that network. ..."
"... Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed a sworn affidavit in the Roger Stone case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb drive." ..."
"... Both pillars of Russiagate–collusion and a Russian hack–have now fairly crumbled. ..."
"... Thursday's disclosure of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee shows Chairman Adam Schiff lied not only about Trump-Putin "collusion," [which the Mueller report failed to prove and whose allegations were based on DNC and Clinton-financed opposition research] but also about the even more basic issue of "Russian hacking" of the DNC. [See: "The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate."] ..."
"... Fortunately, the cameras were still on when I approached Schiff during the Q&A: "You have every confidence but no evidence, is that right?" I asked him. His answer was a harbinger of things to come. This video clip may be worth the four minutes needed to watch it. ..."
"... Schiff and his partners in crime will be in for much tougher treatment if Trump allows Attorney General Barr and US Attorney John Durham to bring their investigation into the origins of Russia-gate to a timely conclusion. Barr's dismissal on Thursday of charges against Flynn, after released FBI documents revealed that a perjury trap was set for him to keep Russiagate going, may be a sign of things to come. ..."
For two and a half years the House Intelligence Committee knew CrowdStrike didn't have
the goods on Russia. Now the public knows too.
House Intelligence Committee
documents released Thursday reveal that the committee was told two and half years ago that
the FBI had no concrete evidence that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee computers
to filch the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks in July 2016.
The until-now-buried, closed-door testimony came on Dec. 5, 2017 from Shawn Henry, a
protégé of former FBI Director Robert Mueller (from 2001 to 2012), for whom
Henry served as head of the Bureau's cyber crime investigations unit.
Henry retired in 2012 and took a senior position at CrowdStrike, the cyber security firm
hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign to investigate the cyber intrusions that occurred
before the 2016 presidential election.
The following excerpts from Henry's testimony
speak for themselves. The dialogue is not a paragon of clarity; but if read carefully, even
cyber neophytes can understand:
Ranking Member Mr. [Adam] Schiff: Do you know the date on which the Russians
exfiltrated the data from the DNC? when would that have been?
Mr. Henry: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have
indicators that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have no indicators that it was
exfiltrated (sic). There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say
conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't
have the evidence that says it actually left.
Mr. [Chris] Stewart of Utah: Okay. What about the emails that everyone is so, you
know, knowledgeable of? Were there also indicators that they were prepared but not evidence
that they actually were exfiltrated?
Mr. Henry: There's not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's
circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated.
Mr. Stewart: But you have a much lower degree of confidence that this data actually
left than you do, for example, that the Russians were the ones who breached the security?
Mr. Henry: There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the
network.
Mr. Stewart: And circumstantial is less sure than the other evidence you've
indicated.
Mr. Henry: "We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data
left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made.
In answer to a follow-up query on this line of questioning, Henry delivered this classic:
"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we
believe it left, based on what we saw."
Inadvertently highlighting the tenuous underpinning for CrowdStrike's "belief" that Russia
hacked the DNC emails, Henry added: "There are other nation-states that collect this type of
intelligence for sure, but the – what we would call the tactics and techniques were
consistent with what we'd seen associated with the Russian state."
Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry's testimony. Henry is asked when
"the Russians" exfiltrated the data from DNC.
Henry: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC,
but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated." ?? pic.twitter.com/TyePqd6b5P
Try as one may, some of the testimony remains opaque. Part of the problem is ambiguity in
the word "exfiltration."
The word can denote (1) transferring data from a computer via the Internet (hacking) or
(2) copying data physically to an external storage device with intent to leak it.
As the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has been reporting for more than
three years, metadata and other hard forensic evidence indicate that the DNC emails were not
hacked – by Russia or anyone else.
Rather, they were copied onto an external storage device (probably a thumb drive) by
someone with access to DNC computers. Besides, any hack over the Internet would almost
certainly have been discovered by the dragnet coverage of the National Security Agency and
its cooperating foreign intelligence services.
Henry testifies that "it appears it [the theft of DNC emails] was set up to be
exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."
This, in VIPS view, suggests that someone with access to DNC computers "set up"
selected emails for transfer to an external storage device – a thumb drive, for
example. The Internet is not needed for such a transfer. Use of the Internet would have been
detected, enabling Henry to pinpoint any "exfiltration" over that network.
Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed a sworn
affidavit in the Roger Stone case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from
the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks
demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb
drive."
The So-Called Intelligence Community Assessment
There is not much good to be said about the embarrassingly evidence-impoverished
Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017 accusing Russia of hacking the
DNC.
But the ICA did include two passages that are highly relevant
and demonstrably true:
(1) In introductory remarks on "cyber incident attribution", the authors of the ICA made a
highly germane point: "The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations
difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber operation – malicious or not –
leaves a trail."
(2) "When analysts use words such as 'we assess' or 'we judge,' [these] are not intended
to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on
collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary High confidence in a judgment
does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong."
[And one might add that they commonly ARE wrong when analysts succumb to political pressure,
as was the case with the ICA.]
The intelligence-friendly corporate media, nonetheless, immediately awarded the status of
Holy Writ to the misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment" (it was a rump effort
prepared by "handpicked analysts" from only CIA, FBI, and NSA), and chose to overlook the
banal, full-disclosure-type caveats embedded in the assessment itself.
Then National Intelligence Director James Clapper and the directors of the CIA, FBI, and
NSA briefed President Obama on the ICA on Jan. 5, 2017, the day before they gave it
personally to President-elect Donald Trump.
On Jan. 18, 2017, at his final press conference, Obama saw fit to use lawyerly language on
the key issue of how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks , in an apparent effort to cover
his own derriere.
Obama: "The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking
were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through
which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked."
So we ended up with "inconclusive conclusions" on that admittedly crucial point. What
Obama was saying is that U.S. intelligence did not know -- or professed not to know --
exactly how the alleged Russian transfer to WikiLeaks was supposedly made, whether
through a third party, or cutout, and he muddied the waters by first saying it was a hack,
and then a leak.
From the very outset, in the absence of any hard evidence, from NSA or from its foreign
partners, of an Internet hack of the DNC emails, the claim that "the Russians gave the DNC
emails to WikiLeaks " rested on thin gruel.
In November 2018 at a public forum, I asked Clapper to explain why President Obama still
had serious doubts in late Jan. 2017, less than two weeks after Clapper and the other
intelligence chiefs had thoroughly briefed the outgoing president about their
"high-confidence" findings.
Clapper
replied : "I cannot explain what he [Obama] said or why. But I can tell you we're, we're
pretty sure we know, or knew at the time, how WikiLeaks got those emails." Pretty
sure?
Preferring CrowdStrike; 'Splaining to Congress
CrowdStrike already had a tarnished reputation for credibility when the DNC and Clinton
campaign chose it to do work the FBI should have been doing to investigate how the DNC emails
got to WikiLeaks . It had asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery
app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's struggle with separatists supported
by Russia. A Voice of America
report explained why CrowdStrike was forced to retract that claim.
Why did FBI Director James Comey not simply insist on access to the DNC computers? Surely
he could have gotten the appropriate authorization. In early January 2017, reacting to media
reports that the FBI never asked for access, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee
there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the DNC servers.
"Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw,"
he said. Comey described
CrowdStrike as a "highly respected" cybersecurity company.
Asked by committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) whether direct access to the servers and
devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation, Comey said it would have. "Our
forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that's
involved, so it's the best evidence," he said.
Five months later, after Comey had been fired, Burr gave him a Mulligan in the form of a
few kid-gloves, clearly well-rehearsed, questions:
BURR: And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate
– did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to
rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?
COMEY: In the case of the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We
got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done
the work. But we didn't get direct access.
BURR: But no content?
COMEY: Correct.
BURR: Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence
standpoint?
COMEY: It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who
were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that
they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.
In June last year it was
revealed that CrowdStrike never produced an un-redacted or final forensic report for the
government because the FBI never required it to, according to the Justice Department.
By any normal standard, former FBI Director Comey would now be in serious legal trouble,
as should Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, et al. Additional evidence of FBI
misconduct under Comey seems to surface every week – whether the abuses of FISA,
misconduct in the case against Gen. Michael Flynn, or misleading everyone about Russian
hacking of the DNC. If I were attorney general, I would declare Comey a flight risk and take
his passport. And I would do the same with Clapper and Brennan.
Schiff: Every Confidence, But No Evidence
Both pillars of Russiagate–collusion and a Russian hack–have now fairly
crumbled.
Thursday's disclosure of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee shows
Chairman Adam Schiff lied not only about Trump-Putin "collusion," [which the Mueller report
failed to prove and whose allegations were based on DNC and Clinton-financed opposition
research] but also about the even more basic issue of "Russian hacking" of the DNC. [See:
"The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate."]
Five days after Trump took office, I had an opportunity to confront Schiff personally
about evidence that Russia "hacked" the DNC emails. He had repeatedly given that canard the
patina of flat fact during an address at the old Hillary Clinton/John Podesta "think tank,"
The Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Fortunately, the cameras were still on when I approached Schiff during the Q&A:
"You have every confidence but no evidence, is that right?" I asked him. His answer was a
harbinger of things to come. This video
clip may be worth the four minutes needed to watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/SdOy-l13FEg
Schiff and his partners in crime will be in for much tougher treatment if Trump allows
Attorney General Barr and US Attorney John Durham to bring their investigation into the
origins of Russia-gate to a timely conclusion. Barr's dismissal on Thursday of charges
against Flynn, after released FBI documents revealed that a perjury trap was set for him to
keep Russiagate going, may be a sign of things to come.
Given the timid way Trump has typically bowed to intelligence and law enforcement
officials, including those who supposedly report to him, however, one might rather expect
that, after a lot of bluster, he will let the too-big-to-imprison ones off the hook. The
issues are now drawn; the evidence is copious; will the Deep State, nevertheless, be able to
prevail this time?
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily
Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This
originally appeared at Consortium
News .
"These agents specifically schemed and planned with each other how to not tip him off, that
he was even the person being investigated," Powell told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures,"
adding "So they kept him relaxed and unguarded deliberately as part of their effort to set him
up and frame him."
According to recently released testimony, President Obama revealed during an Oval Office
meeting weeks before the interview that he knew about Flynn's phone call with Russian
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak , apparently surprising then-Deputy Attorney General
Sally Yates .
After the meeting, Obama asked Yates and then-FBI Director James Comey to "stay behind."
Obama "specified that he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was
seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently,
given the information." -
Fox News
Despite the FBI's Washington DC field office recommending closing the case against Flynn -
finding "no derogatory information" against him - fired agent Peter Strzok
pushed to continue investigating, while former FBI Director
James Comey admitted in December 2019 that he "sent" Strzok and agent Joe Pientka to
interview Flynn without notifying the White House first .
... ... ...
After Strzok and Pientka interviewed Flynn,
handwritten notes unsealed last month reveal that at least one agent thought the goal was
to entrap Flynn .
"What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him
fired?" reads one note.
... ... ...
"The whole thing was orchestrated and set up within the FBI, [former Director of National
Intelligence James] Clapper, [Former CIA Director John] Brennan, and in the Oval Office meeting
that day with President Obama," said Powell. When asked if she thinks Flynn was the victim of a
plot that extended to Obama, she said "Absolutely."
As noted above, the Establishment view on foreign and national security policy was based on
the principle that there must always be a united front when dealing with situations that are
being closely watched by foreigners. If a cabinet secretary or the president says something
relating to foreign or military affairs it should be the unified view of both the
administration and the loyal opposition. Unfortunately, with President Donald Trump that
unanimity has broken down, largely because the chief executive either refuses to or is
incapable of staying on script. The most recent false step involved the origin of the corona
virus, with the intelligence community stating that there was no evidence that the virus was
"man made or genetically modified" in a lab followed by the president several hours later
contradicting that view asserting that he had a "high degree of confidence" that the
coronavirus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China based on secret information
that he could not reveal .
There has also been reports that the Trump White House has in fact been pushing the
intelligence community (IC) to
"hunt for evidence" linking the virus to the Wuhan laboratory, suggesting that the entire
China gambit is mostly political, to have a scapegoat available in case the troubled handling
of the virus in the United States becomes a fiasco and therefore a political liability. This
pressure apparently prompted an additional statement from the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence saying: "The IC will continue to rigorously examine emerging information
and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals
or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan."
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has
claimed without providing any details that there is "overwhelming evidence" that
coronavirus came out of the Wuhan laboratory, is reportedly leading the push to demonize China.
He and other administration officials have expressed their frustration over the C.I.A.'s
apparent inability to come up with a definitive explanation for the outbreak's origin. C.I.A.
analysts have reportedly responded that there is no evidence to support any one theory with
"high confidence" and they are afraid that any equivocating response will immediately be
politicized. Some analysts noted that their close monitoring of communications regarding the
Wuhan lab suggest that the Chinese government itself does not regard the lab as a source of the
contagion.
To be sure, any intelligence community document directly blaming the Chinese government for
the outbreak would have a devastating impact on bilateral relations for years to come, a
consequence that Donald Trump apparently does not appreciate. And previous interactions
initiated by Trump administration officials suggest that Washington might use its preferred
weapon sanctions in an attempt to pressure other nations to also hold China accountable, which
would multiply the damage.
Given what is at stake in light of the White House pressure to prove what might very well be
unprovable, many in the intelligence community who actually value what they do and how they do
it are noticeably annoyed and some have even looked for allies in Congress, where they have
found support from the Pentagon over Administration decision making that is both Quixotic and
heavily politicized.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith of Washington
has responded to the concerns expressed to him by both the military and intelligence
communities, admitting that he is " worried about a culture developing" where many senior
officials are now making decision not on the merits of the case but rather out of fear that
they will upset the president if they do not choose correctly.
While the intelligence agencies are concerned over the fabrication of a false consensus over
the coronavirus, similar to what occurred regarding Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of
mass destruction in 2002-3, the Defense Department is more concerned that fundamental
mechanisms that have been in place since the Second World War are now under attack, including
how the military maintains discipline and punishes officers and enlisted men who have deviated
from established policies.
And you have to ask yourself one question. They all stuck with the same exact propaganda,
the same exact his information, that the Trump administration, that the Trump campaign
conspired with Russia, even though they had no evidence whatsoever, and they manufactured that
evidence against the president."
"And this is why all of them need to be investigated" explained Carter.
May 8, 2020 The latest outrage from the Trump White House is that the Justice
Department dropped its case against former national security adviser Mike Flynn for lying to
the FBI, even though Flynn pleaded guilty to the charges in 2017.
In its coverage of the exoneration, the New York Timesnotes that
Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying about a discussion with the Russian ambassador in December
2016 during the transition between the Obama and Trump administrations. Flynn asked Russia not
to overreact to sanctions
the Obama administration had placed on Russia for interfering in the election; Trump would
be in the White House in another three weeks.
Hmmm. The Times does not mention the other alleged lie– which involves
Israel. A week before the sanctions call, Flynn called the Russian ambassador, and
a "litany" of other countries , to try to get them to counter the U.S. decision to allow a
resolution highly critical of Israeli settlements to pass in the U.N. Security Council. That
resolution went through 14-0 with the U.S. abstaining– Obama's parting shot at
Netanyahu.
The FBI interviewed Flynn in January 2017, a month later, as part of the Russia probe. And
at that time, Flynn lied about his attempt to block the anti-settlements resolution (according
to his own guilty plea).
And former FBI director James Comey speculated that Flynn might have violated the Logan
Act– which criminalizes discussions by unauthorized American citizens with foreign
governments that are having a dispute with the United States.
The whole affair revealed Israel's unseemly influence over U.S. politics. Trump's transition
team "colluded
with Israel," as the Intercept put it– even as everyone was so obsessed with
Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.
The possible involvement or knowledge of Israel in the case will be one of many questions
that congressional investigators will pursue.
Well, I guess no one wanted that to happen. Certainly the Times doesn't seem to
want it. Two articles today about the Justice Department's collapse mention Russia repeatedly.
Says one, "The [FBI] questioning focused on his [Flynn's] conversations during the transition
after the 2016 election with the Russian ambassador about the Obama administration's imposition
of sanctions on Russia for its interference in the American election." That's just
half-true.
The Israel angle was also buried in the coverage on MSNBC today by Andrea Mitchell. Her
segment on the decision expressed a lot of outrage over Vladimir Putin and Russian influence;
but no mention of what else Flynn was up to.
Here's the original
Justice Department charge sheet to which Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017. It tells
the story of the settlements resolution.
On or about December 21, 2016, Egypt submitted a resolution to the United Nations Security
Council on the issue of Israeli settlements ("resolution"). The United Nations Security
Council was scheduled to vote on the resolution the following day.
On or about December 22, 2016, a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team
directed FLYNN to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia, to learn
where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to delay the
vote or defeat the resolution
On or about December 22, 2016, FLYNN contacted the Russian Ambassador about the pending
vote. FLYNN informed the Russian Ambassador about the incoming administration's opposition to
the resolution, and requested that Russia vote against or delay the resolution.
That senior member of the team was apparently Jared Kushner, a friend of Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and btw the president's son in law. Buzzfeed in
December 2017 :
In the run-up to the vote, both Flynn and [Jared] Kushner
called several officials of Security Council member states in order to block or delay the
resolution. Flynn personally called foreign ambassadors on the Security Council, including
representatives of Uruguay and Malaysia, according to a February
report by Foreign Policy.
Trump himself intervened in the matter, getting the Egyptian government to withrdraw its
anti-settlements resolution. The resolution was ultimately
proposed by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal.
Trump's biggest donor, Sheldon Adelson, is an ardent supporter of Israel and a friend to
Netanyahu. Adelson and other donors' influence over Middle East policy has been a running
theme of the Trump administration.
In dropping the case, even having obtained a guilty plea, the Justice Department now says
that the FBI had no business questioning Flynn in January 2017. The issues he was asked about
were not "material" to the ongoing investigation.
The Justice Department
filing of yesterday takes Flynn at his word in his original interview by the FBI: that the
many calls he made to foreign governments were just a "battle drill" by the Trump campaign
office in Washington to see how quickly it could get foreign leaders on the phone–Israel,
Senegal, Britain, France, Egypt, Russia -- and Flynn was just trying to suss out the Russians,
not pressure them to block the resolution. "Flynn stated he conducted these calls to attempt to
get a sense of where countries
stood on the UN vote "
But three years ago Comey and some congresspeople were concerned that the lobbying in
Israel's interests against the U.S. would violate the Logan Act. From a
hearing by the House Select Committee on Intelligence in March 2017:
Rep. Jackie Speier (of California):
"The fact that he actively was asking the Russians, through the Ambassador, to vote
against the United States at the U[N] . . with regard to Israeli settlements, have you
looked further into that issue? Because that clearly involves a private citizen conducting
foreign policy.
James Comey said it might be a Logan Act violation, but he wasn't sure.
That is one of the questions for the Department of Justice, is do you want further
investigation. That would be the Logan Act angle, not the false statements to
Federal agents angle I am not an expert, but I don't think it is something prosecutors have
used. But it is possible. That is one of the reasons we sent it over to them, saying look ,
here is this old statute. Do you want us to do further investigation?
Thursday brought other
bits of good news for the Trump administration. The House Intelligence Committee released its
Russiagate interviews, in which the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper,
admitted
he
"never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign was
plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election."
No wonder Intel chief Adam Schiff demanded absolute secrecy during his closed-door inquisition.
DOJ now says 2017 interview of Flynn was 'unjustified' DOJ now says it
had NO probable cause to spy on Carter Page in '17 Transcripts now show exculpatory evidence on
Papadopoulos/Page w/held frm FISAcourt Someone remind me y we needed $30M+ Mueller collusion
investigation?
Among Trump's close circle of colleagues brought down in the Democrats' big-game hunting
expedition, such as former campaign adviser Roger Stone and businessman Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn
was by far the most prized trophy. In hindsight, Trump may have believed that, by firing Flynn just
days into his job, the Russia-collusion story would just magically disappear as the Democrats gave up
the hunt. If that was the plan, it backfired in spectacular fashion: the Democrats sensed blood and
doubled down on their impeachment efforts.
What came next was a three-year political witch hunt against Trump that was never seriously
challenged by the predominantly left-leaning mainstream media – even after the US$30 million Mueller
probe finally put the conspiracy theory to bed. Today, although the media headlines conceal it, the
narrative is slowly beginning to swing in Trump's favor, as Flynn's release strongly suggests.
My Campaign for President was conclusively spied on. Nothing like this
has ever happened in American Politics. A really bad situation. TREASON means long jail
sentences, and this was TREASON!
As I
discussed
in a recent column, many Americans are blissfully ignorant of the fact that, back in May
2019, Trump
launched
an investigation into the origins of Russiagate. Tracking the scandal leads one into a
labyrinthine rabbit hole of intrigue, where it is believed that the Obama-led FBI misled the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act court to spy on the Trump campaign.
The potential list of
individuals who may eventually be forced to testify for their actions extends to the highest echelons
of the Democratic Party. And that would include even 'untouchables,' such as former president Barack
Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. In fact, it is not beyond the realms of possibility
that has-been politicians like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are still being considered as
presidential material simply to escape prosecution.
For anyone who doubts the severity of the possible charges would do well to consider recent
comments by Attorney General William Barr. In an interview last month with Fox News, Barr said the FBI
counterintelligence against Trump served to
"sabotage the presidency without any basis."
That
is about as close to the legal definition of sedition as one can get, and I am sure there are many
powerful people who have arrived at the same conclusion.
Is a former president involved in treason of a sitting president? 🤯
It should be remembered that Donald Trump was voted into office largely because of his pledge
to
"drain the swamp."
In other words, the Manhattan real-estate developer turned
rabble-rousing populist had a very negative attitude about the career politicians who make up
Washington, DC long before he entered the Oval Office.
Now, after being hounded and harassed for
the entirety of his first term, while watching colleagues such as Michael Flynn, Roger Stone and Paul
Manafort have their lives and careers senselessly upended, Trump may be expected to take full
advantage of Flynn's exoneration to make those responsible pay a hefty legal penalty. If ever there
were a time for such a move, now would certainly be it.
Exactly what the charges against the architects of Russiagate will be, if there are any, will
probably be revealed in the next days and weeks, when William Barr and his assistant, John Durham, are
expected to make the findings of their year-long investigation public.
I am guessing we have not heard the end of the Russiagate drama yet with the freeing of Michael
Flynn, but, instead, are heading into Part II. Fasten your seatbelts – things could get interesting.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
FBI under Obama acted as Gestapo -- the political police. Obama looks now especially bad and probably should be
prosecuted for the attempt to stage coup d'état against legitimately elected president. His CIA connections need to investigated
and prosecuted too, and first of all Brennan.
Notable quotes:
"... Yates, who was briefly the acting attorney general during the early days of the Trump administration before getting fired, also laid out how in the ensuing days, Comey kept the FBI's actions cloaked in secrecy and repeatedly rebuffed her suggestions that the incoming Trump team be made aware of the Flynn recordings. ..."
"... "One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yate s," Attorney General William Barr said during a Thursday interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General Yates, I've disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings And, you know, Director Comey ran around that." ..."
"... Obama asked Yates and Comey to stay behind when the meeting concluded. ..."
"... Obama "started by saying that he had 'learned of the information about Flynn' and his conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak," Yates said, according to the notes. "Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently." washington examiner ..."
"... Obama did not want any additional information on the matter? Careful CYA. From the account of this meeting it is clear that Obama and Biden knew that Comey was intent on pursuing Flynn. If that is so, then subsequent events indicate that Obama did not act to stop Comey, and since Comey was hiding his effort against Flynn from main Justice, it must be that someone on high was encouraging him. Now, who would that be? pl ..."
"... All this was known in DC for the past few years. Everyone on the HSPCI knew what the closed door testimony was. Clapper was categorical that there was "no empirical evidence of collusion". The Crowdstrike CEO was categorical that he had no definitive evidence that the Russians exfiltrated data from the DNC servers. Yet Schiff, Clapper, Brennan and all the media hacks were on TV every night screaming Russia! Russia! and Collusion! Collusion! ..."
"... I'm revealing my age by using this expression from the Watergate era, but "what did Obama, Biden and Comey know, and when did they know it?" ..."
"... So Obama used Yates to go after Flynn. They have really worked a number on Flynn to discredit him, and it almost worked. Now it would appear their scheme is starting to unravel a bit. ..."
"... Is Obama being thrown under the bus here? Are Comey and Yates (or others) trying to cover their asses now that Flynn is free? Did Trump and his allies always know this and waited for the right moment to reveal it for better effect? The game is at hand. ..."
"... Brennan was encouraging Comey. I just learned something recently. Brennan spent time in Indonesia around the same time that Obama's mother lived there. It has been reported that Obama and Brennan had a fairly close relationship. I wonder how long they have known each other. ..."
"... I did see a clip of Matt Gaetz calling out Ryan and Trey Gowdy from preventing them from issuing subpoenas. Why do you think the Republican leadership in the House and Senate did not want to investigate? ..."
"
Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told special counsel Robert Mueller's team that
she first learned the FBI possessed and was investigating recordings of Flynn's late 2016
conversations with a Russian envoy following a Jan. 5, 2017, national security meeting at the
White House. It wasn't Comey who told her, but former President Barack Obama.
Yates, who was briefly the acting attorney general during the early days of the Trump
administration before getting fired, also laid out how in the ensuing days, Comey kept the
FBI's actions cloaked in secrecy and repeatedly rebuffed her suggestions that the incoming
Trump team be made aware of the Flynn recordings.
These revelations appear in declassified FBI interview notes of the Mueller team's
conversation with Yates in August 2017, highlighted by the Justice Department on Thursday as
U.S. Attorney for D.C. Timothy Shea moved to drop its
criminal charges against Flynn.
"One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely
went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yate s," Attorney
General William Barr
said during a Thursday
interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General Yates, I've disagreed with her about a
couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of
Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama
administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings And, you know,
Director Comey ran around that."
Yates told Mueller's team she first learned of the Flynn recordings following a White House
meeting about the Intelligence Community Assessment attended by Yates, Comey, Vice
President Joe Biden , then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper, then-national security adviser Susan Rice, and others. Obama asked
Yates and Comey to stay behind when the meeting concluded.
Obama "started by saying that he had 'learned of the information about Flynn' and his
conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak," Yates said, according to the notes.
"Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter but was seeking
information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently." washington
examiner
-------------
Obama did not want any additional information on the matter? Careful CYA. From the account
of this meeting it is clear that Obama and Biden knew that Comey was intent on pursuing Flynn.
If that is so, then subsequent events indicate that Obama did not act to stop Comey, and since
Comey was hiding his effort against Flynn from main Justice, it must be that someone on high
was encouraging him. Now, who would that be? pl
All this was known in DC for the past few years. Everyone on the HSPCI knew what the
closed door testimony was. Clapper was categorical that there was "no empirical evidence of
collusion". The Crowdstrike CEO was categorical that he had no definitive evidence that the
Russians exfiltrated data from the DNC servers. Yet Schiff, Clapper, Brennan and all the
media hacks were on TV every night screaming Russia! Russia! and Collusion! Collusion!
Devin Nunes was spot on and correct that there was an attempted coup. All the media and
even many Republicans called him a conspiracy theorist.
SST maintaining its glorious tradition was spot on in its analysis with the limited data
available that there was a coup and the traitors were not those in the Trump campaign but the
leadership in law enforcement and intelligence. A big shoutout to you, Larry and David
Habakkuk.
Trump himself was like deer caught in the headlights. Furiously tweeting but not doing
much of anything else while his own nominees at the DOJ and FBI were plotting and acting to
destroy his presidency. Devin Nunes imploring him to declassify and expose all the evidence
from the FISA applications, the 302s, the internal communications among the plotters
including the prolific FBI lovers. He still hasn't.
What happens next? Will the whole coup be exposed in its entirety? Will anyone be held to
account?
If Trump doesn't care enough even when his ass was being fried to disclose all the
evidence with the stroke of his pen and if all he cares is to tweet "witch-hunt" and "Drain
the Swamp", how realistic is it that any of the coup plotters will be tried for treason?
So Obama used Yates to go after Flynn. They have really worked a number on Flynn to discredit
him, and it almost worked. Now it would appear their scheme is starting to unravel a bit.
Is Obama being thrown under the bus here? Are Comey and Yates (or others) trying to cover
their asses now that Flynn is free? Did Trump and his allies always know this and waited for
the right moment to reveal it for better effect? The game is at hand.
Yahoo released a leaked call today of Obama criticizing Trump's response over coronavirus.
Here's the big headline Yahoo is running:
Exclusive: Obama says in private call that 'rule of law is at risk' in Michael Flynn
case
The Flynn case was invoked by Obama as a principal reason that his former administration
officials needed to make sure former Vice President Joe Biden wins the November election
against President Trump. "So I am hoping that all of you feel the same sense of urgency
that I do," he said. "Whenever I campaign, I've always said, 'Ah, this is the most
important election.' Especially obviously when I was on the ballot, that always feels like
it's the most important election. This one -- I'm not on the ballot -- but I am pretty darn
invested. We got to make this happen."
Obama misstated the charge to which Flynn had previously pleaded guilty. He was charged
with false statements to the FBI, not perjury.
Misstated seems like a stretch. The call sounds scripted and I suspect the leak was
deliberate.
Brennan was encouraging Comey.
I just learned something recently. Brennan spent time in Indonesia around the same time
that Obama's mother lived there. It has been reported that Obama and Brennan had a fairly close relationship. I wonder how
long they have known each other.
O'Biden's Dad just wheeled around the corner in a wood paneled station wagon and dressed
down the neighborhood kids who took O'Biden's ball. A humiliating experience for O'Biden who
sits in the passenger seat as a mere spectator.
The open question is: Just who were those contractors?
Surely that is known to some, and is significant to current politically-charged
inquiries.
Just why that information has not become public is a good question.
Can anyone provide a reliable source for that information?
It is unsurprising @realDonaldTrump enjoys wallowing in his fetid self-indulgence, but I
find it surreal that so many other government officials encourage his ignorance,
incompetence, & destructive behavior.
BTW, history will be written by the righteous, not by his lickspittle.
She served as Acting AG, accepting the post when Trump was inaugurated. What did she tell him
about his whole affair? Was the opposition to the EO 13769 just an excuse to have herself
fired so she would not have to either perjure herself or reveal the truth to Trump?
Jack,
"All this was known in DC for the past few years."
You left out that Paul Ryan was Speaker of the House because the Republicans were in the
majority then and the HPSCI under his term as speaker did not subpoena a very large group of
people, didn't ask relevant questions, didn't release information to the public and thus
ensuring the left took over the House after the 2016 elections.
I, too, coincidentally just concluded a close reading of the Conservative Tree House post
that Mr. Harbaugh just recommended. It is, indeed, well worth such a close reading. There
have been various puzzling things along the way these last few years for which this post
provides explanations. Of particular utility, is its inclusion of a timeline of the arc of
the episodes of illegal government surveillance that began (?) with the IRS spying of 2012,
and how - and why - it evolved from that episode into the massive abuses of the FISA process
of which we are becoming increasingly aware as revelations are forthcoming.
CTH's work is superb, but I do want to say that I am also supremely grateful for all of
the good work and analysis from Larry Johnson, and other contributors, as well as for the
trenchant comments of Col. Lang. Multivalent sources of information, analysis, and comment
provide one with the parallax requisite to understanding this web of perfidy. My gratitude
also is owing to all of you Members of the Committee of Correspondence, each of whom brings
personal observations and insights to bear, always much to my benefit.
I did see a clip of Matt Gaetz calling out Ryan and Trey Gowdy from preventing them from
issuing subpoenas. Why do you think the Republican leadership in the House and Senate did not
want to investigate?
["One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely
went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yates," Attorney
General William Barr said during a Thursday interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General
Yates, I've disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the
fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be
treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about
their findings And, you know, Director Comey ran around that."]
++++++++++++
This is fascinating because: this, what Barr is discussing, on national TV, . . . this
particular dimension, this Yates/Comey playing hide the bacon has nothing at all to do with
actual Brady material in the Lt. Gen. Flynn case.
Barr is referring to the Special Counsel Mueller Office's interview with Yates on Aug. 15,
2017, entered into the system three weeks later. Her interview occurred more than two months
prior to Flynn's coerced guilty plea.
This SCO document was released to the court May 7 as exhibit 4 attached to the DOJ motion
to end the prosecution of Flynn. It was produced in line with request by defense for Brady
material.
What Barr forgets to say is: This SCO interview of Yates shows that Comey and Yates talked
on the phone -- prior to -- the notorious Jan. 24, 2017 FBI interview of Flynn.
"Comey . . . informed her that two agents were on their way to interview Flynn at the
White House," the SCO said, according to the new court filing.
Yates took no action, -- she did nothing to order Comey to abort this soon-to-happen FBI
interview of Flynn, this SCO interview of her shows.
She was Comey's boss, the Acting Attorney General, at the time.
It shows that she was upset precisely because she wanted the FBI to coordinate with the
DOJ -- on getting Flynn screwed -- even suggesting, she told the SCO, that consideration that
Flynn be recorded, instead of memorialized using standard 302 form –
in-writing-only.
Yates wanted Flynn fired, she told the SCO.
Yates apparently was unable on her own to figure out, as the AG, the FBI and DOJ -- none
of them had any predicate, no "materiality," nothing "tethered" to any crime, as there was no
crime. And if she did not know these basic facts, had no awareness of them, then: why was she
the AG in the first place?
And what did Yates glean, right after this Jan. 24 interview of Flynn?
"Yates received a brief readout of the interview the night it happened, and a longer
readout the following day," which begs the question of why the original 302 of this was never
produced by the DOJ, to the defense; and also, why Covington law firm never asked to see this
before allowing Flynn to make his plea.
"Yates did not speak to the interviewing agents herself, but understood from others that
their assessment was that Flynn showed no 'tells' of lying," the SCO report says.
Based on her personal preference, rather than DOJ norms, she went to the White House, and
her expectation was they would fire Flynn. I fail to see how this nonsense by Yates seem to
escape Barr's notice. Or, is something else also going on?
She personally went to the White House, and her smear campaign against Flynn began, went
on and on and on, even after she was fired after being Acting AG for just ten days.
In her brief stint as Acting AG: Yates refused to tell the White House Counsel if Flynn
was being investigated, when the WHC asked her, directly, about this, according to what she
told the SCO. Can't blame this fact on the unctuous Comey.
She did tell the SCO that she wanted the WHC to know Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI
– and that she had concerns about Flynn, and she said those concerns related to the
Logan Act. Yates told SCO her concerns were because of the Logan Act, and that she expressed
this to the White House.
The Washington Examiner reporting that "It wasn't Comey who told her, but former President
Barack Obama" -- about the Flynn-Kislyak phone call --- this is interesting, very
interesting, if true, assuming Yates was telling the SCO the truth. This is what she claims
in her August 2017 interview with SCO.
But this bit of information is hardly Brady material [how is whether Obama or Comey told
her materially germane to the Flynn case, viz. Brady material?].
The question the SCO should have been concerned about is: who actually leaked the
transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak telephone call to the media?
Is this a serious crime? Or is this OK?
We still do not know this answer, and AG Barr has not told us. Nor has his boss,
Trump.
It is interesting that Barr chose to highlight that Comey went around Yates' back in Comey
ordering FBI to interview Flynn, but not that Yates knew of the Flynn interview before it
went down, and sat on her arse about it.
In fairness to Comey, they were, as the FB of Investigations, conducting the
investigation, which is their job, however rogue this FBI's I actually was, targeting
Flynn.
The Flynn-Kislyak telephone call, occurring late December of 2016, was reported by the
Washington Post on Jan. 12, 2017, eight days before Trump was sworn in.
And who leaked this, has anyone been prosecuted, will anyone be?
Obama still president, Loretta Lynch still AG, Yates still Deputy AG, Comey FBI director,
McCabe Deputy FBI director, etc.
Starting Jan. 20 and for ten days, Yates was the AG. She appeared bent on destroying
Flynn, and did nothing that I know of to prosecute who leaked the Flynn-Kislyak telephone
call to WAPO. Did someone on high perhaps ask her not to?
Nor was Comey and McCabe investigating this as best I can tell. Yet this was an actual,
clear cut crime we all saw, plain as day. Or maybe this is OK? Was someone on high asking
them not to?
I watched Barr say, during his interview with CBS news, [following the May 7 release of
documents to the court]: "One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how
Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney
General Yates," Barr told Catherine Herridge.
And my first thought was: why is Barr doing an apparent CYA for Yates?
What office might she want to be running for in the future; is she a cooperating witness
in the wider Durham probe, why is Yates being portrayed as someone other than what she was: A
leader in the effort to destroy Michael Flynn.
She was the AG, and she failed to hold Comey accountable at the time; this is a fact,
apparently, that reflects poorly on her.
She told the White House -- as best she could -- that Flynn was a piece of dung, and told
the SCO, in their interview of her, that she expected the White House to fire Flynn. This
reflects poorly on her.
And threatened Logan Act prosecution of Flynn to the White house. This reflects poorly on
her.
She smeared Flynn in a CNN interview on May 16, the day before Mueller was appointed. This
reflects poorly on her.
Well, who leaked the Flynn-Kislyak telephone call, and did Yates act on that?
Folks that "should have known better" -- far and wide, smeared Flynn, justified the
lawlessness against him; one of many examples, titled: "Leaking Flynn's name to the press was
illegal, but utterly justified" published by TheHill.com.
She wasn't the only one, but Yates was smack dab in the middle of enabling and
perpetuating a long-running smear campaign against Flynn, to destroy him by any means
necessary. This reflects poorly on her.
Why is Barr carrying water for her.
As for Obama, he did nothing to stop Comey in 2016 when Comey announced he was exonerating
Clinton. Nor did AG Lynch, even though that is not the function of the FBI -- an act of
insubordination, by the way, for which Rosenstein officially fired him in May 2017, which
set, somehow, in motion the Mueller SC appointment by Rosenstein.
If Comey is such a rogue, and Barr is now claiming Yates tried to do the right thing, in
spite of Comey, then why didn't Yates fire Comey Jan. 24 right on the spot? And end the
fiasco right then and there?
In her May 16, 2017 CNN interview she only has kind words to say about him.
AS for who on high was encouraging Comey's extra legal free-lancing in the Clinton and
Flynn matters is a pertinent question.
Who were the enablers, in other words?
Barr appears to imply Comey did it all on his own, which is not entirely accurate. Perhaps
this also implies that Durham will prosecute Comey? I don't know if anyone will be prosecuted
at all. Time will tell.
It is clear Comey's enablers would, by rank, have been, viz. the Clinton matter: Obama and
Lynch.
In the Flynn matter: Trump and Yates.
Simple logic dictates that: if Main Justice was "not in the loop" then, for Clinton
matter, this means Obama was enabling Comey to exonerate her; and also dictate that, for
Flynn, that Trump was the one "on high" enabling Comey.
If there are others on high, they were not in the chain of command as I understand the
current US Government structure.
-30-
You seem to think Trump was informed of all the relevant information about the FBI's
conduct during his first ten days in office. Because Barr, being appointed AG two years after
these events, has yet to indict anyone in the case, Trump was actually enabling Yates in
destroying Flynn? Neither appear to be logical conclusions to me.
So on a December 29, 2016 The Obama administration placed sanctions on Russia that evolved to
Flynn, at the instruction of the incoming Trump administration, contacting the Russian
ambassador requesting that they not retaliate or heighten the situation.
On January 5th Ms. Yates learned from Obama of the Flynn intervention.
Rather than contact Trump directly Obama went along with the Comey Logan Act thoughts.
The decision to enact sanctions obviously involved State, CIA, DNI and FBI but why not
Justice or did it. But why was the incoming Trump administration not consulted.
There was only one Machiavellian thinker in that group and it wasn't the idiot who got his
panties all twisted up.
This was a coup d'état and it has little to do with the protection of Oabama policies,
but a lot with protection of Clinton clan to which Obama belongs.
FBI investigators were corrupt and acted as a political police
Notable quotes:
"... Heavily redacted FBI documents that have been released indicate Flynn was one of several Trump campaign members who merited their own subfile investigation under the larger, now infamous " Crossfire Hurricane " debacle. Flynn even got his own cool codename -- "Crossfire Razor." (No, the FBI isn't usually that absurd. But absurdity colored that entire period of time.) ..."
"... FBI documents show that a Foreign Agent Registration Act ( FARA ) case was opened against Flynn. The stated reasons, in rank order, for initiating the investigation were that he was a member of the Trump campaign; he had "ties" to various Russian state-affiliated entities; he traveled to Russia; and he had a high-level top-secret clearance -- for which, by the way, he was polygraphed regularly to determine if he was a spy. ..."
"... None of the listed reasons is unusual activity for the kind of positions he held. Overall it is pretty thin justification for investigating an American citizen. Yet, most chillingly, the Crossfire Hurricane team stated it was investigating Flynn "specifically" because he was "an adviser to then Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump for foreign policy issues." ..."
"... Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a founder and principal of NewStreet Global Solutions , which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic mission technologies. ..."
investigation
of Michael Flynn , the
more it appears he was targeted precisely because, as the national security adviser to the
incoming Trump administration, he signaled that the new administration might undo Obama
administration policies -- which is kind of what the American people voted for in 2016.
Some will say that Gen. Flynn was investigated for legitimate criminal or national security
reasons. Yet, the FBI's ultimate interview of Flynn addressed none of the grounds that the FBI
used to open the original case against him. For those of us who have run FBI investigations,
that is more than odd.
Heavily redacted
FBI documents that have been released indicate Flynn was one of several Trump campaign
members who merited their own subfile investigation under the larger, now infamous "
Crossfire Hurricane " debacle. Flynn even got his own cool codename -- "Crossfire Razor."
(No, the FBI isn't usually that absurd. But absurdity colored that entire period of time.)
For the record, Flynn clearly exercised poor judgment as a result of being interviewed by
the FBI. The larger question is whether the team under then-Director James Comey had a legitimate basis to conduct the
interview at all.
FBI documents show that a Foreign Agent Registration Act ( FARA ) case was opened against Flynn. The stated
reasons, in rank order, for initiating the investigation were that he was a member of the Trump
campaign; he had "ties" to various Russian state-affiliated entities; he traveled to Russia;
and he had a high-level top-secret clearance -- for which, by the way, he was polygraphed
regularly to determine if he was a spy.
None of the listed reasons is unusual activity for the kind of positions he held. Overall it
is pretty thin justification for investigating an American citizen. Yet, most chillingly, the
Crossfire Hurricane team stated it was investigating Flynn "specifically" because he was "an
adviser to then Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump for foreign policy
issues."
Let me be clear: That is not a legitimate justification to investigate an American
citizen.
There is a theme that runs through the entire Crossfire Hurricane disaster, which has been
publicly articulated by Comey and his deputy director, Andrew McCabe : They saw themselves as stalwarts
in the breach defending America from a presidential candidate who they believed was an
agent
of Russia .
... ... ...
Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI
special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a
founder and principal of NewStreet Global
Solutions , which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic
mission technologies.
Russiagate has been an obvious coup attempt from the beginning, and several attempts have
followed...
__________________________________________________
That is not at all obvious.
Russiagate was obviously designed to look like a coup attempt, but you have to be extremely
gullible to believe any of it is real.
The recent Flynn bruhaha is a perfect example of the phoniness surrounding Russiagate.
The FBI investigators that interviewed Flynn believed he had not been deceptive and any
fool who was paying attention at the time believed he was not guilty because 2 weeks before
that FBI interview the news media had reported that the phone call with Kislyak had been
recorded by the FBI and that there was nothing improper or illegal that would motivate Flynn
to lie about his talk with Kislyak. The story that Flynn lied to the FBI is unbelievable on
its face.
Don't blame the FBI for creating this fake story. Trump is the one and only one that
created the fake Flynn-lied-to-the-FBI story, Before Trump created the phony story that Flynn
had lied to the FBI nobody else had at that time believed Flynn lied to the FBI.
But once Trump had created the phony story that Flynn lied to the FBI then all the gullible
morons started to believe the phony story. And even Flynn himself goes along with Trump's
phony story because he is a good soldier that follows command.
Before Comey's testimony to Congress that suggested that Trump was twisting Comey's arm to
let Flynn go for lying to the FBI no one had ever said that Flynn lied to the FBI. That story
was created by Trump and reported by Comey.
And then Mueller and Flynn and Comey all helped Trump foist that phony story that Flynn lied
to the FBI onto the public.
The implication of Comey's testimony to Congress was that in order to get Flynn off a
charge of Lying to the FBI Trump first tried to cajole Comey to go easy on Flynn and when
that did not work Trump fired Comey.
The problem with that whole BS story is that the crux of it (that Flynn lied to the FBI)
never happened. It was entirely invented by Trump to make it look like Trump was engaged in
mortal combat with the deep state. But it was all staged and fake (i.e. Kayfabe)
_______________________________________________
Well duh....
Russiagate was designed to fall apart.
It was obvious all along that all the stories that came out in the Mueller Report were
badly written sit-com material - the script for a comic soap opera. And they were all
scripted to fall apart when examined closely.
What I could never figure out was what this guy Mueller was going to say when he was
dragged in front of Congress and required to answer tough questions about all the garbage he
had produced. I thought for sure that for Mueller the jig would be up there was no way the
farce would not be revealed for all to see.
And then it happened. Mueller testified and it turned out Mueller could not remember any
of it.
Senator: Did you say XYZ?
Mueller: Is that in the report??
Senator: yes it is.
Mueller: Then it is true.
Making Mueller Senile and unable to remember anything was brilliant - pure genius. The
rest of the Russiagate script was mediocre at best.
It was a transparently false narrative designed, by the most incompetent election
campaign team in history ...
Occam's razor says Hillary threw the election. No seasoned politician would make the
mistakes that she made - especially when they yearn to make history (as the first
woman president) and the entire establishment (left and right) is counting on them to
win.
Believing what is evidently incredible has long been a test of loyalty
...
And you prove your loyalty with the belief that Hillary lost because of an
"incompetent election campaign".
All-in-all Obama was a CIA sponsored fraud: In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on
the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic
National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media
puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises."
Notable quotes:
"... Now why is Obama against General Flynn? Hmmm. Good question. Did the FBI target Michael Flynn to protect Obama's policies, not national security? LINK ..."
"... Gen. Flynn: Obama Administration made a "wilful decision" to support Sunni extremists (a Jihadi proxy army) against Assad . This directly contradicts the phony narrative of Obama as peace-loving black man (as certified by his Nobel Prize!). ..."
"... In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises." ..."
Whether or not General Flynn is loathed or liked, there is Supreme Court decisions setting
precedence for dropping a case when found to be wrapped in prosecutorial misdeeds:
As for the first 'black' president out from the shadows;
Thanks for that additional link. And that's why Obama could not standby with Flynn in the
NSA role. Recall Hillary's on Trump- "if he is elected we'll hang" (paraphrased)
In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on
the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic
National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media
puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises."
Fast Forward to 2011 he signs NDAA. "How Obama disappointed the world." Der Spiegel had
such an article 9 Aug.2011. But he was re-(S)-elected.
While this is somewhat questionable take, because a bitter infighting between two
major camps of the US neoliberal elite is ignored, there some truth in the statement that
Clinton wing can live with Trump's second term.
Chris Hedges is definitely wrong about Sanders and now he probably realized that. I
also think that this infighting is a positive thing, the implicit search for the
direction, which might help the country, not only bare knuckle, raw fight for power as he
thinks (although abuse of intelligence agencies by Clinton wing spoiled the broth) . The
misery of the working class in the USA in comparison with the same in East Asia, or Latin
America is still far less despite sliding standard of living. Three person family were
each adult earns $10 an hour can still survive. The real misery is concentrated mainly in
single mothers segment of population.
At least he raises important questions:
There is only one choice in this election. The consolidation of oligarchic power
under Donald Trump or the consolidation of oligarchic power under Joe Biden.
The oligarchs, with Trump or Biden, will win again. We will lose. The oligarchs made
it abundantly clear, should Bernie Sanders miraculously become the Democratic Party
nominee, they would join forces with the Republicans to crush him. Trump would, if
Sanders was the nominee, instantly be shorn by the Democratic Party elites of his
demons and his propensity for tyranny.
The oligarchs preach the sermon of the least-worst to us when they attempt to ram a
Hillary Clinton or a Biden down our throats but ignore it for themselves. They
prefer Biden over Trump, but they can live with either.
Only one thing matters to the oligarchs. It is not democracy. It is not truth. It is
not the consent of the governed. It is not income inequality. It is not the
surveillance state. It is not endless war. It is not jobs. It is not the climate. It is
the primacy of corporate power -- which has extinguished our democracy and left most of
the working class in misery -- and the continued increase and consolidation of their
wealth.
Biden represents the old neoliberal order. He personifies the betrayal by the
Democratic Party of working men and women that sparked the deep hatred of the ruling
elites across the political spectrum. He is a gift to a demagogue and con artist like
Trump, who at least understands that these elites are detested. Biden cannot plausibly
offer change.
He can only offer more of the same. And most Americans do not want more of the same.
The country's largest voting-age bloc, the 100 million-plus citizens who out of apathy
or disgust do not vote, will once again stay home. This demoralization of the
electorate is by design. It will, I expect, give Trump another term in office.
..By voting for Biden, you You vote for deregulating the banking industry and the
abolition of Glass-Steagall. You vote for the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical
corporations and against universal health care. You vote for bloated defense budgets.
You vote for the use of unlimited oligarchic and corporate money to buy our elections.
You vote for a politician who during his time in the Senate abjectly served the
interests of MBNA, the largest independent credit card company headquartered in
Delaware, which also employed Biden's son Hunter.
The right wing uses those on the margins of society as scapegoats. The culture wars
mask the reality. Both parties are full partners in the reconfiguration of American
society into a form of neofeudalism. It only depends on how you want it dressed up.
" By fostering an illusion among the powerless classes" that it can make their
interests a priority, the Democratic Party "pacifies and thereby defines the style of
an opposition party in an inverted totalitarian system," political philosopher Sheldon
Wolin writes.
The Democrats will once again offer up a least-worst alternative while, in fact,
doing little or nothing to thwart the march toward corporate totalitarianism
He thinks "We need to halt corporate pillage and regulate Wall Street and
corporations. ". Easier said then done because there is no politically organized
countervailing forces that can oppose Wall Street and large corporations. They own the
Capitol Hill. But clearly Biden while preferable to Trump is one step forward two steps
back.
If I had told you a year ago that Iran would have its top General assassinated and then its
country decimated by a viral infection, that China would be a world pariah with calls for
trillion in reparations, that Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela would have a bounty on his head for
lol being involved in the cocaine trade, and that Kim Jong Un would be dead who do you think
would be the architect of this future?
Chinese elites or American ones?
American neocons are literally getting everything they want.
You can look at all of the damage to the American economy relative to China, but who is
really being hurt in America? Regular Americans are being hurt. But the elites are getting
bailed out and will buy US assets for pennies on the dollar.
Tara Reade says Joe Biden once grabbed her privates and demanded sex. Will that change the
election in November?
The Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings were a turning point, when the presumption of
innocence was thrown out in favor of a new standard, "credible accusation." Evidence was
replaced by #BelieveAllWomen. Praised by Dems and the media as fierce justice then, it's
Biden's turn now.
Imagine the same type of proceedings directed at him. Amy Klobuchar repeats her accusation
that Kavanaugh, er, Biden, is a drunk, with about as little evidence now as then. Senator Dick
Durbin demands Biden demand an FBI investigation into himself. Durbin says of Biden, as he did
of Kavanaugh, that if he has nothing to hide then he has nothing to fear, a line often
attributed to Joseph Goebbels. Kamala Harris goes in as bad cop, righteously shouting down
whatever is said to her by Biden. The truth? You can't handle the truth.
After that show, imagine a second one where Elizabeth Warren, long-shot Biden VP pick
Florida Representative Val Demings, Kirsten Gillibrand, Stacey Abrams, and Michigan Governor
Gretchen Whitmer all show up to stand by Biden, not believe Reade, and/or remain silent when
asked. Watching people force themselves to support Biden under these conditions is what I
imagine the Beach Boys looked like backstage trying to mix Viagra and meth so they could get
through "Surfin' USA" one more time.
To flesh things out, voters could call in to ask those Democratic leaders how the very
serious business of #MeToo got turned into just another political tool by the "party of women."
Alyssa Milano, whose take on the Kavanaugh hearings was that she believed all women without the
need for due process, could be brought out to explain how now "the notion that this should be
disqualifying to Biden in a race against Trump is patently ridiculous. Anybody who claims
otherwise is using sexual assault as a political football."
@schnellandine OK, guys. To draw an analogy to a card game:
The Flynn affair has ended. Both sides (Trump & Establishment) have laid down their
cards. Trump wins. The only remaining question is whether he goes for the throat.
Remember, he pretty much has to. The Establishment has made it clear that Trump will be
attacked after he leaves office, and the Flynn affair shows that the attack would have
nothing to do with law or Trump's actions.
Still, has to isn't "did".
So Trump's remarks on "scum" and "treason" are important -- he's going for the throat.
Moreover, the Establishment has been weakened enough by inept COVID-19 preparation and
reaction, and the general public so afraid that the Establishment (what Feifer called the
"Anonymous Authority") will eat them next that a chance to rid themselves of it will receive
considerable backing, and the Establishment's urban power base become so -- well, Hellish,
that Trump actually has a fair chance. If he pulls the string the right way, prosecutes
serially and follows up on facts uncovered by the trials, follows up Epstein's trainl he
could discredit/imprison a good fraction of the Establishment's leaders and personnel. They
can see that as clearly as I can, and some of them, at least, will try to fight rather than
simply lose. They've always succeeded by all-out offensive, know little else.
Awhile back I mentioned that US political stability would drop considerably by early July
(by 2020-07-07, as I recall). Looks like that's really going to happen.
So -- Please do your best to stay safe. Remember, this won't do the food supply chain any
good, and that home invasions won't stop just because things are a bit chaotic.
Anti-Trump Government Officials Conflicted Over Not Being Able To Lie
The treasonous Mueller non-investigation now stands exposed. Those who lied to overthrow
the election are now in serious trouble.
All charges against Flynn are being dropped now that declassified documents show what
actually hapoened. Details including the transcripts can be found at these links.
@Thomasina Giraldi is right about the USA as an exploited Israeli colony But he suffers
from a severe case of Trump derangement syndrome. Trump has been in 3 1/2 years and virtually
every executive order he wrote has been overturned by the courts.
He wants to get out of Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq but the Deep State and the dual
nationals won't let him. He wants to partner with Russia against China – but the
Jewish media and Neocons hate Russia and sabotaged his efforts.
Can we stop with this narrative? It's designed 100% to just give Trump open-ended cover
for the bait-and-switch campaign he ran. Troop levels went up in Afghanistan. Whitney Webb
had a brilliant article detailing how Trump tried to extort the Iraqi government over
electrical grid contracts and oil revenue.
Trump ordered the bombing of Syria based on the same fraudulent garbage the Obama
administration was peddling, almost certainly hoping his manufactured cult of personality
would be enough to sell it.
His administration has sent billions of dollars worth of heavy weapons to the Ukrainian
occupied government and staked out a hostile position towards European countries
participating in the expansion of the Nordstream pipeline. Far from "pro-Russia", Trump is
one of the most anti-Russia presidents we've had in quite some time and that lines up with
the race-hate proclivities of his adopted parasite tribe.
"The full-spectrum failure of the Trump revolution" [Damon Linker, The Week ].
"Nearly three-and-a-half years into the Trump era, it's possible to take stock of the populist
revolution Trump promised to lead, and the fact is that it has been a full-spectrum failure.
The 45th president has been an immigration hardliner and he started a series of trade wars that
have accomplished little beyond raising prices for imported goods. But beyond that, what do we
have? Flagrant corruption, conflicts of interest, nepotism, inconstancy, incompetence, and
a
complete incapacity to speak and act as head of state -- combined with harsher and dumber
versions of the same policies any Republican elected in 2016 would have pursued . "
So Flynn was framed but the plot eventually failed. will Strzok get a jail sencetnce for his role in this FBI operation?
Charlie Savage being a NYT correspondent belongs to Clinton gang and defend their point of view. But h revels some
interesting tidbits about the nature of framing and possible consequences for the key members of Clinton gang.
WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department's
decision to drop the criminal case against Michael T. Flynn
, President Trump's former national security
adviser, even though he had twice pleaded guilty to lying to investigators, was extraordinary and had no
obvious precedent, a range of criminal law specialists said on Thursday.
"I've been practicing for more time than I care to admit and I've never seen
anything like this," said Julie O'Sullivan, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches criminal law at
Georgetown University.
The move is the latest in a series that the department, under Attorney
General William P. Barr, has taken to undermine and dismantle the work of the investigators and prosecutors
who scrutinized Russia's 2016 election interference operation and its links to people associated with the
Trump campaign.
The case against Mr. Flynn for lying to the F.B.I. about his conversations
with the Russian ambassador was brought by the office of the former special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
It had become a political cause for Mr. Trump and his supporters, and the president had signaled that he was
considering a pardon once Mr. Flynn was sentenced. But Mr. Barr instead abruptly short-circuited the case.
On Thursday, Timothy Shea, the interim U.S. attorney in the District of
Columbia, told the judge overseeing the case, Emmet G. Sullivan, that prosecutors were withdrawing the case.
They were doing so, he said, because the department could not prove to a jury that Mr. Flynn's admitted lies
to the F.B.I. about his conversations with the ambassador were "material" ones.
The move essentially erases Mr. Flynn's guilty pleas. Because he was never
sentenced and the government is unwilling to pursue the matter further, the prosecution is virtually certain
to end, although the judge must still decide whether to grant the department's request to dismiss it "with
prejudice," meaning it could not be refiled in the future.
A range of former prosecutors struggled to point to any previous instance in
which the Justice Department had abandoned its own case after obtaining a guilty plea. They portrayed the
justification Mr. Shea pointed to -- that it would be difficult to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
that the lies were material -- as dubious.
"A pardon would have been a lot more honest," said Samuel Buell, a former
federal prosecutor who now teaches criminal law at Duke University.
The law regarding what counts as "material" is extremely forgiving to the
government, Mr. Buell added. The idea is that law enforcement is permitted to pursue possible theories of
criminality and to interview people without having firmly established that there was a crime first.
James G. McGovern
, a defense lawyer at Hogan Lovells and a former federal prosecutor, said juries rarely
bought a defendant's argument that a lie did not involve a material fact.
"If you are arguing 'materiality,' you usually lose, because there is a tacit
admission that what you said was untrue, so you lose the jury," he said.
No career prosecutors signed the motion. Mr. Shea is a former close aide to
Mr. Barr. In January, Mr. Barr
installed him as the top prosecutor
in the district that encompasses the nation's capital after
maneuvering out the Senate-confirmed former top prosecutor in that office, Jessie K. Liu.
Soon after, in an extraordinary move, four prosecutors in the office abruptly
quit the case against Mr. Trump's longtime friend
Roger
J. Stone Jr.
They did so after senior Justice Department officials intervened to recommend a more
lenient prison term than standard sentencing guidelines called for in the crimes Mr. Stone was convicted of
committing -- including witness intimidation and perjury -- to conceal Trump campaign interactions with
WikiLeaks.
It
soon emerged
that Mr. Barr had also appointed an outside prosecutor, Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney in
St. Louis, to review the Flynn case files. The department then began turning over F.B.I. documents showing
internal deliberations about questioning Mr. Flynn, like what warnings to give -- even though such files are
usually not provided to the defense.
Mr. Flynn's defense team has mined such files for ammunition to portray the
F.B.I. as running amok in its decision to question Mr. Flynn in the first place. The questioning focused on
his conversations during the transition after the 2016 election with the Russian ambassador about the Obama
administration's imposition of sanctions on Russia for its interference in the American election.
The F.B.I. had already concluded that there was no evidence that Mr. Flynn, a
former Trump campaign adviser, had personally conspired with Russia about the election, and it had decided
to close out the counterintelligence investigation into him. Then questions arose about whether and why Mr.
Flynn had lied to administration colleagues like Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with the
ambassador.
Because the counterintelligence investigation was still open, the bureau used
it as a basis to question Mr. Flynn about the conversations and decided not to warn him at its onset that it
would be a crime to lie.
Notes from Bill Priestap
, then the head of the F.B.I.'s counterintelligence division, show that he wrote
at one point about the planned interview: "What's our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can
prosecute him or get him fired?"
Mr. Barr
has let it be known
that he does not think the F.B.I. ever had an adequate legal basis to open its
Russia investigation in the first place, contrary to the judgment of the Justice Department's inspector
general.
In
an interview on CBS News
on Thursday, Mr. Barr defended the dropping of the charges against Mr. Flynn on
the grounds that the F.B.I. "did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at
that stage."
Anne Milgram
, a former federal prosecutor and former New Jersey attorney general who teaches criminal
law at New York University, defended the F.B.I.'s decision to question Mr. Flynn in January 2017. She said
that much was still a mystery about the Russian election interference operation at the time and that Mr.
Flynn's lying to the vice president about his postelection interactions with a high-ranking Russian raised
new questions.
But, she argued, the more important frame for assessing the dropping of the
case was to recognize how it fit into the larger pattern of the Barr-era department "undercutting the law
enforcement officials and prosecutors who investigated the 2016 election and its aftermath," which she
likened to "eating the Justice Department from the inside out."
"... The foundational accusation of Russiagate was, and remains, charges that Russian President Putin ordered the hacking of DNC e-mails and their public dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy." As no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half of media and government investigations, we are left with Russiagate without Russia. ..."
"... This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise. ..."
"... Russiagate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. ..."
"... Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution and subsequent prosecution is highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on behalf of the incoming Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to sanctions imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving office. ..."
"... Those sanctions were highly unusual-last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of Russian property in the United States, and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified cyber attacks on Russia. ..."
"... Finally, and similarly, Cohen points out, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to drive Secretary of State Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon, anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department. ..."
Cohen offers the following general observations, which form the basis of the discussion:
The foundational accusation of Russiagate was, and remains, charges that Russian President Putin ordered the hacking of DNC
e-mails and their public dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton in the 2016
presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy." As
no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half of media and government investigations,
we are left with Russiagate without Russia. (An apt formulation perhaps first coined in an e-mail exchange by Nation writer
James Carden.) Special counsel Mueller has produced four indictments: against Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's short-lived national-security
adviser, and George Papadopolous, a lowly and inconsequential Trump "adviser," for lying to the FBI; and against Paul Manafort and
his partner Rick Gates for financial improprieties. None of these charges has anything to do with improper collusion with Russia,
except for the wrongful insinuations against Flynn. Instead, the several investigations, desperate to find actual evidence of collusion,
have spread to "contacts with Russia"-political, financial, social, etc.-on the part of a growing number of people, often going back
many years before anyone imagined Trump as a presidential candidate. The resulting implication is that these "contacts" were criminal
or potentially so.
This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections.
It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise.
More to the point, advisers to US policy-makers and even media commentators on Russia must have many and various contacts with Russia
if they are to understand anything about the dynamics of Kremlin policy-making. Cohen himself, to take an individual example, was
an adviser to two (unsuccessful) presidential campaigns, which considered his wide-ranging and longstanding "contacts" with Russia
to be an important credential, as did the one sitting president he advised. To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal
is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave US policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is
also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible,
as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The Wall Street Journal and by The Washington Post, in an editorial. This is one reason
Cohen, in a previous Batchelor broadcast and commentary, argued that Russiagate and its promoters have become the gravest threat
to American national security.
Russiagate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump
political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus
"Dossier" and the still murky role of top US intel officials in the creation of that document.) That said, Cohen continues, the mainstream
American media have been largely responsible for inflating, perpetuating, and sustaining the sham Russiagate as the real political
crisis it has become, arguably the greatest in modern American presidential and thus institutional political history. The media have
done this by increasingly betraying their own professed standards of verified news reporting and balanced coverage, even resorting
to tacit forms of censorship by systematically excluding dissenting reporting and opinions. (For inventories of recent examples,
see Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept and Joe Lauria at Consortium News. Anyone interested in exposures of such truly "fake news"
should visit these two sites regularly, the latter the product of the inestimable veteran journalist Robert Parry.) Still worse,
this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications once prized for their journalistic standards, where
expressed disdain for "evidence" and "proof" in favor of allegations without any actual facts can sometimes be found. Nor are these
practices merely the ordinary occasional mishaps of professional journalism. As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories,
whether by print media or cable television, were zealous promotions of Russiagate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples
of Russiagate without Russia.
Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution and subsequent prosecution is
highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak,
on behalf of the incoming Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to sanctions
imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving office.
Those sanctions were highly unusual-last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of Russian property in the United States,
and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified cyber attacks on Russia. They gave the impression that Obama wanted to
make even more difficult Trump's professed goal of improving relations with Moscow.
Still more, Obama's specified reason was not Russian behavior in Ukraine or Syria, as is commonly thought, but Russiagate-that
is, Putin's "attack on American democracy," which Obama's intel chiefs had evidently persuaded him was an entirely authentic allegation.
(Or which Obama, who regarded Trump's victory over his designated successor, Hillary Clinton, as a personal rebuff, was eager to
believe.) But Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador-as well as other Trump representatives' efforts to open "back-channel"
communications with Moscow–were anything but a crime. As Cohen pointed out in another previous commentary, there were so many precedents
of such overtures on behalf of presidents-elect, it was considered a normal, even necessary practice, if only to ask Moscow not to
make relations worse before the new president had a chance to review the relationship. When Henry Kissinger did this on behalf of
President-elect Nixon, his boss instructed him to keep the communication entirely confidential, not to inform any other members of
the incoming administration. Presumably Flynn was similarly secretive, thereby misinforming Vice President Pence and finding himself
trapped-or possibly entrapped-between loyalty to his president and an FBI agent. Flynn no doubt would have been especially guarded
with a representative of the FBI, knowing as he did the role of Obama's Intel bosses in Russiagate prior to the election and which
had escalated after Trump's surprise victory. In any event, to the extent that Flynn encouraged Moscow not to reply in kind immediately
to Obama's highly provocative sanctions, he performed a service to US national security, not a crime. And, assuming that Flynn was
acting on the instructions of his president-elect, so did Trump. Still more, if Flynn "colluded" in any way, it was with Israel,
not Russia, having been asked by that government to dissuade countries from voting for an impending anti-Israel UN resolution.
Finally, and similarly, Cohen points out, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to drive Secretary
of State Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon, anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department.
Tillerson was an admirable appointee by Trump-widely experienced in world affairs, a tested negotiator, a mature and practical-minded
man. Originally, his role as the CEO of Exxon Mobil who had negotiated and enacted an immensely profitable and strategically important
energy-extraction deal with the Kremlin earned him the slur of being "Putin's pal." This preposterous allegation has since given
way to charges that he is slowly restructuring, and trimming, the long bloated and mostly inept State Department, as indeed he should
do. Numerous former diplomats closely associated with Hillary Clinton have raced to influential op-ed pages to denounce Tillerson's
undermining of this purportedly glorious frontline institution of American national security. Many news reports, commentaries, and
editorials have been in the same vein. But who can recall, Cohen asks, a major diplomatic triumph by the State Department or a secretary
of state in recent years? The answer might be the Obama administration's multinational agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear-weapons
potential, but that was due no less to Russia's president and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which provided essential guarantees to
the sides involved. Forgotten, meanwhile, are the more than 50 career State Department officials who publicly protested-in the spirit
of DOD-Obama's rare attempt to cooperate with Moscow in Syria. Call it by what it was: the sabotaging of a president by his own State
Department. In this spirit, there are a flurry of leaked stories that Tillerson will soon resign or be ousted. Meanwhile, however,
he carries on. The ever-looming menace of Russiagate compels him to issue wildly exaggerated indictments of Russian behavior while,
at the same time, calling for a "productive new relationship" with Moscow, in which he clearly believes. (And which, if left unencumbered,
he might achieve.) Evidently, he has established a "productive" working relationship with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov,
the two of them having just announced North Korea's readiness to engage in negotiations with the United States and other governments
involved in the current crisis.
Tillerson's fate, Cohen concludes, will tell us much about the number-one foreign-policy question confronting America: cooperation
or escalating conflict with the other nuclear superpower, a détente-like diminishing of the new Cold War or the growing risks that
it will become hot war. Politics and policy should never be over-personalized; larger factors are always involved. But in these unprecedented
times, Tillerson may be the last man standing who represents the possibility of some kind of détente. Apart, that is, from President
Trump himself, loathe him or not. Or to put the issue differently: Will Russiagate continue to gravely endanger American national
security?
Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University.
A Nation contributing editor, his most recent book, War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available in
paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host of The John Batchelor Show, now in their seventh year,
are available at www.thenation.com.
Shortly after Brandon Van Grack, chief of the Justice Department's Foreign Agents
Registration Act division, filed a notice of his withdrawal in federal court in Washington, The
Justice Department has this morning filed a motion to drop the criminal case against President
Donald Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn , abandoning the critical leg of
many leftists' belief in the Russia collusion bullshit.
And all it took was one line...
As Byron York notes, the Justice Department finally concedes it had no basis to interview
Michael Flynn on January 24, 2017 , with the move coming less than a week after unsealed
documents in the case fueled renewed claims by Flynn that FBI agents had cooked up a bogus case
against him, and as AP reports, is a stunning reversal
for one of the signature cases brought by special counsel Robert Mueller.
In court documents being filed Thursday, the Justice Department said it is dropping the
case "after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including
newly discovered and disclosed information."
The Justice Department said it had concluded that Flynn's interview by the FBI was
"untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Mr.
Flynn" and that the interview on January 24, 2017 was "conducted without any legitimate
investigative basis."
It comes even though prosecutors for the last three years had maintained that Flynn had lied
to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in a January 2017 interview.
Flynn himself admitted as much, and became a key cooperator for Mueller as he investigated ties
between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.
We are sure it will not take long before Trump tweet-celebrates, as has relentlessly tweeted
about the case, and just last week pronounced Flynn "exonerated."
As Sara Carter detailed
last week, U.S. District Court Judge
Emmet G. Sullivan unsealed four pages of stunning FBI emails and handwritten notes which
allegedly revealed that the retired three star general was targeted by senior FBI officials for
prosecution . Those notes and emails revealed that the retired three-star general appeared to
be set up for a perjury trap by the senior members of the bureau and agents charged with
investigating the now-debunked allegations that President Donald Trump's campaign colluded with
Russia, said Sidney Powell, the defense lawyer representing Flynn.
Last week, after the FBI documents were unsealed, the president
tweeted :
"What happened to General Michael Flynn, a war hero, should never be allowed to happen to
a citizen of the United States again!"
It didn't take long, as Trump spoke to reporters saying "he is happy for Flynn," and adding
that Flynn "is an innocent man."
Your Logan Act investigation is over. The bums lost.
Former Trump attorney John Dowd says it's "staggering" that former
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's "so-called Dream Team would put on such a fraud," after the
Wednesday release of the investigation's "scope memo" revealed that Mueller was tasked with
investigating accusations from Clinton-funded operative Christopher Steele which the DOJ
already knew were debunked . "In the last few days, I have been going back through my files
and we were badly misled by Mueller and his senior people , particularly in the meetings that
we had," Dowd told Fox News Radio host Brian Kilmeade on Thursday.
The scope memo also revealed that Mueller's authority went significantly beyond what was
previously known - including "allegations that Carter Page committed a crime or crimes by
colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government's efforts to
interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United
States law," yet as John Solomon of
Just The News noted on Wednesday - the FBI had already:
fired Steele as an informant for leaking;
interviewed Steele's sub-source, who disputed information attributed to him;
ascertained that allegations Steele had given the FBI specifically about Page were
inaccurate and likely came from Russian intelligence sources as disinformation;
been informed repeatedly by the CIA that Page was not a Russian stooge but, rather, a
cooperating intelligence asset for the United States government.
" There's no question it's a fraud I think the whole report is just nonsense and it's
staggering that the so-called 'Dream Team' would put on such a fraud ," Dowd said, according to
Fox News .
"Durham has really got a load on his hands tracking all this down," Dowd said.
Durham was appointed last year by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the events
leading up to Trump's inauguration. However, Durham has since expanded his investigation to
cover a post-election timeline spanning the spring of 2017, when Mueller was appointed as
special counsel. - Fox News
"Nancy's Liar"
Dowd also circled back to a claim by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff that
there was "direct evidence" that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016
election, despite the fact that transcripts of House Intelligence Committee interviews proving
otherwise .
"Schiff doesn't release these interviews because they're going to make him a liar," said
Dowd, adding "They're going to expose him and he'll be run out of town."
"He lied for months in the impeachment inquiry. He's essentially Nancy [Pelosi]'s liar and
he's now going to be exposed."
Schiff Folds: Publishes Russiagate Transcripts After Showdown With DNI by Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2020 -
18:25 Following the standoff between Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Acting DNI Richard Grenell,
the House Intelligence Committee published all of the Russia investigation transcripts Thursday
evening.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Rep. Adam Schiff is planning to selectively release information from some of the 53
declassified transcripts of witnesses that testified before Congress regarding the FBI's
Russia probe into the Trump campaign. This move, comes after a long battle against
Republican colleagues, who are fighting to make all the transcripts available to the American
public, said a U.S. official, with knowledge of Schiff's plans.
Schiff has been fighting the release of the transcripts.
The decision for Schiff to publish a selective portion of the 6,000 pages of transcripts
comes after a recent public showdown with Director of National Intelligence
Richard Grenell, who is also fighting to make all the transcripts public. In fact, Grenell
reiterated in a letter Wednesday that if Schiff doesn't make the transcripts public then he
will release them himself.
Interestingly, the committee voted unanimously in the fall of 2018, to make all the
transcripts public after declassification, which has already been done.
"Schiff's planning to selectively leak to the liberal media what he wants, while keeping
the truth from the American people," said one source, familiar with Schiff's plans.
Schiff's office did not immediately respond to an email for comment.
A congressional source familiar with the issue said "the committee voted in the last
Congress to publish all the transcripts together, precisely to avoid any staged release
calculated for political effect."
"Schiff has had possession of most of the redacted transcripts for a long time, but he
used the fact that he didn't have all of them as an excuse not to publish any," said the
congressional source.
"If he selectively publishes just some of them now, it'll be rank hypocrisy."
Allegedly Schiff is also having his senior subcommittee staff director and counsel with the
intelligence committee contact the various heads of the intelligence community asking them to
challenge plans by Grenell to release the transcripts, which were declassified prior to his
arrival at DNI.
Several sources, familiar with Schiff's actions, have stated that his refusal to release the
transcripts is based on information contained in the testimony that will destroy his Russia
hoax propaganda.
"Schiff has been sitting on a lot of these transcripts for a long time," said a Republican
congressional source.
"They were using this as an excuse to ensure that the White House wouldn't have access to
the transcripts, now he wants to selectively leak and that's the game he plays – he's
definitely shifty. "
Economic self-sufficiency which is also a foundation of REAL national security starts
from industry. No industry--no American nation. Simple as that.
The very idea of an American nation has all but been destroyed. The very people who
built the US have been vilified and many within this group have gone along with it. The
problem is beyond material. America is suffering from a psycho-social ailment. It is at
least 2 or 3 different cultures within the borders of one country. Even if industries were
brought back what purpose would they serve? Hedonism, self-worship, and consumerism are the
new trinity of many within the elite and a great many in the so called middle class. I
doubt economic self-sufficiency is possible let alone long-suffering given the absence of
purpose and meaning in people's lives. The secular reigns supreme over the sacred.
cdvision • 19
hours ago It is practically impossible for the US to recover as a manufacturing nation.
The skills are gone, the education and training has gone, the culture will not accept it,
and anyway it would be massively more expensive than buying superior goods at a cheaper
price - think cars, for example. The US is massively behind the curve; I read recently that
China has more robots producing stuff than the rest of the world combined. And what robots
are working in the US have likely been put in by Daimler or BMW - and be Chinese made
robots.
The US may try and break its dependency on China - say to Vietnam or India - but have
any of those idiots suggesting this been to Vietnam or India. You see an awful lot of
Chinese companies there manufacturing stuff. So changing the Made in China label to Made in
Vietnam label changes nothing.
According to latest stats only 16% of Chinese exports go to the US. If this went to zero
it would be a short term problem for China, but a massive blow for the US. Its not just the
cheap shit that ends up in Walmart, there are few end products that don't have parts made
in China, and realistically changing that is impossible. I keep repeating that all China
has to do is stop exporting to the US and in a week of so the US would be on its knees. Oh,
and its a myth that China is ripping off US IP - maybe in the past, but now the future is
out east. Think 5G; its a given that the countries with the best infrastructure will
prosper.
Vasya Pypkin •
20
hours ago With this elite nothing good is going to happen. So, there must be elites
thinking along Andrei lines, but here comes the question of power. To push measures
necessary to industrialize those new elite must have power and not in a sense like Trump
has or rather not...
Smells like revolutionary coup is needed to safe USA. see more
The OPCW is claimed to be an independent agency but we know that it suppressed the results of
its own engineers when it reported that the Syrian government was responsible for the alleged
chemical attack in Douma. The former head of the agency has publicly asserted that when John
Bolton demanded that he step down, he added, "We know where your children live." The US has a
history of corruption and intimidation. Any investigation would result in finding China
responsible just as Russia was found to be responsible for the airliner that was shot down
over Ukraine.
"... In 2010, Flynn co-authored an important analysis, Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan . Flynn's key conclusion warned that the U.S. intelligence effort in Afghanistan was failing: ..."
"... The paper argues that because the United States has focused the overwhelming majority of collection efforts and analytical brainpower on insurgent groups, our intelligence apparatus still finds itself unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which we operate and the people we are trying to protect and persuade. ..."
"... lambasted American intelligence performance in Afghanistan. . . [It] pulled no punches, using words like "marginally relevant," "ignorant," "hazy," and "incurious" to describe U.S. intelligence work in Afghanistan in a scathing fashion. ..."
"... During 2012-2013, DIA provided honest, objective analysis about the success of the Syrian Army in fighting against ISIS and Al Qaeda. If you go back and look at the media reporting at the time, there were dire reports claiming that the rebels were on the verge of ousting Syrian leader Assad and sweeping to power. Members of Congress, such as Senators McCain and Graham, were busy cheerleading the Syrian rebels progress. ..."
"... Few knew at the time that the CIA was running a massive arms and training program to support some of the Syrian rebels. ..."
"... This earned Michael Flynn the lasting enmity of DNI Director Jim Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan. Flynn would not play ball in down playing the jihadist threat in Syria. If you recall, President Obama referred to ISIS as the "junior varsity" during a January 2014 interview with the New Yorker: ..."
"... "The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant," Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. "I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian. ..."
"... His refusal to downplay the ISIS threat was on of the contributing factors that led Obama to fire Flynn, who left the DIA position in August 2014. ..."
"... Michael Flynn did not go quietly into retirement. He became a vocal critic of Obama's failed policies in the Middle East ..."
"... This made him a target of both Clapper and Brennan. When Brennan put together a CIA Task Force in the late summer of 2015, I believe that one of the targets of the intelligence collection from that effort was Michael Flynn. By March of 2016, Flynn was squarely in the crosshairs of the Obama political/intelligence hit squad : ..."
"... Flynn, who was forced out of his post as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in August 2014 after clashing with other senior officials, has said that "political correctness" has prevented the U.S. from confronting violent extremism, which he sees as a "cancerous idea that exists inside of the Islamic religion." Flynn has authored a forthcoming book that argues the U.S. government "has concealed the actions of terrorists like [Osama] bin Laden and groups like ISIS, and the role of Iran in the rise of radical Islam " ..."
"... But that did not stop Jim Comey and his cronies from stepping up their efforts to find something they could use to charge and prosecute Flynn. Text messages from Peter Strzok to the author of the memo recommending the case be closed show that Strzok begged to keep the investigation open and cited "7th Floor" interest as justification. The 7th Floor of the FBI is where Jim Comey and Andy McCabe were located. ..."
"... Who authorized that collection of those conversations? Flynn was the acting National Security Advisor to President elect Donald Trump. Listening in on such a phone call was a pure act of domestic espionage against a political opponent of Obama. There was no justification to UNMASK General Flynn. But that is exactly what the FBI did. ..."
"... If and that's a big IF, somehow these scumbags (Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, et. al) ever got to a courtroom, they'd be facing - in DC - a jury of 12 Trump-haters and an Obama judge;see Roger Stone's trial. ..."
"... Excellent summary. Yes, Flynn was scapegoated and dragged through the mud for embarrassing his "betters" with the truth. He made mistakes and was naive himself, but he did the right thing exposing their plan to arm and support a jihadi takeover of Syria and Iraq. The plan was to let them takeover and then take the "JV team" out. ..."
"... They didn't want to send too many more troops to war. Americans had grown weary due to Bush's madness, so they used jihadis to carry out their plan in the Middle East and North Africa, to fill in the void ..."
"... It was very naive policy making and in the end Obama grew paranoid he was being screwed like Carter, that Benghazi was going to be turned into another Iranian hostage-like situation. It's a curious thing that Obama warned Trump of Flynn. In Obama's mind, Flynn was part of a conspiracy to screw him for choosing to back "Syrian and Libyan farmers" over American troops. That this was the US military brass showing him who's really boss and that they were trying to embarrass him. In reality, he made a bad policy decision based on failure to understand the region. His failures to under these people, exactly as Flynn warned, precipitated these failures. ..."
"... Trump showed a lot of promise that these circumstances would change for the better. Sadly, he has performed no better. Netanyahu and Pompeo are so far up his ass that they are now his ventriloquists. Obama should have warned him of those two instead. ..."
"... ...We see the same thing has evolved in the American Empire. If you take time to read up on the Flynn case or the much larger plot around it, you see a large cast of people with one thing in common. They all live together as a social class. Some were having sex with one another. Others had been friends since college. Others developed their relationships when they came to Washington. All of these social relationships transcend the formal positions and titles of the people... ..."
"... At that time of the Syria events, it appeared one of the biggest names in the background pushing for more support for Syrian "rebels", was the shadowy activist group AVAAZ. ..."
"... Now comes the present day kicker, the mistress Antonia Staats of the recently fired UK "expert" Neil Ferguson that caused our global shut down with his wildly inaccurate corona death count numbers, works for US based AVAAZ. Did she have any influence over his draconian pronouncements based up on her known AVAAZ activism? ..."
"... Is AVAAZ just one more name for Bernnan's CIA, not like unlike CNN? Should these dots be connected or just discarded as one more right-wing wacko conspiracy theory. ..."
"... Thanks for the excellent summary of how Flynn became "persona non grata" to various powers in the IC. But there is another powerful group in Washington whose fervent enmity he drew: the Democratic establishment. See: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/how-mike-flynn-became-americas-angriest-general-214362 ..."
"... Adding to my comment just above, my personal feeling on why there was such a push to find something to prosecute Flynn over was as a direct response to Flynn's leading of chants to "lock her up." "What goes around comes around" seems to be an operative policy for some in Washington. I can't help but believe that is what drove DOJ's otherwise inexplicable drive to find something to prosecute Flynn over. ..."
Two and one-half years ago, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller unveiled charges against
Michael Flynn for "lying to Federal agents." At the time I gave Mueller the benefit of the
doubt and assumed, incorrectly, that the investigation was fair and honest. We now know without
any doubt that the so-called investigation of Michael Flynn was frame-up. It was a punishment
in search of a crime and ultimately led the FBI to manufacture a crime in order to take out
Michael Flynn and damage the fledgling Presidency of Donald Trump.
It is important to understand the lack of proper foundation to investigate Michael Flynn as
a collaborator with Russia as part of some bizarre plot to steal the 2016 Presidential election
for Donald Trump.
Flynn was perceived as a threat to the CIA and refused to cook the intelligence for the
Obama Administration while he was Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
The paper argues that because the United States has focused the overwhelming majority of
collection efforts and analytical brainpower on insurgent groups, our intelligence apparatus
still finds itself unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which we
operate and the people we are trying to protect and persuade.
Flynn's work did not sit well with Jim Clapper and John Brennan. John Schindler, a rabid
anti-Trumper, wrote a hit piece on Flynn in December 2017, that highlights the Deep State anger
at Flynn. Schindler characterizes Flynn's work in unflattering terms and
claims that Flynn :
lambasted American intelligence performance in Afghanistan. . . [It] pulled no punches,
using words like "marginally relevant," "ignorant," "hazy," and "incurious" to describe U.S.
intelligence work in Afghanistan in a scathing fashion.
Flynn's honesty in that assessment did
not derail his next promotion -- he was sworn in as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in
July 2012. Once in that position he refused to cook the intelligence. I saw this firsthand (at
the time I had access to the classified intelligence analysis by DIA with respect to the war in
Syria). During 2012-2013, DIA provided honest, objective analysis about the success of the
Syrian Army in fighting against ISIS and Al Qaeda. If you go back and look at the media
reporting at the time, there were dire reports claiming that the rebels were on the verge of
ousting Syrian leader Assad and sweeping to power. Members of Congress, such as Senators McCain
and Graham, were busy cheerleading the Syrian rebels progress.
Few knew at the time that the CIA was running a massive arms and training program to support
some of the Syrian rebels. The program was a failure and the attack on the CIA base in
Benghazi, Libya came close to exposing the covert effort. What the media was not reporting is
that the rebels the U.S. backed were inept. The only rebels achieving some success were the
radical jihadists aligned with ISIS and elements of Al Qaeda (e.g. Al Nusra).
This earned Michael Flynn the lasting enmity of DNI Director Jim Clapper and CIA Director
John Brennan. Flynn would not play ball in down playing the jihadist threat in Syria. If you
recall, President Obama referred to ISIS as the "junior varsity" during a January 2014
interview with the New Yorker:
"The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts
on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant," Obama said, resorting to an
uncharacteristically flip analogy. "I think there is a distinction between the capacity and
reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the
homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often
sectarian.
But that was not the story that Flynn's DIA was telling. His refusal to downplay the ISIS
threat was on of the contributing factors that led Obama to fire Flynn, who left the DIA
position in August 2014.
Michael Flynn did not go quietly into retirement. He became a vocal critic of Obama's failed
policies in the
Middle East :
Since taking off his uniform last August, Flynn, 56, has been in the vanguard of those
criticizing the president's policies in the Middle East, speaking out at venues ranging from
congressional hearings and trade association banquets to appearances on Fox News, CNN, Sky News
Arabia, and Japanese television, targeting the Iranian nuclear deal, the weakness of the U.S.
response to the Islamic State, and the Obama administration's refusal to call America's enemies
in the Middle East "Islamic militants."
This made him a target of both Clapper and Brennan. When Brennan put together a CIA Task
Force in the late summer of 2015, I believe that one of the targets of the intelligence
collection from that effort was Michael Flynn. By March of 2016, Flynn was squarely in the crosshairs of the Obama
political/intelligence hit squad :
They question why the retired general, who has earned criticism for his leadership style but
has generally been regarded as a well-intentioned professional, would assist a candidate who
has called for military actions that would constitute war crimes.
"I think Flynn and Trump are two peas in a pod," one former senior U.S. intelligence
official who knows Flynn told The Daily Beast. "They have this naïve notion that yelling
at people will just solve problems."
Flynn, who was forced out of his post as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in
August 2014 after clashing with other senior officials, has said that "political correctness"
has prevented the U.S. from confronting violent extremism, which he sees as a "cancerous idea
that exists inside of the Islamic religion." Flynn has authored a forthcoming book that argues
the U.S. government "has concealed the actions of terrorists like [Osama] bin Laden and groups
like ISIS, and the role of Iran in the rise of radical Islam "
His co-author, Michael Ledeen,
is a neoconservative author and policy analyst who was involved in the Iran-Contra Affair.
Thanks to the document release on 30 April, 2020, we know that the FBI opened an
unsuccessful investigation of Flynn. Here are the key points from the memo recommending the
investigation be closed:
The FBI opened captioned case based on an particularly false factual basis that CROSSFIRE RAZOR (CR)
may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which
may constitute a federal crime· or threat to the national security.
The FBI predicated the investigation on predetermined criteria set forth by the CROSSFIRE
HURRICANE (CH) investigative team based on an assessment of reliable lead information received
during the course of the investigation.
The FBI queried the FBI databases and at least two other intelligence community databases
for incriminating information but found NO DEROGATORY INFORMATION .
The FBI used a Confidential Human Source (aka CHS probably Stefan Halper) to try to collect
incriminating information. The CHS claimed that Flynn was in contact with Svetlana Lokhova, a
British academic born in Russia, but a subsequent FBI search of their databases turned up NO
DEROGATORY INFORMATION .
The FBI memo concludes:
the absence of any derogatory information or lead information from these logical sources
reduced the number of investigative avenues and techniques to pursue. . . . The FBI is closing
this investigation.
But that did not stop Jim Comey and his cronies from stepping up their efforts to find
something they could use to charge and prosecute Flynn. Text messages from Peter Strzok to the
author of the memo recommending the case be closed show that Strzok begged to keep the
investigation open and cited "7th Floor" interest as justification. The 7th Floor of the FBI is
where Jim Comey and Andy McCabe were located.
They decided to pursue two lines of attack. First, to go after Flynn for allegedly failing
to register as a "Foreign Agent" because of a report his consulting firm prepared on a Turk
living in the United States that Turkey named as a "terrorist." Second, the FBI had in hand the
transcript of Flynn's conversations with Russia's Ambassador and wanted to entrap him into
lying about those conversations.
Who authorized that collection of those conversations? Flynn was the acting National
Security Advisor to President elect Donald Trump. Listening in on such a phone call was a pure
act of domestic espionage against a political opponent of Obama. There was no justification to
UNMASK General Flynn. But that is exactly what the FBI did.
The news of Mike Flynn's plea agreement in late 2017 with special prosecutor Robert Mueller
was trumpeted on the media as if Flynn admitted to killing Kennedy or having unprotected sex
with Vladimir Putin. But read the actual indictment and the accompanying agreement.
Here is the chronology of Michael Flynn's entirely appropriate actions as the National
Security Advisor to President-elect Donald Trump. This is not what an agent of Russia would do.
This is what the National Security Advisor to an incoming President would do.
December 21, 2016 --Egypt submitted a resolution to the United Nations Security Council on
the issue of Israeli settlements ("resolution").
December 22, 2016-- a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team (reportedly
Jared Kushner) directed FLYNN to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia,
to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to
delay the vote or defeat the resolution.
December 23, 2016-- FLYNN again spoke with the Russian Ambassador, who informed FLYNN that
if it came to a vote Russia would not vote against the resolution.
On this same day, President-elect Trump spoke with Egyptian leader Sisi, who agreed to
withdraw the resolution (
link ).
[I would note that there is nothing illegal or wrong about any of this. Quite an appropriate
action, in fact, for an incoming President. Moreover, if Trump and the Russians had been
conspiring before the November election, why would Trump and team even need to persuade the
Russian Ambassador to do the biding of Trump on this issue?]
December 28, 2016-- President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13757, which was to take
effect the following day, imposing sanctions on Russia. Russian Ambassador Kislyak called
General Flynn (who was vacationing in the Caribbean).
December 29, 2016 , FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential Transition Team ("PTT
official"), who was with other senior members of the Presidential Transition Team at the
Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss what, if anything, to communicate to the
Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that call, FLYNN and the PTT official discussed
the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on the incoming
administration's foreign policy goals. The PTT official and FLYNN also discussed that the
members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the
situation.
FLYNN called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the
situation and only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner.
Shortly after his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT
official to report on the substance of his call with the Russian Ambassador, including
their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions.
December 31, 2016-- the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him that Russia had
chosen not to retaliate in response to FLYNN's request.
After his phone call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the
Presidential Transition Team about FLYNN's conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding
the U.S. Sanctions and Russia's decision not to escalate the situation.
Michael Flynn's contact with the Russian Government and other members of the UN Security
Council in the month preceding Trump's inauguration was appropriate and normal. He did nothing
wrong. But President Obama's henchmen, including James Comey, John Brennan, Jim Clapper and
Susan Rice were out for blood and relied on the FBI to stick the shiv into General Flynn's
belly.
That travesty of justice is being methodically and systematically revealed in the documents
delivered to the Flynn defense team thanks to the efforts of Attorney General William Barr.
Barr is relying on the US Attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri (EDMO) to review the
case and provide Brady material to the Flynn defense team. This is by the book. Doing it this
way provides the legal foundation for future prosecution of the FBI and prosecutors who abused
the General Flynn's rights and violated the Constitution. Stay tuned.
All true in my book but it would be very hard to prosecute and get convictions as the defense
would be "We were working in the best interests of the US against the dastardly Russkies"
At least half the country believes it goes the Russians interfered materially in the 2016
election. 2018 poll
Great analysis, your article added a lot of context on why Flynn was targeted. What a
horrible thing to do to a person.
http://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/ that has
been doing A+ work on the Flynn set up, linked to you.
If and that's a big IF, somehow these scumbags (Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, et. al) ever
got to a courtroom, they'd be facing -
in DC - a jury of 12 Trump-haters and an Obama judge;see Roger Stone's trial.
Bottom line: Until the swamp is drained and then burned (meaning all SES and over a certain GS level
bureaucrats gone), we will continue to live under the thumbs of this corrupt "ruling
class." And getting rid of all these people wouldn't make much of a difference to most
Americans; witness the notorious "shutdowns" in recent years.
Excellent summary. Yes, Flynn was scapegoated and dragged through the mud for embarrassing
his "betters" with the truth. He made mistakes and was naive himself, but he did the right
thing exposing their plan to arm and support a jihadi takeover of Syria and Iraq. The plan
was to let them takeover and then take the "JV team" out.
They didn't want to send too many more troops to war. Americans had grown weary due to
Bush's madness, so they used jihadis to carry out their plan in the Middle East and North
Africa, to fill in the void while they could before Russia remained weak and China yet to
fully emerge, to checkmate the grand chessboard Zbigniew wrote of while the US held
unchallenged supremacy.
Obama was very naive about what Muslims are really like in some of those parts. It's best
to liken them to Comanches. He bought into the Zbigniew/Neocon belief that they'll just be
another Taliban, but ask any Afghan who managed to escape the country at the time and they'll
tell you these guys are all devils, djinns.
It was very naive policy making and in the end Obama grew paranoid he was being screwed
like Carter, that Benghazi was going to be turned into another Iranian hostage-like
situation. It's a curious thing that Obama warned Trump of Flynn. In Obama's mind, Flynn was
part of a conspiracy to screw him for choosing to back "Syrian and Libyan farmers" over
American troops. That this was the US military brass showing him who's really boss and that
they were trying to embarrass him. In reality, he made a bad policy decision based on failure
to understand the region. His failures to under these people, exactly as Flynn warned,
precipitated these failures.
Obama made a lot of mistakes, but thankfully he didn't make it worse by invading in spite
of his red line. I have to credit him that much, but his failures in Libya and Syria are on
par with Bush's failures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Disastrous doesn't even begin to describe
these failures.
Trump showed a lot of promise that these circumstances would change for the better. Sadly,
he has performed no better. Netanyahu and Pompeo are so far up his ass that they are now his
ventriloquists. Obama should have warned him of those two instead.
"... internal investigation unit". If I run the IG and change the definition of "whistle
blower" to allow hearsay evidence that is not admissible as evidence in any court in the
Western world that still makes it okay to use hearsay, right? Of course it does. You forgot
about Horowitz and his IG report already, you guys must really be getting desperate. Thanks
for the laugh.
As much as I would love to see this "ruling class" brought low, by which I mean burnt to the
ground, we face the problem of The Ruling System, outlined in this post on the Z-Man blog:
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=20405 A little snippet from the post:
...We see the same thing has evolved in the American Empire. If you take time to read up
on the Flynn case or the much larger plot around it, you see a large cast of people with one
thing in common. They all live together as a social class. Some were having sex with one
another. Others had been friends since college. Others developed their relationships when
they came to Washington. All of these social relationships transcend the formal positions and
titles of the people...
Z-Man examines this in various historical settings, Versailles, Communist Russia, before
arriving at The Swamp. Interesting angle.
Small world, speaking of Seymour Hersh's lengthy CIA gun-running to Syria expose in "The Red
Line and Rat Line", that all his prior media connections refused to publish at the time
(Benghazi-Obama days), until it finally appeared in the London Review of Books- or something
like that.
At that time of the Syria events, it appeared one of the biggest names in the background
pushing for more support for Syrian "rebels", was the shadowy activist group AVAAZ.
Now comes the present day kicker, the mistress Antonia Staats of the recently fired UK
"expert" Neil Ferguson that caused our global shut down with his wildly inaccurate corona
death count numbers, works for US based AVAAZ. Did she have any influence over his draconian
pronouncements based up on her known AVAAZ activism?
Who was it that says there are no coincidences? Long time since I saw any media attention
given to AVAAZ, nor any final answers why the CIA was running such a big operation in
Benghazi in 2012. However, all the same names and players still swirling around gives one
pause.
Is AVAAZ just one more name for Bernnan's CIA, not like unlike CNN? Should these dots be
connected or just discarded as one more right-wing wacko conspiracy theory.
Adding to my comment just above, my personal feeling
on why there was such a push
to find something to prosecute Flynn over
was as a direct response to Flynn's leading of chants to "lock her up."
"What goes around comes around" seems to be an operative policy for some in Washington.
I can't help but believe that is what drove DOJ's otherwise inexplicable drive to find
something to prosecute Flynn over.
AVAAZ pushed FaceBook and Zuckerberg to ban about half of FB content on novel coronavirus,
starting last month, Politico gleefully reported. [Two medical doctors in California 'out of
step' with the diktats of some medical cartel's message, among those FB canceled, for
example.]
AVAAZ, which pushed regime change in Syria, no fly zone in Libya, spews hatred of Russia,
etc. is alive and well, working hard at increasing online censorship.
Their clicktivism business model and lock downs go hand in hand.
[[Avaaz discovered that over 40 percent of the coronavirus-related misinformation it found
on Facebook. . .]]
[[Avaaz said that these fake social media posts -- everything from advice about bogus
medical remedies for the virus to claims that minority groups were less susceptible to
infection -- had been shared, collectively, 1.7 million times on Facebook in six
languages]]
[[Avaaz tracked 104 claims debunked by fact-checkers to see how quickly they were removed
from the platform]]
" If I run the IG and change the definition of "whistle blower" to allow hearsay evidence
that is not admissible as evidence in any court in the Western world that still makes it okay
to use hearsay, right? Of course it does. You forgot about Horowitz and his IG report
already, you guys must really be getting desperate. Thanks for the laugh."
No laughing matter. The IG position is obviously politicized. It may be a surprise to you,
but many police forces have an internal investigation unit that has extremely wide powers
that. go far beyond those available in ordinary investigation. The staff of such units are a
rare and disliked breed and the units are managed by the natural enemies of the police -
criminal lawyers.
Given that I've seen what these units do here, I am surprised that Strzok, Page and others
were not apprehended and charged very quickly.
Jim, thank you for the further AVAAZ info. Call me gob-smacked. Hope the investigative media picks up this thread. Seymour Hersh, are
you listening? AVAAZ felt sinister during the Benghazi days - also reacll some connections
with Samantha Power and Susan Rice - Barry's Girls.
Maybe mistress Antonia Staats was on a mission; and not just being a scofflaw mistress? In
fact is she trying out to be the new S.P.E.C.T.R.E Bond Girl?
IG's are no surprise to me nor the politicalization, such as Baltimore and Chicago, cities
run by the same political party for decades. Or the "intelligence community" IG, who changed
to rules to allow the scam of Schiff's supersecret whistleblower fraud to go forward. But
then you probably forgot that guy like you did Horowitz.
"I am surprised that Strzok, Page and others were not apprehended and charged ...." Larry insists that will happen. I'm not holding my breath.
|
Ethan Paul dismantles H.R.
McMaster's "analysis"
of the Chinese government and shows how McMaster abuses the idea of strategic empathy for his
own ends:
But the reality is that McMaster, and others committed to great power competition, is
actually playing the role of Johnson and McNamara. This shines through clearest in McMaster's
selective, and ultimately flawed, application of strategic empathy.
Just as Johnson and McNamara used the Joint Chiefs as political props, soliciting their
advice or endorsement only when it could legitimize policy conclusions they had already come
to, McMaster uses strategic empathy as a symbolic exercise in self-validation. By conceiving
of China's perspective solely in terms of its tumultuous history and the Communist Party's
pathological pursuit of power and control, McMaster presents only those biproducts of
strategic empathy that confirm his policy conclusions (i.e. an intuitive grasp of China's
apparent drive to reassert itself as the "Middle Kingdom" at the expense of the United
States).
McMaster calls for "strategic empathy" in understanding how the Chinese government sees the
world, but he then stacks the deck by asserting that the government in question sees the world
in exactly the way that China hawks want to believe that they see it. That suggests that
McMaster wasn't trying terribly hard to see the world as they do. McMaster's article has been
likened to Kennan's seminal
article on Soviet foreign policy at the start of the Cold War, but the comparison only serves
to highlight how lacking McMaster's argument is and how inappropriate a similar containment
strategy would be today. Where Kennan rooted his analysis of Soviet conduct in a lifetime of
expertise in Russian history and language and his experience as a diplomat in Moscow, McMaster
bases his assessment of Chinese conduct on one visit to Beijing, a superficial survey of
Chinese history, and some boilerplate ideological claims about communism. McMaster's article
prompted some strong criticism along these lines when it came out:
I have heard from other colleagues that several CN scholars met w/ McMaster before he
wrote this (while working on his book) and corrected him on many issues. He apparently
ignored all of their views. This is what we face people: a simple, deceptive narrative is
more seductive.
McMaster's narrative is all the more deceptive because he claims to want to understand the
official Chinese government view, but he just substitutes the standard hawkish caricature. Near
the end of the article, he asserts, "Without effective pushback from the United States and
like-minded nations, China will become even more aggressive in promoting its statist economy
and authoritarian political model." It is possible that this could happen, but McMaster treats
it as a given without offering much proof that this is so. McMaster makes a mistake common to
China hawks that assumes that every other great power must have the same missionary,
world-spanning goals that they have. Suppose instead that the Chinese government is not
interested in that, but has a more limited strategy aimed at securing itself and establishing
itself as the leading power in its region.
Paul does a fine job of using McMaster's earlier work on the Vietnam War to expose the flaws
in his thinking about China. McMaster has often been praised for his criticism of the
military's top leaders over their role in running the war in Vietnam, but this usually
overlooks that McMaster was really arguing for a much more aggressive war effort. He faulted
the Joint Chiefs for "dereliction" because they didn't insist on escalation. Paul observes:
McMaster's tale of Vietnam is, counterintuitively, one of enduring confidence in the
U.S.'s ability to do good in the world and conquer all potential challengers, if only it
finds the will to overcome the temptations of political cowardice and stamp out bureaucratic
ineptitude. This same message runs through McMaster's tale about China: "If we compete
aggressively," and "no longer adhere to a view of China based mainly on Western aspirations,"
McMaster says, "we have reason for confidence."
McMaster would have the U.S. view China in the worst possible light as an implacable
adversary. Following this recommendation will guarantee decades of heightened tensions and
increased risks of conflict. McMaster's dangerous China hawkishness calls to mind something
that Jim Mattis said about him regarding a different
issue when they served together in the Trump administration: "Oh my God, that moron is going to
get us all killed." His aggressiveness towards China is not driven by an assessment of the
threat from China, but comes from his tendency to advocate for aggressive measures
everywhere.
As Paul notes, McMaster is minimizing the dangers and risks that his preferred policy of
confrontation entails. In that respect, he is making the same error that American leaders made
in Vietnam:
Like Johnson and McNamara before him, McMaster is misleading both the public and himself
about the costs, consequences, and likelihood for success of the path he is committed to
pursuing, and in so doing is laying the groundwork for yet another national tragedy.
McMaster's China argument is reminiscent of other arguments made by imperialists in the
past, and he relies on many of the same shoddy assumptions that they did. Like British
Russophobes in the mid-19th century, McMaster decided on a policy of aggressive containment and
then searched for rationalizations that might justify it. Jack Snyder described this in his
classic study
Myths of Empire thirty years ago:
Russia is portrayed as a unitary, rational actor with unlimited aims of conquest, but
fortunately averse to risk and weak if stopped soon enough. (p. 168)
McMaster uses the same "paper tiger image" to portray China as an unstoppable aggressor that
can nonetheless be stopped at minimal risk. He wants us to believe that China is at once
implacable but easily deterred, insatiable but quick to back off under pressure. We have seen
the same contradictory arguments from hawks on other issues, but it is particularly dangerous
to promote such a misleading image of a nuclear-armed major power. about the author
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the
New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
US voters are caught between a rock and a hard place -- Morton's fork , which is: a choice between two
equally unpleasant alternatives (in other words, a dilemma), or two lines of reasoning that lead
to the same unpleasant conclusion. It is analogous to the expressions "between the devil and the
deep blue sea,"
“In philosophy seminars, the choice is usually between good and evil. In the real
world, however, the choice is often between a bad guy and a worse guy.” ― Dinesh
D'Souza, Letters to a
Young Conservative
“Every four years we go through the same cycle of hope and disillusionment.”
― Sheri Holman, The
Mammoth Cheese
“Voting Republican or Democrat is a wasted vote for the common people.” ―
Steven Magee
“Typically, in politics, more than one horse is owned and managed by the same team in
an election. There's always and extra candidate who will slightly mimic the views of their team's
opposing horse, to cancel out that person by stealing their votes just so the main horse can win.
Elections are puppet shows. Regardless of their rainbow coats and many smiles, the agenda is one
and the same.” ― Suzy Kassem, ― Suzy Kassem, Rise Up and Salute the Sun: The Writings of Suzy
Kassem
“Voter: someone smart enough to choose how to be fooled.” ― Jakub
Bożydar Wiśniewski
Notable quotes:
"... Perhaps the most devastating dimension of Trump's time in office, on a policy level, is how the Republican establishment brilliantly exploited Trump as a Trojan horse for its extreme agenda. It is unlikely that any of the GOP's preferred candidates could have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016. Trump dragged the Republican Party kicking and screaming back into executive power. For them, he was a messiah they chided and scorned when he first appeared, but now they prostrate themselves before him every minute of every day. ..."
"... More broadly, the real terror of the past three and a half years boils down to this: The consolidation of power by some of the most vile figures and interests in the Republican party. This includes the scores of federal judges named to the bench, the shaping of the Supreme Court, the radical drive toward deregulation, and the canceling of even the most minimal commitments the U.S. has made to try to confront climate change. What the Republicans have managed to accomplish on a policy level in Trump's time in office is profound and terrifying. ..."
"... Trump's economic policies have enriched corporations and special interest groups beyond their imaginations, while sawing off the already inadequate social programs in this country. We still have no idea of the extent to which Trump and his family are financially benefiting from his presidency. He talks about women in disgusting ways, including attempting to publicly humiliate the women he is accused of raping and assaulting. And the sick reality is that a significant number of people in the U.S. clearly like these things even if they won't openly admit it, though a disturbing number of them do feel emboldened to admire it. Trump has offered up an IPO on ignorance and hatred as a source of pride, and a lot of people enthusiastically bought in. ..."
"... Trump's rise to power is, in many ways, the logical product of the U.S. as a failed state. Trump says the quiet parts about the system out loud. ..."
"... It's always worth remembering that Biden was picked in 2008 to make Obama less threatening to moderates -- so we can't even bank on a return to Obama's brand of neoliberalism. ..."
Donald Trump ran for president in 2016 on an often ad-libbed and reactionary campaign of
hate, greed, xenophobia, misogyny, and racism. He clearly viewed the fact that a black man had
ascended to the presidency as an abomination and rightly assessed that there were a lot of
racists in this country who saw the eight years the Obamas spent living in the White House as a
crime against the real, white America. Trump already had a brand, realized early on the power
of being an outsider in U.S. presidential elections, and focused on some key economic issues,
including trade, that would play well with people dissatisfied with the two party system's
regular offerings. And he focused on hate.
To directly call Trump fascistic is not incorrect, but it also may give him too much credit.
He has largely been an incompetent authoritarian, albeit one whose key policies have caused
massive suffering and death. What we have seen throughout his career and his three and a half
years in power is that Trump is primarily concerned with making money for himself, his family,
and his cronies. Literally everything this man does is a racket.
His foreign policy has been hawkish and reckless, but aside from his often insane rhetoric
and public threats to annihilate various countries, it has not represented a radical departure
from that of his predecessors. He acts like an unstable buffoon on the international stage, and
he burns bridges with traditional U.S. allies, governments, and international bodies across the
globe. Trump openly embraces vile authoritarians and mocks democratic leaders and institutions.
All of this is certainly dangerous and unsettling, though some of it is disproportionately
offensive to establishment foreign policy elites. Trump's predecessor started his own share of
wars, did some regime change, ratcheted up an existing war, downsized another, and greatly
expanded the use of weaponized drones and so-called targeted killings. But Barack Obama
delivered these policies with an intelligently crafted, though at times absurd, justification
wrapped in the notion of inventing a "smarter" way to wage war. Liberals ate it up. Obama's
policies killed a lot of innocent people.
The few times Trump has signaled his openness to pursue a less militaristic approach to
long-existing crises, such as the war in Afghanistan or the conflict with North Korea, he has
been ridiculed by leading Democrats and liberal pundits. In terms of Trump's military pursuits,
he has proven less murderous than George W. Bush and more of a war criminal than Jimmy Carter.
So far. That can certainly change with a second term.
Perhaps the gravest threat posed by the unstable narcissist in the White House is that of
the use of a first strike nuclear weapon. It has never been beyond the pale to imagine an
apocalyptic nuclear scenario that begins with a tweet from a foreign leader Trump hates. The
fact that we can even imagine this is nothing to wag a stick at.
Trump's monumentally incompetent handling of the coronavirus pandemic hammers home some of
the greatest dangers posed by his presidency. It has highlighted the extent to which he is
motivated not by any sense of duty or concern for his fellow citizens, but by money and his
popularity among a fairly small circle of corporations, television hosts, and special
interests. That Trump uses the daily platform of what are supposed to be public health
briefings by professionals to pontificate ignorantly, babble incoherently, or to score points
politically underscores how little he actually cares about the U.S. public and our lives.
Instead, he is obsessed with the stock market as an imagined extension of his own ego. It is
the sign of a deeply sick individual that he would effectively make aid conditional on how nice
governors are to him. Trump encourages group protests against Democratic governors during a
pandemic with scores of people refusing to wear protective gear, while his administration has
insisted on testing visitors for coronavirus before meeting with the president or vice
president. All of this costs lives, as sure as any military operation.
Perhaps the most devastating dimension of Trump's time in office, on a policy level, is
how the Republican establishment brilliantly exploited Trump as a Trojan horse for its extreme
agenda. It is unlikely that any of the GOP's preferred candidates could have beaten Hillary
Clinton in 2016. Trump dragged the Republican Party kicking and screaming back into executive
power. For them, he was a messiah they chided and scorned when he first appeared, but now they
prostrate themselves before him every minute of every day.
The real terror of the past three and a half years boils down to this: the consolidation of
power by some of the most vile figures and interests in the Republican party.
The public still does not know the full story of how Mike Pence ended up on the ticket as
Trump's running mate, but when it was announced, it was clear that the professional Republicans
and the extremist evangelical lobby had their inside man. With Mitch McConnell running the
Senate and Pence babysitting the president, Trump could focus on barking for the crowds in
between golf outings and Twitter rants while the political hitmen in Washington dust off every
extreme right-wing initiative they've cooked up for decades and which they work day and night
to methodically ram through. Trump has had his signature moments, but much of his policy has
been outsourced to craftier and more sophisticated policymakers.
Trump is famously not a fan of reading detailed briefings, but give him a few nuggets of
oversimplified policy talking points to pepper throughout his rants, and he's going to be your
gaudy QVC host pitching the crappy product to his base. The bonus is that none of it actually
has to be true, it just needs to be acceptable to the right people and truthfully exposed or
documented by journalists whom he can then dismiss as the fake news media.
More broadly, the real terror of the past three and a half years boils down to this: The
consolidation of power by some of the most vile figures and interests in the Republican party.
This includes the scores of federal judges named to the bench, the shaping of the Supreme
Court, the radical drive toward deregulation, and the canceling of even the most minimal
commitments the U.S. has made to try to confront climate change. What the Republicans have
managed to accomplish on a policy level in Trump's time in office is profound and
terrifying.
Out in full view, Trump has presided over the separation of families and the locking up of
immigrant children in cages, empowering ICE agents to act as storm troopers. He has intervened
to protect war criminals from accountability, threatened to kill the families of suspected
terrorists, sought to ban -- and in some ways has succeeded in banning -- Muslims from entering
the country. His threat to fill Guantanamo prison back up still looms, especially in the era of
the coronavirus pandemic. Is it so hard to imagine it becoming a disease-ridden black hole for
migrants seeking refuge?
Trump's economic policies have enriched corporations and special interest groups beyond
their imaginations, while sawing off the already inadequate social programs in this country. We
still have no idea of the extent to which Trump and his family are financially benefiting from
his presidency. He talks about women in disgusting ways, including attempting to publicly
humiliate the women he is accused of raping and assaulting. And the sick reality is that a
significant number of people in the U.S. clearly like these things even if they won't openly
admit it, though a disturbing number of them do feel emboldened to admire it. Trump has offered
up an IPO on ignorance and hatred as a source of pride, and a lot of people enthusiastically
bought in.
Trump's rise to power is, in many ways, the logical product of the U.S. as a failed
state. Trump says the quiet parts about the system out loud.
Donald Trump's presidency is not an aberration of U.S. history in substance. His rise to
power and the policies he has implemented are, in many ways, the logical product of the U.S. as
a failed state, politically and functionally. Trump says the quiet parts about the system out
loud, but his agenda is firmly rooted in the bloody history of this republic. And his rise was
made possible by the failed two-party system and the corporate dominance of electoral politics
in the U.S. Also, let's not pretend that congressional Democrats have not enabled Trump by
regularly voting for his obscene military budgets and sweeping surveillance powers while
simultaneously calling him the most dangerous president in history.
What would happen if Trump wins the election in November? In practical terms, it would be a
nightmare.... Four more years of this will be deadly.
... ... ...
Biden has an abominable public policy record on a wide range of issues. He has a penchant
for lying -- about his role in the civil rights movement and about being arrested in apartheid
South Africa. He continues to lie and mislead about his support for the war in Iraq, the most
consequential foreign policy decision of the post-Vietnam era. He has been accused by eight
women of misconduct, including one allegation of very serious sexual assault by his former
Senate staffer Tara Reade. Biden's cognitive health and mental acuity is, to say the least,
questionable, particularly when you compare his current performance with videos from just a few
years ago. He frequently rambles without a clear point, forgets what office he is running for,
and has to rely on teleprompters and notes to make it through interviews and speeches without
saying something embarrassing. In numerous interactions with voters, Biden has poked their
chests in an aggressive manner; told an immigrant rights activist to "vote for Trump"; called
voters childish names; and threatened a union worker in Detroit, telling the man to stop
objecting to Biden pointing his finger in his face unless the worker "want[s] to go outside
with me." Let's not even discuss the tale of his showdown with a rusty razor-wielding "Corn
Pop" at the pool. Trump's temperament is frightening, but Biden isn't exactly a cool head who
exudes competence or confidence.
Liberals may poo poo the whole Hunter Biden-Burisma-Ukraine-China attacks from Trump, but
this is going to be a problem in the general election. On many of the key issues where
Democrats could attack Trump, Biden is going to be virtually incapacitated by his own
skeletons. What Sen. Elizabeth Warren did to Mike Bloomberg at a February debate would be
impossible for Biden to do to Trump. "You have more allegations of sexual assault than I do,
Donald," is not a good line. "Your sons have profited off the presidency more than my son did
off my vice presidency" -- also not a winning zinger. And don't think for a moment that Trump
won't hammer away on Biden's Iraq War vote and his trade policies. The Democratic primary is
not the general election.
It's always worth remembering that Biden was picked in 2008 to make Obama less
threatening to moderates -- so we can't even bank on a return to Obama's brand of
neoliberalism.
There is no point to going through and listing all of the terrible aspects of Biden's
career, his policy record, his mental stamina, or his substantial failures to make himself
visible or consistently cogent since securing the presumptive nomination. All of this is going
to be put on display for the next six months. The Democratic Party and the voters in the
roughly 50 percent of primaries that were held have committed our fate to Biden's candidacy.
Obama and other senior party leaders, major news organizations, and a lot of money deployed to
attack Sen. Bernie Sanders also played a role in manufacturing this reality. Sanders ending his
campaign and vowing to support Biden leaves people with two viable candidates on the ballot.
Barring a health crisis or death of one of these older men, the only two candidates with enough
public support to win the presidency will be Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
What we get with Trump is as clear as it is terrifying. What we get with Biden, in his
current form, is less apparent. Biden will have a team of competent (for better and worse)
technocrats and, in all likelihood, an incredibly influential vice president and an unelected
chief of staff running the show. Biden's administration will also include appointments aimed at
throwing some bones to progressives and likely other Cabinet appointments that recognize the
growing influence of progressive ideas. It will, without a doubt, also be riddled with a
disproportionate number of hawkish, corporatist Democratic apparatchiks. It will be an
administration that does the bidding of Wall Street, believes in bloated war budgets, and will
put a friendlier face on the worst excesses of empire. It's always worth remembering that Biden
was picked in 2008 to make Obama less threatening to moderates -- so we can't even bank on a
return to Obama's brand of neoliberalism. But there will be policy areas where some victories
may be possible for a well-organized and militant left willing to take Biden on. Such a dynamic
wouldn't be the worst thing in the world and would be better for more people than a second
Trump term in virtually every tangible way.
The dems are incapable of finding a credible stand in for Biden.
Some flunky might come to the fore but thet will most likely be the result of a 'committee'
decision as the dems have cancelled democracy and decency.
Posted by: uncle tungsten | May 5 2020 18:31 utc |
4
Seeing everyone get worked up over Biden is funny. Do you think you'll get a better
candidate? Bernie dropped out for a reason. He was never a real candidate. There will not be
any real candidate for change.
Killary's pretended "health problems" in 2016 seem like a fore-shadowing of Biden's. May
be she really is the ultimately "the one" in 2020.
It doesn't matter who the nominee is, and that's true for both parties. As I believe we all
know, Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and, to some extent, the bureaucracy, are
what drives the agenda. The goons heading up the parade are simply an odd form of bread and
circus.
Cthulhu couldn't destroy the US any more than its politicians and other leaders in its
other institutions (in education, in the entertainment and media industries, in the financial
sector, in the defence industry) have already done so perhaps his time has come.
RADDATZ: Do you believe it was manmade or genetically modified?
POMPEO: Look, the best experts so far seem to think it was manmade. I have no reason to
disbelieve that at this point.
RADDATZ: Your -- your Office of the DNI says the consensus, the scientific consensus
was not manmade or genetically modified.
POMPEO: That's right. I -- I -- I agree with that. Yes. I've -- I've seen their analysis.
I've seen the summary that you saw that was released publicly. I have no reason to doubt
that that is accurate at this point.
To summarize: Pompeo does not doubt that the virus has been genetically modified, but he
also does not doubt that is has not been genetically modified.
Could there be a more obvious demonstration that the man is FULL OF SHIT??
Those incompetent neo-confederates leading america into oblivion will jumble strategic
defeats with winning. So much for accountability, hard work and personal responsability...
Seems they can't compete fairly without superior military variable of adjustment and threat
of violence against adversaries. Orange springs eternal and their great white hope has now
adopted a paralizing rhetoric of victimization - republican lawmakers follow suit and are
going so far as invoking a western bid for monetary reparations from Chinese depredations. #
the art of winnig for maggots, derp.
"... The president has ramped up attacks on China in recent weeks, insisting it concealed information about the coronavirus in the early stages of the outbreak and has all but blamed the country for the health crisis. Asked whether he would use tariffs or debt write-offs to penalize Beijing, Trump refused to offer much detail, saying only that "we're looking for what happened" and how to respond to the alleged "cover-up." ..."
US President Donald Trump believes China "will do anything they can" to make him lose his re-election bid, pointing to Beijing's
handling of the coronavirus outbreak that has killed over 60,000 Americans already. Taking aim at Beijing, Trump told Reuters
in an interview on Wednesday that the country would prefer to see his Democratic rival Joe Biden take the Oval Office in November,
stating it would pull out all the stops to see him win – though the former VP would first need to secure his party's nomination.
China will do anything they can to have me lose this race.
The president has ramped up attacks on China in recent weeks, insisting it concealed information about the coronavirus in
the early stages of the outbreak and has all but blamed the country for the health crisis. Asked whether he would use tariffs or
debt write-offs to penalize Beijing, Trump refused to offer much detail, saying only that "we're looking for what happened" and how
to respond to the alleged "cover-up."
There are many things I can do.
Beijing has maintained that it tackled the pandemic appropriately and that it shared information about the virus with the international
community as soon as it was available. Chinese officials have also hit back at the US accusations, suggesting Washington's handling
of Covid-19 has been slow and ineffective, while warning against politicizing the global crisis.
...There's no New York Times before Covid and after Covid and intelligence was crooked before
it was straight on no WMDs in Iraq before Zionists gave Bush the fake intelligence he wanted.
Intelligence will be crooked and sometimes right depending, but more often it's a trained
pitbull. None of that matters.
I have long disliked the New York Times as a perfect example of Neo-liberal trash
propaganda, and I really disagreed with b's whitewash of Trump until recently when his
interpretation of Trump has become less clouded by his protect Russia bias and more
cognizant of the avalanche of proof that Trump is a Zionist fascist in service of 1% power
and specifically chosen for his unflinching loyalty to the peak of the corruption
pyramid.
Now, what I mean by this is that when your loyalty is to the unbiased truth, you don't and
shouldn't care from whence it emerges cause the truth can emerge from a sewer dripping in
filth as easily as it can fall out of the sky pure like driven snow. The vehicle means one
iota to me; I only care about the truth, unlike some of you here who want to shoot the
messenger cause right now the messenger can't help giving you the facts for whatever reason,
and you can't handle the truth.
Wise up! And learn to recognize the truth when you see it even if it's covered in what you
consider shet.
Now on the j'accuse Chine , Trump strategy. Very little of the virus travelled from
China to the U.S. and what did land in the U.S. from China was mostly contained. The worst
spread of infection came from Europe, but Trump being the asshole that he is got caught in
his xenophobic trap, immediately shutting down flights from China but allowing hundreds of
thousands of carriers from Europe to disembark for weeks. So now to cover that huge blunder
that emanated from his racist skewed judgment, he's spewing fake intelligence and hate
propaganda against China to cover his butt and salvage his poll numbers.
The truth is that small and medium-sized farms are failing under the weight of his tariff
blowback and now under Covid. He's starting to bleed support in rural areas so he needs to
play the racist blame card to inflame patriotic loyalty to rally around him.
I hope he also gets everything he deserves. A spectacular downfall might suffice.
Looks like Mueller barked to the wrong tree... And that was not accidental
Notable quotes:
"... The back story that's really significant here is that Mueller redacted evidence of Israeli interference in the U.S. election, and the Russiagate! scandal was a cover for that and other third-country meddling. Most of us here knew that a couple years ago ..."
Previously sealed FBI documents indicate close contacts between Israel and the Trump
campaign and that the Mueller investigation found evidence of Israeli involvement, but
largely redacted it.
Menifee, CA (IAK) -- Newly released FBI documents suggest that Israeli government
officials were in contact with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and offered "critical
intel."
In one of the extensively redacted documents, an official who appears to be an Israeli
minister warns that Trump was "going to be defeated unless we intervene." He goes on to tell
a Trump campaign official: "The key is in your hands."
The previously classified documents were released in response to a lawsuit brought by the
Associated Press, CNN, the New York Times, Politico, and the Washington Post. The unsealed
documents suggest that rather than Russia, it was Israel that covertly interfered in the
election.
While all these media companies except one seem to have ignored the apparent Israeli
connection revealed in the FBI documents, Israeli media have been quick to jump on it.
Israel's i24 News reports:
Newly released documents from the FBI suggest that Roger Stone, a senior aide in the 2016
Trump campaign, had one or more high-ranking contacts in the Israeli government willing to
help the then-Republican Party nominee win the presidential election."
Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper reports:
Tantalizing hints" of "alleged clandestine contacts came to light in recent publication of
redacted FBI documents."
The Times of Israel (TOI) the first to report on this, states:
The FBI material, which is heavily redacted, includes one explicit reference to Israel and
one to Jerusalem, and a series of references to a minister, a cabinet minister, a minister
without portfolio in the cabinet dealing with issues concerning defense and foreign affairs,'
the PM, and the Prime Minister."
TOI points out: "Benjamin Netanyahu was Israel's prime minister in 2016," and reports
circumstantial evidence that the "PM" mentioned in the document refers to Netanyahu:
One reference to the unnamed PM in the material reads as follows: 'On or about June 28,
2016, [NAME REDACTED] messaged STONE, "RETURNING TO DC AFTER URGENT CONSULTATIONS WITH PM IN
ROME.MUST MEET WITH YOU WED. EVE AND WITH DJ TRUMP THURSDAY IN NYC.' Netanyahu made a state
visit to Italy at the end of June 2016."
TOI also notes that "the Israeli government included a minister without portfolio, Tzachi
Hanegbi, appointed in May with responsibility for defense and foreign affairs."
Ha'aretz also names Hanebi as the likely contact, and confirms that he "was in the United
States on the dates mentioned, attending, among other things, a roll out of the first Israeli
F-35 jet at a Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas."
The previously classified FBI affidavit says: "On or about August 12, 2016, [name
redacted] messaged STONE, "Roger, hello from Jerusalem. Any progress? He is going to be
defeated unless we intervene. We have critical intell. The key is in your hands! Back in the
US next week."
Another section of the affidavit states: "On August 20, 2016, CORSI told STONE that they
needed to meet with [name redacted] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct." (Corsi refers to Jerome Corsi, a pro-Israel commentator and author known for extremist
statements.)
Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of President Trump who worked on the 2016 campaign, was
convicted last year in the Robert Mueller investigation into alleged collusion between Russia
and the Trump campaign.
Stone has denied wrongdoing, consistently criticizing the accusations against him as
politically motivated. Numerous analysts have found the "Russiagate" theory unconvincing, and
the American Bar Association reported that Mueller's investigation "did not find sufficient
evidence that President Donald Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the
United States' 2016 election."
There have been previous suggestions that it was Israel that had most worked to influence
the election.
[MORE]
The back story that's really significant here is that Mueller redacted evidence of
Israeli interference in the U.S. election, and the Russiagate! scandal was a cover for that and
other third-country meddling. Most of us here knew that a couple years ago .
Mint Press has also reported on Israeli intelligence involvement/infiltration into critical
US defense networks as well as their strong presence in social media.
I'd be surprised if there was an election in recent decades that they weren't involved
in.
If Trump campaign people were actually soliciting Israeli help, that would be newsworthy and
probably criminal. But Mueller throwing the book at Stone and Corsi over BS and covering what
could actually be serious? That's twisted.
Laura Rozen
@lrozen
Profile picture https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255347751153434624.html
Apr 29th 2020, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Stone arranged for meeting, but said in later email that a "fiasco" ensued after the
associate brought a foreign military officer along
Unroll available on Thread Reader
On Aug.20, 2016, CORSI told STONE they
needed to meet w/[ ] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct"courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
huh courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
(One PM in Rome on June 27 2016 was Netanyahu) mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/
Mint Press has also reported on Israeli intelligence involvement/infiltration into
critical US defense networks as well as their strong presence in social media.
I'd be surprised if there was an election in recent decades that they weren't involved
in.
If Trump campaign people were actually soliciting Israeli help, that would be newsworthy
and probably criminal. But Mueller throwing the book at Stone and Corsi over BS and
covering what could actually be serious? That's twisted.
@leveymg is reposted below, for those who want to read for themselves:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
District of Columbia
In the Matter of the Search of
(Briefly describe the property to be searched
or identify the person by name and address)
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOOGLE
ACCOUNT ,
)
Case: 1:18-sc-01518
Assigned To : Howell, Beryl A.
Assign. Date: 5/4/2018
Description: Search & Seizure Warrant
SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT
To: Any authorized law enforcement officer
An application by a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government requests
the search
of the following person or property located in the Northern District of California
(identify the person or describe the property to be searched and give its location):
See Attachment A.
I find that the affidavit(s), or any recorded testimony, establish probable cause to search and
seize the person or property
described above, and that such search will reveal (identify the person or describe the property
to be seized):
See Attachment B.
YOU ARE COMMANDED to execute this warrant on or before May 18, 2018 (not to exceed 14 days)
';$ in the daytime 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 0 at any time in the day or night because good cause
has been established.
Unless delayed notice is authorized below, you must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt
for the property taken to the
person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken, or leave the copy and receipt
at the place where the
property was taken.
The officer executing this warrant, or an officer present during the execution of the warrant,
must prepare an inventory
as required by law and promptly return this warrant and inventory to Hon. Beryl A. Howell
(United States Magistrate Judge)
0 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3103a(b), I find that immediate notification may have an adverse
result listed in 18 U.S.C.
§ 2705 ( except for delay of trial), and authorize the officer executing this warrant to
delay notice to the person who, or whose
property, will be searched or seized (check the awropriate box)
0 for __ days (not to exceed 30) 0 until, the facts justifying, the later specific date of
Date and time issued:
Judge 's signature
City and state: Washington, DC Hon. Beryl A. Howell, Chief U.S. District Judge
Printed name and title
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 35
AO 93 (Rev 11/13) Search and Seizure Warrant (Page 2)
Return
Case No.: Date and time warrant executed: Copy of warrant and inventory left with:
Inventory made in the presence of :
Inventory of the property taken and name of any person(s) seized:
Certification
I declare under penalty of pe1jury that this inventory is correct and was returned along with
the original warrant to the
designated judge.
Date:
Executing officer's signature
Printed name and title
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Cf erk, U.S. District & Bankrupicy
Gourts for tirn District of Columbl&
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH
THE GOOGLE ACCOUNT
ORDER
Case: 1: 18-sc-01518
Assigned To : Howell, Beryl A.
Assign. Date: 5/4/2018
Description: Search & Seizure Warrant
The United States has filed a motion to seal the above-captioned warrant and related
documents, including the application and affidavit in support thereof ( collectively the
"Warrant"),
and to require Google LLC, an electronic communication and/or remote computing services
with
headquarters in Mountain View, California, not to disclose the existence or contents of the
Warrant
pursuant to !8 U.S.C. § 2705(b).
The Court finds that the United States has established that a compelling governmental
interest exists to justify the requested sealing, and that there is reason to believe that
notification
of the existence of the Warrant will seriously jeopardize the investigation, including by
giving the
targets an opportunity to flee from prosecution, destroy or tamper with evidence, and
intimidate
witnesses. See 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b)(2)-(5).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion is hereby GRANTED, and that the
warrant, the application and affidavit in support thereof, all attachments thereto and other
related
materials, the instant motion to seal, and this Order be SEALED until further order of the
Court;
and
Page 1 of2
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 35
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b), Google and its
employees shall not disclose the existence or content of the Warrant to any other person (
except
attorneys for Google for the purpose of receiving legal advice) for a period of one year
unless
otherwise ordered by the Court.
Date 41/Y>lf
THE HONORABLE BERYL A. HOWELL
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of2
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 4 of 35
AO 106 (Rev. 04/10) Application for a Search Warrant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
In the Matter of the Search of
(Briefly describe the property to be searched
or identify the person by name and address)
for the
District of Columbia
MA\t !,
•'II·\! • ·r 2018
,,t,c,rk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
C . ,,gurt~ lar 1hli-•D1strlctof Gollf/nh]•
ase.1:18-sc-01518 ·'
Ass!gned To: Howell, Beryl A
INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOOGLE
ACCOUNT
)
)
)
)
)
)
Assign. Date: 5;412018 ·
Description: Search & Seizure Warrant
APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT
I, a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government, request a search
warrant and state under
penalty of perjury that I have reason to believe that on the following person or property
(identify the person or describe the
property to be searched and give ifs location):
See Attachment A.
located in the Northern District of _____ C,-_a-,.l"'if.=o,..rn~ia.._ __ , there is now
concealed (identijj, the
person or describe the property to be seized):
See Attachment B.
The basis for the search under Fed. R. Crim. P. 4 l(c) is (check one or more):
~ evidence of a crime;
ief contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed;
r'lf property designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crime;
D a person to be arrested or a person who is unlawfully restrained.
The search is related to a violation of:
Code Section
18 U.S.C. § 2
· et al.
The application is based on these facts:
See attached Affidavit.
r;/ Continued on the attached sheet.
Offense Description
aiding and abetting
see attached affidavit
D Delayed notice of __ days (give exact ending date if more than 30 days: ______ ) is
requested
under 18 U.S.C. § 3103a, the basis of which is set forth on the attached sheet.
~44 Reviewed by AUSA/SAUSA: Appbcant's signature
•Aaron Zelinsky (Special Counsel's Office) Andrew Mitchell, Supervisory Special Agent,
FBI
Printed name and title
Sworn to before me and signed in my presence.
Date:
City and state: Washington, D.C. Hon. Beryl A. Howell, Chief U.S. District Judge
Printed name and title
Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7 Filed 04/28/20 Page 5 of 35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MAY ·· ti 1018
Clerk, LLS. District & Bar1i
Laura Rozen
@lrozen
Profile picture https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255347751153434624.html
Apr 29th 2020, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Stone arranged for meeting, but said in later email that a "fiasco" ensued after the
associate brought a foreign military officer along
Unroll available on Thread Reader
On Aug.20, 2016, CORSI told STONE they
needed to meet w/[ ] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct"courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
huh courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
(One PM in Rome on June 27 2016 was Netanyahu) mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/
@leveymg request for sealing of the record -- Case 1:19-mc-00029-CRC Document 29-7
Filed 04/28/20 Pages 3 to 35 for those who want to read for themselves:
Judge's signature
Hon. Bery[ A. Howell, Chief U.S. District Judge
Printed name and title
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Glcrk, LL$. District & Bar1kruptcy
Gourts tor tirn District of ColumtHa
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOOGLE ACCOUNT
Case: 1:18-sc-01518
Ass!gned To : Howell, BerylA Assign. Date : S/4/20 18
Description: Search & S izure Warrant
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT
I, Andrew Mitchell, having been first duly sworn, hereby depose and state as follows:
1. I make this affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant for
information associated with the following Google Account: (hereafter
the "Target Account 1"), that is stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled or
operated by Google, Inc., a social networking company headquartered in Mountain View,
California ("Google"). The information to be searched is described in the following paragraphs
and in Attachments A and B. This affidavit is made in support of an application for a search
warrant under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2703(a), 2703(b)(l)(A) and 2703(c)(l)(A)to require Google
to disclose to the government copies of the information (including the content of
communications) further described in Attachment A. Upon receipt of the information described.
in Attachment A, government"authorized persons will review that information to locate the items
described in Attachment B.
2. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and have been since
2011. As a Special Agent of the FBI, I have received training and experience in investigating
criminal and national security matters.
3. The facts in this affidavit come from my personal observations, my training and experience,
and information obtained from other agents and witnesses. This affidavit is intended
to show merely that there is sufficient probable cause for the requested warrant and does
not set fotth all of my knowledge about this matter.
4. Based on my training and experience and the facts as set forth in this affidavit, there is
probable cause to believe that the Target Accounts contain communications relevant to
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting), 18 U.S.C. § 3 (accessory after the
fact), 18
U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of a felony), 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. §
1001 (making a
false statement); 18 U.S.C. §1651 (pe1jury); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (unauthodzed access
of a protected computer); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (attempt
and conspiracy to commit wire fraud), , and 52 U.S.C. § 30121 (foreign contribution ban)
(the "Subject
Offenses"). 1
5. As set forth below, in May 2016, Jerome CORSI provided contact information for
that there was an "OCTOBER SURPRISE COMING" and that Trump, ''[i]s going to be defeated unless
we intervene. We have critical intel." In that same time period, STONE communicated directly
via Twitter with WikiLeaks, Julian ASSANGE, and Guccifer 2.0. On July 25, 2016, STONE emailed
instructions to Jerome CORSI to "Get to Assange" in person at the Ecuadorian Embassy and "get
pending WikiLeaks emails[.]" On August 2, 2016, CORSI emailed STONE back that,"Word is friend
in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I1m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be
very damaging." On August 20, 2016, CORSI told STONE that they
needed to meet o determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in Oct."
1 Federal law prohibits a foreign national from making, directly or indirectly, an
expenditure or independent expenditure in connection with federal elections. 52 U.S.C. §
3012l(a)(l)(C); see also id. § 30101(9) & (17) (defining the terms "expenditure" and
"independent expenditure").
(the Target Account) is le Account, which
sed to communicate with STONE and CORSI.
JURISDICTION
6. This Court has jurisdiction to issue the requested warrant because it is "a court of
competent jurisdiction" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2711. Id. §§ 2703(a),
(b)(l)(A), & (c)(l)(A). Specifically, the Court is "a district court of the United State
(including a magistrate judge of such a court) ... that has jurisqiction over the offense being
investigated." 18 U.S.C.
§ 2711(3)(A)(i). The offense conduct included activities in Washington, D.C., as detailed
below, including in paragraph 8.
PROBABLE CAUSE
A. U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) Assessment of Russian Government Backed Hacking
Activity during the 2016 Presidential Election
7. On October 7, 2016, the U.S. Depa1tment of Homeland Security and the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence released a joint statement of an intelligence assessment of
Russian activities and intentions during the 2016 presidential election. In the report, the
USIC assessed the following, with emphasis added:
8. The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the
recent compromises of e mails frorri US persons and institutions, including from US political
organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and
WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and
motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures
Laura Rozen
@lrozen
Profile picture https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255347751153434624.html
Apr 29th 2020, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Stone arranged for meeting, but said in later email that a "fiasco" ensued after the
associate brought a foreign military officer along
Unroll available on Thread Reader
On Aug.20, 2016, CORSI told STONE they
needed to meet w/[ ] to determine "what if anything Israel plans to do in
Oct"courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
huh courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco
(One PM in Rome on June 27 2016 was Netanyahu) mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/
"... When the people who made fake claims about Iraq's WMD, about Russiagate, about Iran's danger, are claiming that the thing isn't manmade, then either it's not manmade or it's US-made and the claim is a lie (what we expect from US intelligence agencies) and a cover-up. ..."
In many Ways, Trump reminds me of a Hitler/Stalin admirer. He demands certain results; if you
don't supply them, at least Trump will just fire you instead of having you shot or sent to
the Gulag -- Evidence of the many IG firings as
this article notes .
The daily lies and bald-faced propaganda is at the point where many are aware but still
all too many remain oblivious or are Brown Shirts in all but outward appearance. Pompeo would
be a perfect example of a clone if Hitler had a PR spokesperson spewing lies daily for the
press & public to digest without any thinking. Imagine Hitler with Twitter.
None of the above is meant to denigrate; rather, it's to put them into proper perspective.
I invite barflies to click here
and just look at the headlines of the posted news items--that site's biggest failing was to
omit similar criticism of Obama, Clinton, and D-Party pukes in general, although that doesn't
render today's headlines false.
Will the coming Great Depression 2.0 be global or confined to NATO nations? As with the
first Great Depression, it will be restricted to being Trans-Atlantic for that's where the
dollar zone and Neoliberalism overlap. The emerging dollar-free Eurasian trade zone
Many of Goering's quotes are very accurate as to human nature. US took in Nazi and
Japanese scientists. It wouldn't have left the propaganda behind. Goering's quote about
taking people to war - nazi's were obviously very good at it as the Germans fought until the
very end. US peasants will likely do the same.
The anti China crap filling the MSM is anglosphere in origin. Five eyes, the anglosphere
intel and propaganda warriors will be in it up to their eyeballs.
When the people who made fake claims about Iraq's WMD, about Russiagate, about Iran's
danger, are claiming that the thing isn't manmade, then either it's not manmade or it's
US-made and the claim is a lie (what we expect from US intelligence agencies) and a
cover-up. That said, odds are on the former, as far as I'm concerned. The absolutely
sure thing is that it's not the Chinese who crafted it.
In his rush to accuse Beijing of unleashing the scourge of Covid-19 on an unsuspecting
world, the US Secretary of State said the coronavirus was man-made, before making a U-turn
without even blinking. "The best experts so far seem to think it was man-made. I don't have
reason to disbelieve them at this point," Mike Pompeo told ABC's 'This Week' when
asked about a statement from the US intelligence community that unequivocally said the
opposite.
Host Martha Raddatz twice asked Pompeo to clarify whether his view differed from that of
American intelligence, and he voiced his total support for the spies – though he stopped
short of actually saying "I don't believe the virus was man-made."
"... the nations CEO's become sort of one big club, and the top of the club is the head parasites pulling the strings on the stock market (outfits like Goldman Sachs). ..."
"... NO ONE wants to cross the head parasites, the corrupt political class turns to them as their economic brain trust, and the propaganda class (MSM) spin narratives that comport to the corrupt political class' interests and the corrupt status quo. ..."
As our guest puts it, the recently passed Trump "Bank and Landlord Relief" bill,
mistakenly named the Coronavirus bill, starts by providing banks with an even larger giveaway
of wealth than they received from Obama in 2008. Helping the banks, financial and real estate
sectors in a so-called free market system is conflated with helping the industrial economy
and general living standards for most Americans. The essence of a parasite is not only to
drain the host's nourishment, but to dull the host's brain so that it does not recognize that
the parasite is there.
One of the ways it does this is to entice most of the biggest companies onto the stock
markets, which in turn subordinates them to the financial sector -- more specifically, the
investment bankers. And then the nations CEO's become sort of one big club, and the top of
the club is the head parasites pulling the strings on the stock market (outfits like Goldman
Sachs).
NO ONE wants to cross the head parasites, the corrupt political class turns to them as
their economic brain trust, and the propaganda class (MSM) spin narratives that comport to the
corrupt political class' interests and the corrupt status quo.
This is why [neo]liberalism and neoconservatism are the two sides of the one political coin
that Americans are allowed to choose. Lean left? You'll get a liberal who mostly uses identity
politics to divide and rule. Lean right? You'll get a neocon who mostly uses foreign affairs to
divide and rule. But increasingly, the two cross-over, hence you'll see liberals harping 24/7
about Russiagate and neocons harping 24/7 about Iran, Islam and now China.
None of this is to say that Russia, China and Iran aren't competitors, because they are. But
the liberal and neocon fanatics turn them into existential, kill or be killed
competitors...
Ah, the FBI. The FBI no matter how much you look a their propaganda shows on the TV, the FBI
has always been crooked, ergo the need for TV shows saying how great they are. Anyway,
regarding Flynn, this was nothing new about setting him up. The FBI has a long sorted history
with setting people up, but usually the poor, mentally deranged, or simply not intelligent.
If you review the number of of anti terror cases where someone was going to blow up a
hospital, a church or some other structure, the suspect always gets caught because of an FBI
informant, who made up the plot, gave the person a fake bomb, money or materials to make the
plot come true.
I would venture a guess that 90% of arrests for terror are along those lines. So, the FBI
as great crime fighters is a myth. I worked with them before and they were a joke.
I hope Comey, Strzok, and et.al goes to jail. But two sets of laws exist for the powerful.
Cheers!!
>Anyway, regarding Flynn, this was nothing new about setting him up.
There are only about three phrases to say to FBI:
No Comment.
Am I under arrest?
I want a lawyer.
The problem with people like Flynn is they think they are the smartest ones in the room
and can outsmart the FBI. They forget that FBI doesn't record interrogations and the agents
are free to write up the summaries however they like. In this case, they actually re-wrote
the original interview months later.
And as the case against Flynn continues to unravel, perhaps the most important dots have
been connected by investigative researcher @JohnWHuber , better known as "Undercover Huber" on
Twitter, who makes a cogent argument that Stefan Halper - the portly spy who the FBI used to
conduct espionage on the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election - may have sparked the
Flynn investigation after lying to the FBI .
What's more, IG Michael Horowitz's report makes no mention of the lie, or the
recently-learned fact that the FBI tried to close the Flynn case, dubbed 'Crossfire Razor', in
Jan. 2017, only for agent Peter Strzok to go '
off the rails ' and demand it not be closed.
Why did the IG Report completely ignore Stefan Halper's lies to the FBI about @GenFlynn , and leave
open the possibility that Halper may even have triggered the opening of the CI case against
him?
According to the IG, Stefan Halper (referred to as "Source 2") met with the Crossfire
Hurricane team twice (in Aug 11 and 12, 2016) and told them "he had been previously
acquainted with @GenFlynn". *This was immediately before the FBI opened a case on Flynn on
Aug 15, 2016*
The IG report is silent on anything Source 2 might have said specifically about Flynn.
It's also silent on the fact the Washington Field Office of the FBI tried to close the Flynn
case on 01/04/2017. Both are going to be important in a second.
We now know from the FBI's draft "Electronic Communication" dated 01/04/2017 (trying to
close the Flynn CI case, stopped by Strzok at the direction of Comey, McCabe or both)
confirms the "CH" team "contacted an established FBI CHS to query about" Gen Flynn & held
a "debriefing"
This "event" very likely refers to when Flynn spoke at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar
in Feb 2014, and the suspicious Russian-linked person supposedly in the cab was @RealSLokhova (who
also attended, and briefly spoke to Flynn)
Except that story is a *lie*. Halper wasn't at that event . He witnessed nothin g,
because he wasn't there. And the cab ride almost certainly didn't happen either, because
@RealSLokhova says she was picked up from the event by her Husband . And she's willing to say
that under oath.
There are multiple pictures of that Cambridge Seminar event (attended by about 20
people). Flynn was there, as was Richard Dearlove (former head of MI6), and Christopher
Andrew (then mentor of @RealSLokhova and "unofficial" historian of MI5). But Halper wasn't.
Not in any photos.
"No one remembers Halper attending the event because, in truth, Halper was not there"
Halper's lawyers never challenged that statement . Even when the federal Judge dismissed
@RealSLokhova's case (for other reasons), he did not challenge that claim, only saying that
"even assuming it was false" that Halper "attended" the dinner, it wasn't defamatory to claim
he did
Halper's lawyers even noted @RealSLokhova 's claim it was a
"falsehood" to say Halper attended the Feb, 2014 Cambridge event, and then NEVER defended it
as *true*, just that it wasn't *defamatory*, and non-actionable.
And the FBI trying to close the case on Flynn is great evidence Halper's "attendance" at
this event so he could see this suspicious cab ride is false . The FBI never tried to
interview @RealSLokhova, or anyone at the dinner. Why? Because it would have proven their own
source lied.
FYI, WaPo, WSJ and NYT have all published stories claiming that Halper attended that Feb
2014 event . None have any evidence that's true. All the stories are anonymously sourced to
Halper or Halper's buddies. There never will be any evidence Halper was there, because he
wasn't.
So when Halper told the FBI that he was "previously acquainted" with Flynn, and
"witnessed" this suspicious cab ride, HE WAS LYING TO THE FBI . And at the time, he was a
paid Confidential Human Source - the only one cited in the @carterwpage
FISA, other than Steele.
That's big.
But what's arguably bigger is WHEN Halper told this lie about Flynn. When else could
Halper claimed to have been "acquainted" with Flynn if not this Feb 2014 dinner (the only
time Flynn attended the Cambridge seminar Halper helped organize)?
Now, maybe Halper told the FBI about the dinner after the CI case was opened. But that's
NOT in the IG report, despite Halper's other meetings with the FBI being in there. In fact
the IG report says nothing about Halper and Flynn, other than what I quoted
In addition, FBI's Jan 4, 2017 draft Closing EC doesn't say when this "debriefing" with
Halper happened either. The wording sort of implies it was after the case was opened, but
never says it
So it is possible that a lie from Halper actually triggered opening the case on
Flynn?
What else did the FBI have? Their own laughable "predicate" appears to be that Flynn
worked for Trump, attended an RT dinner (at the time, @RepAdamSchiff
had previously appeared on RT!), and was "linked" to Russians (Er, he was the former head of
DIA under "Russian reset" Obama)
Ah, but all of those things were already true between Aug 1 and Aug 10, 2016, which is
when the FBI opened cases on Page, Papadopoulos and Manafort - BUT NOT FLYNN. That didn't
happen until Aug 15. He's the odd one out.
Flynn obviously already worked for Trump. He already had these "links", and he'd already
attended the RT dinner long ago. The thin gruel of Russian "links" and working for Trump was
enough to open cases on all the others, but NOT Flynn.
But what did the FBI have extra before they opened the case? Stefan Halper telling them
about being "previously acquainted" with Flynn - which almost certainly refers to that Feb
2014 Cambridge dinner, where he was never "acquainted" with Flynn at all.
Oh, & even if Halper told this lie *after* the case was opened on Flynn, the FBI
mustn't have found it credible because they never tried to properly investigate it , and then
even tried to close the case anyway. So that means at best the lie came between Aug 15, 2016
& Jan 4, 2017
What else was happening between Aug 16 & Jan 17? Oh yeah, the FBI was using a person
they should have suspected of lying to dirty people up - Halper - as a CHS wearing a wire on
@carterwpage, @GeorgePapa19 and others, AND relying on Halper as "Source #2" in the FISA
warrant apps
Then, incredibly after their own source lies to them about Flynn to dirty him up, the FBI
have the audacity to charge Flynn with lying to them! Corrupt dirty cops isn't an adequate
description. And for all we know, Halper is STILL on Wray's FBI books as a paid confidential
source
Finally, IG Horowitz blew this line of inquiry, and didn't mention anything about the FBI
trying to close the case on Flynn in Jan 2017 . Horowitz also admitted hasn't seen any
evidence that any of Halper's information was ever corroborated during his entire time as an
FBI source
Durham can do what the IG didn't, and solve this mystery quite easily with a few
interviews and record checks.
Or, the DOJ/USG can keep Halper on his retainer and ignore this. Either way, we'll know
what's up
/ENDS
UPDATE: It gets worse @SidneyPowell1 says that "SSA 1"
(Joe Pientka) wrote that Jan 4, 2017 EC closing the Flynn case
AND according to the IG report, Pientka personally approved those Aug 2016 meetings with
Halper & his handler & was briefed on both meetings
Yes. Intrigue and infighing among the deep state conspirators.
Why would the government keep delaying Flynn's sentencing after he agreed to the
deal?
But I think another explanation is simply excellent legal representation by Sidney
Powell.
In order to make the whole corrupt charade go down, a lot of "looking the other way" on
the part of the courts, the DOJ, and the media had to occur.
Sidney Powell, I assume, was relentless and committed in pulling on every loose thread and
questioning every alleged "fact" which led to the unravelling of the whole corrupt
enterprise.
At the end of the day, she will be one of the heroes in the movie about how the Republic
was saved, along with NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers and Congressman Devin Nunes.
xxx 2 hours ago
I believe she has some eyes on the inside as well......She is good and she is making
Sullivan have to walk a fine line.
The case of General Flynn, which has dragged on for years now, may finally be reaching a
denouement. He was charged with and pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI
during the Russian collusion hoax. For reasons that have not been clear, he was never
sentenced. Now it appears he may never see jail and will instead see his case dropped and his
guilty plea vacated. New evidence shows he was framed by members of the FBI and Department of
Justice.
As is standard procedure in this age, state media has been silent on the matter, but
alternative media sources are
reporting on the release of classified documents hidden by the government from Flynn's
defense team in violation of the law.
Thousands of documents held by his former defense team and hidden from Flynn and his new
attorney's until now have also been released in what appears to be a damage control operation
by the law firm Covington & Burling.
What these new FBI documents reveal is the FBI and Department of Justice carefully planned
to entrap General Flynn by tricking him into making inaccurate statements about his
activities during the campaign. They did this because they wanted to remove him from his post
in the White House and hoped he could be manipulated into making accusations against other
administrative officials. Then they systematically lied about what Flynn said to them in his
interview with the FBI.
Compounding this is the fact that the FBI and Departmental of Justice systematically
withheld all documents that could be used by Flynn in his defense. One way they did this was
to hide them in the special counsel operation. This prevented anyone, not just Flynn's
defense team, from discovering the plot. The sudden release of long withheld documents by
Covington & Burling suggest they may have been part of the plot to entrap Flynn and get
him to plead guilty to a crime.
At this stage, only a partisan fanatic thinks the principals in this whole Russian
collusion caper were operating in good faith. You could make the argument that their behavior
was unethical, but not necessarily illegal. Even if their actions violated the law, you could
argue they did so in the belief they were within the bounds of the law. With these new
revelations, it is clear they knew they were breaking the law in an effort to frame General
Flynn as part of a much larger conspiracy.
One thing that is now confirmed with these new revelations is that the Special Counsel was
always just part of a larger effort to cover-up this conspiracy. In fact, that was the whole
point of it. The FBI and DOJ officials involved in the conspiracy would hide all of the
evidence inside the counsel's operation. This would make it impossible for the defense
lawyers to access and very difficult for Congress to access. It would also prevent the
administration from looking into it.
Another outrageous aspect to this case is that it appears that Flynn's original defense
team, Covington & Burling, may have been in on the plot to frame him. It's not all that
clear at this point, but the best that can be said of their actions on behalf of their client
is they are the worst law firm in the country. They exist because they have resources and
know how things work in Washington. Despite this, they made the sorts of errors TV writers
would find too ridiculous for a legal drama.
There's also the fact that this sort of behavior by the FBI and DOJ is business as usual,
which underscores the corruption. This is not a couple of renegades. This is just how things
are done by the government. They frame people for crimes then work to prevent them from
getting a proper defense. The FBI has a long history of framing the innocent, but it was
always confined to the field offices. Now it is clear that the institution is rotten from the
head to the tail. It is hopelessly corrupt.
It is also increasingly clear that the weaselly Rod Rosenstein was the man tasked with
orchestrating the cover-up after the election. He manipulated Sessions and Trump into firing
Comey and then agreeing to the Mueller charade. The only purpose to that operation was to
cover up the illegal spying. Then there is Comey, who claimed under oath to be the guy who
ordered the Flynn investigation. He may have arrogantly admitted to initiating multiple
Federal crimes.
Of course, the big question in all of this is whether Washington is so hopelessly corrupt
that none of this amounts to anything. In banana republics, the judge in the case would be
assassinated or intimidated into ignoring the facts and sentencing Flynn to jail. We may not
be there yet, but the lack of any substantive investigation into the FBI corruption suggests
no one will be charged with anything. The principals in this scandal are now in high six
figure positions in Washington, living the good life.
Now, it is possible that Bill Barr was not prepared for the scale of corruption that has
been revealed in this case . He may have truly thought it was a few bad apples that went off
on their own. Once the scale of the corruption was known, he had to change course and bring
in outside help. It's just as possible that he is part of the problem. He is friends will
most of these people. His role in this could simply be part of the how Washington is
neutralizing Trump and preparing him for expulsion.
There is one puzzle that gets no attention. Why would the government keep delaying Flynn's
sentencing after he agreed to the deal? They said he was cooperating, but he had nothing to
offer them and they knew it. Perhaps he was just a prop to maintain the greater narrative of
the Russian hoax. By dragging out his process they could feed fake news to state media,
claiming it was from Flynn. That's seems to be a too cute by half, given the reality in
Washington, but it is possible.
Ineptitude is always a possibility. There's also the fact that highly corrupt institutions
tend to have lots of internal intrigue and conflict. The old line about thieves sticking
together is a myth. The corrupt man has no honor. As a result, the last stage for the corrupt
institution is when the people inside beginning to scheme against one another to the point
where they undermined their mutual efforts. Maybe that's where things are in Washington now.
It's just one big game of liar's poker.
xxx Radiant. 3 minutes ago
What did Flynn plead guilty to?
"Now, it is possible that Bill Barr was not prepared for the scale of corruption that
has been revealed in this case."
Really? Anyone who has been in Washington awhile must realize how things are there.
Anyway, remove those people from their posts, allow them their benefits and pensions and
let them keep their security clearance. That will teach them a lesson.
For any intelligence professional, especially for a person who was the head of DIA, Flynn
behaviour is unexplainably naive. The idea that he did not understand that he is dealing with
Clinton mafia, as well as that Clinton mafia will try to implicate him is just absurd. So his
behaviour is mystery. As well as the fact that he allowed them to come bypassing regular channels
in President administration.
As we do not have the whole picture we can only speculate. Probably he was already on the
hook for his Turkish lobbing and that was exploited.
"New Documents Show Strzok Countermanded Closure Of Flynn Case For Lack Of Crime" [
Jonathan Turley ]. "It was previously known that the investigators who interviewed Flynn
did not believe that he intentionally lied. That made sense. Flynn did not deny the
conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Moreover, Flynn told the investigators that he knew that the call was inevitably monitored
and that a transcript existed. However, he did not recall discussing sanctions with Kislyak.
There was no reason to hide such a discussion.
Trump had publicly stated an intent to reframe Russian relations and seek to develop a more
positive posture with them. It now appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI's Washington Field
Office issued a 'Closing Communication' indicating that the bureau was terminating "CROSSFIRE
RAZOR" -- the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok
intervened." • Read on for detail, which is ugly.
The other players would seem to be DSA and the Greens, and I'm not sure what they would
think of this. But taking a big chuck of the labor movement out of the Democrat orbit would be
interesting. Especially considering that nurses are as well-liked as, say, firefighters.
"In a Pandemic, the Mob Is the Ultimate Enforcer" [John Authers,
Bloomberg ].
The business perspective: "what really matters to the world's financial movers and shakers
is the great mob of voters out there in the real world, and how they might respond to whatever
measures they take to deal with the pandemic and the economic crisis that has come in its wake.
That, in turn, might owe a lot to the Don
The optics are not good when headlines reveal that scarcely impoverished institutions such
as Harvard University and the Los Angeles Lakers have received public handouts while small
businesses have been unable to get their hands on any money before it runs out.
After the mistakes made in the wake of the last financial crisis, Powell rightly grasps that
it is very important to get it right this time -- or face what might be a dangerous populist
backlash. Or, in our Sopranos analogy, the Mob."
Yesterday when I linked to the event at Lansing, Michigan, I commented that those there
had no idea what they were doing as they were protesting the wrong thing at the wrong
place. Instead, they ought to be occupying the US Treasury building in DC and the NY Fed
Bank in NYC to stop the fraudulent dissemination of $$Trillions to Wall Street criminals
masked as bankers, hedge fund mangers and the like as those locations are where the MAJOR
crimes are occurring as I type this comment. Their behavior casts them as ignorant and
perhaps worse as they're being led into an assault on their own interests while doing
nothing to genuinely defend their wellbeing and that of their kin and progeny. Such
stupidity's been ongoing since 1980-81 when it arose during Reagan's campaign and
continued afterward. That it's being directed/channeled is clear, just as who was
financing the Tea Party rubes was clear--It's the same criminals doing the looting in DC
and NYC.
Given the state of politics within the Outlaw US Empire, such behavior is
unfortunately normal to a certain degree. If it was a gang of Occupy Wall Street
Protesters, the reaction by the forces of coercion would've been vastly different and
very violent. Such is the state of Machiavellianism within as it's worked for many
decades dividing and ruling. With such impediments, attaining the mass solidarity
required to affect the Sea-change required is made extremely difficult, which is why you
observe that nothing's been done for the masses while many things have been done to
further their exploitation.
"... Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the "Third World." ..."
"... In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70 nations – more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases, listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and security apparatus organized into regional commands that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy. ..."
"... The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United States stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the name of supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that 300 years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then called the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite decolonization. ..."
"... In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget and over half of all discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit. ..."
"... Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for presidents even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any other area of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's military hegemon exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as though, like the sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness. ..."
"... The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy. And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America, $17.5 billion is set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as aerospace. ..."
"... To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it frighteningly easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect a dip in funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the details of the coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over. ..."
This March, as COVID-19's capacity to overwhelm the American healthcare system was becoming
obvious, experts marveled at the scenario unfolding before their eyes. "We have Third World
countries who are better equipped than we are now in Seattle,"
noted one healthcare professional, her words echoed just a few days later by a shocked
doctor in New York who described
"a third-world country type of scenario." Donald Trump could similarly only grasp what was
happening through the same comparison. "I have seen things that I've never seen before," he
said
. "I mean I've seen them, but I've seen them on television and faraway lands, never in my
country."
At the same time, regardless of the fact that "Third World" terminology is outdated and
confusing, Trump's inept handling of the pandemic has itself elicited more than one "banana republic"
analogy, reflecting already well-worn, bipartisan comparisons of Trump to a "
third world dictator " (never mind that dictators and authoritarians have never been
confined solely to lower income countries).
And yet, while such comparisons provoke predictably nativist outrage from the right, what is
absent from any of
these responses to the situation is a sense of reflection or humility about the "Third
World" comparison itself. The doctor in New York who finds himself caught in a "third world"
scenario and the political commentators outraged when Trump behaves "like a third world
dictator" uniformly express themselves in terms of incredulous wonderment. One never hears the
potential second half of this comparison: "I am now experiencing what it is like to live in a
country that resembles the kind of nation upon whom the United States regularly imposes broken
economies and corrupt leaders."
Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or
lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and
political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the
"Third World."
In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70
nations –
more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases,
listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military
personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and
security apparatus organized into regional commands
that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the
British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy.
The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United
States stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the
name of supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that
300 years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then
called the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite
decolonization.
Since then, the United States
has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries,
many of which (e.g. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile) had elected leaders willing to
nationalize their natural resources and industries. Often these interventions
took the form of covert operations. Less frequently, the United States went to war to
achieve these same ends (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq).
In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more
on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our
nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget
and over half of all
discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the
Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit.
Trump's claim that Obama had
"hollowed out" defense spending was not only grossly untrue, it masked the consistency of the
security budget's metastasizing growth since the Vietnam War, regardless of who sits in the
White House. At $738 billion dollars, Trump's security budget was passed in December with the
overwhelming support of House Democrats.
And yet, from the perspective of public discourse in this country, our globe-spanning,
resource-draining military and security apparatus exists in an entirely parallel universe to
the one most Americans experience on a daily level. Occasionally, we wake up to the idea of
this parallel universe but only when the United States is involved in visible military actions.
The rest of the time, Americans leave thinking about international politics – and the
deaths, for instance, of 2.5 million
Iraqis since 2003 – to the legions of policy analysts and Pentagon employees who
largely accept American military primacy as an "article of faith," as Professor of
International Security and Strategy at the University of Birmingham Patrick Porter has said
.
Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for
presidents even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any
other area of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's
military hegemon exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as
though, like the sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness.
Why is our avoidance of the U.S.'s weighty impact on the world a problem in the midst of the
coronavirus pandemic? Most obviously, the fact that our massive security budget has gone so
long without being widely questioned means that one of the soundest courses of action for the
U.S. during this crisis remains resolutely out of sight.
The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should
automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and
sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy.
And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been
earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that
channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America,
$17.5 billion is
set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as
aerospace.
To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it
frighteningly easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect
a dip in funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the
details of the coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already
issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget
on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any
actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over.
On a more existential level, a country that is collectively engaged in unseeing its own
global power cannot help but fail to make connections between that power and domestic politics,
particularly when a little of the outside world seeps in. For instance, because most Americans
are unaware of their government's sponsorship of fundamentalist Islamic groups in the Middle
East throughout the Cold War, 9/11 can only ever appear to have come from nowhere, or because
Muslims hate our way of life.
This "how did we get here?" attitude replicates itself at every level of political life
making it profoundly difficult for Americans to see the impact of their nation on the rest of
the world, and the blowback from that impact on the United States itself. Right now, the
outsized influence of American foreign policy is already encouraging the spread of coronavirus
itself as U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran severely hamper that
country's ability to respond to the virus at home and virtually
guarantee its spread throughout the region.
Closer to home, our shock at the healthcare system's inept response to the pandemic masks
the relationship between the U.S.'s imposition
of free-market totalitarianism on countries throughout the
Global South and the impact of free-market totalitarianism on our own welfare state .
Likewise, it is more than karmic comeuppance that the President of the United States now
resembles the self-serving authoritarians the U.S. forced on so many formerly colonized
nations. The modes of militarized policing American security experts exported to those
authoritarian regimes also contributed , on a
policy level, to both the rise of militarized policing in American cities and the rise of mass
incarceration in the 1980s and 90s. Both of these phenomena played a significant role in
radicalizing Trump's white nationalist base and decreasing their tolerance for democracy.
Most importantly, because the U.S. is blind to its power abroad, it cannot help but turn
that blindness on itself. This means that even during a pandemic when America's exceptionalism
– our lack of national healthcare – has profoundly negative consequences on the
population, the idea of looking to the rest of the world for solutions remains unthinkable.
Senator Bernie Sanders' reasonable suggestion that the U.S., like Denmark, should
nationalize its healthcare system is dismissed as the fanciful pipe dream of an aging socialist
rather than an obvious solution to a human problem embraced by nearly every other nation in the
world. The Seattle healthcare professional who expressed shock that even "Third World
countries" are "better equipped" than we are to confront COVID-19 betrays a stunning ignorance
of the diversity of healthcare systems within developing countries. Cuba, for instance,
has responded
to this crisis with an efficiency and humanity that puts the U.S. to shame.
Indeed, the U.S. is only beginning to feel the full impact of COVID-19's explosive
confrontation with our exceptionalism: if the unemployment rate really does reach 32 percent,
as has been predicted,
millions of people will not only lose their jobs but their health insurance as well. In the
middle of a pandemic.
Over 150 years apart, political commentators Edmund Burke and Aimé Césaire
referred to this blindness as the byproduct of imperialism. Both used the exact same language
to describe it; as a "gangrene" that "poisons" the colonizing body politic. From their
different historical perspectives, Burke and Césaire observed how colonization
boomerangs back on colonial society itself, causing irreversible damage to nations that
consider themselves humane and enlightened, drawing them deeper into denial and
self-delusion.
Perhaps right now there is a chance that COVID-19 – an actual, not metaphorical
contagion – can have the opposite effect on the U.S. by opening our eyes to the things
that go unseen. Perhaps the shock of recognizing the U.S. itself is less developed than our
imagined "Third World" might prompt Americans to tear our eyes away from ourselves and look
toward the actual world outside our borders for examples of the kinds of political, economic,
and social solidarity necessary to fight the spread of Coronavirus. And perhaps moving beyond
shock and incredulity to genuine recognition and empathy with people whose economies and
democracies have been decimated by American hegemony might begin the process of reckoning with
the costs of that hegemony, not just in "faraway lands" but at home. In our country.
This is useless (most politicians are sexual predators; that comes with the territory) but
pitch perfect interpretation of Biden's Tara Reade story from Onion
"We'll be honest -- this isn't going to be cheap. It's not just going away like we thought
it would. We know it seems like we can coast off the media suppressing the story, but there's a
lot of important work to be done behind the scenes to ensure these accusations never see the
light of day.
These sexual assault allegations have already broken through to The Washington Post, and if
we don't meet our fundraising goal by midnight tonight, it could be front page news
tomorrow."
FBI memos show case was to be closed with a defensive briefing before a second interview
with Flynn was sought.
Evidence withheld for years from Michael Flynn's defense team shows the FBI found "no
derogatory" Russia evidence against the former Trump National Security Adviser and that
counterintelligence agents had recommended closing down the case with a defensive briefing
before the bureau's leadership intervened in January 2017
In the text messages to his team, Strzok specifically cited "the 7th floor" of FBI
headquarters, where then-Director James Comey and then-Deputy Director Andrew McCane worked,
as the reason he intervened.
"Hey if you haven't closed RAZOR, don't do so yet," Strzok texted on Jan. 4,
2017
####
JFC.
Remember kids, the United States is a well oiled machine that dispenses justice equitably
along with free orange juce to the tune of 'One Nation Under a Groove.'
So, I think Mark asked about 'legal action', but as you can see Barr and others are going
through this stuff with a fine tooth comb so it is as solid when it goes public. More
importantly, it can be used as evidenec to reform such corruption and put some proper
controls in place to stop it happening again at least for a few years
And meanwhile everybody who thinks they might be in the line of fire at some future moment is
destroying evidence as fast as they can make it unfindable.
"... Comey later publicly took credit when he had told an audience that he decided he could "get away" with sending "a couple guys over" to the White House to set up Flynn and make the case. ..."
"... In his role as the national security adviser to the president elect, there was nothing illegal in Flynn meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law here was utterly absurd, although other figures such as former acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it. Nevertheless, the FBI had latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army lieutenant general ..."
"... Another newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that "it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in." So this effort was not about protecting national security or learning critical intelligence. It was about bagging Flynn for the case in the legal version of a canned trophy hunt. ..."
Previously undisclosed documents in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn offer us a chilling
blueprint on how top FBI officials not only sought to entrap the former White House aide but
sought to do so on such blatantly unconstitutional and manufactured grounds.
These new documents further undermine the view of both the legitimacy and motivations of
those investigations under former FBI director James Comey. For all of those who have long seen
a concerted effort within the Justice Department to target the Trump administration, the
fragments will read like a Dead Sea Scrolls version of a "deep state" conspiracy.
One note reflects discussions within the FBI shortly after the 2016 election on how to
entrap Flynn in an interview concerning his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak. According to Fox News, the note was written by the former FBI head of
counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, after a meeting with Comey and his deputy director, Andrew
McCabe.
The note states, "What is our goal? Truth and admission or to get him to lie, so we can
prosecute him or get him fired?" This may have expressed an honest question over the motivation
behind this targeting of Flynn, a decision for which Comey later publicly took credit when
he had told an audience that he decided he could "get away" with sending "a couple guys over"
to the White House to set up Flynn and make the case.
The new documents also explore how the Justice Department could get Flynn to admit breaking
the Logan Act, a law that dates back to from 1799 which makes it a crime for a citizen to
intervene in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used
to convict a citizen and is widely viewed as flagrantly unconstitutional.
In his role as the national security adviser to the president elect, there was nothing
illegal in Flynn meeting with Kislyak. To use this abusive law here was utterly absurd,
although other figures such as former acting Attorney General Sally Yates also raised it.
Nevertheless, the FBI had latched onto this abusive law to target the retired Army lieutenant
general .
Another newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former
FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the
email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law
that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that "it would be an
easy way to just casually slip that in." So this effort was not about protecting national
security or learning critical intelligence. It was about bagging Flynn for the case in the
legal version of a canned trophy hunt.
It is also disturbing that this evidence was only recently disclosed by the Justice
Department. When Flynn was pressured to plead guilty to a single count of lying to
investigators, he was unaware such evidence existed and that the federal investigators who had
interviewed him told their superiors they did not think that Flynn intentionally lied when he
denied discussing sanctions against Russia with Kislyak. Special counsel Robert Mueller and his
team changed all that and decided to bring the dubious charge. They drained Flynn financially
then threatened to charge his son.
Flynn never denied the conversation and knew the FBI had a transcript of it. Indeed,
President Trump publicly
discussed a desire to reframe Russian relations and renegotiate such areas of tensions. But
Flynn still ultimately pleaded guilty to the single false statement to federal investigators.
This additional information magnifies the doubts over the case.
Various FBI officials also lied and acted in arguably criminal or unethical ways, but all
escaped without charges. McCabe had a supervisory role in the Flynn prosecution. He was then
later found by the Justice Department inspector general to have repeatedly lied to
investigators. While his case was referred for criminal charges, McCabe was fired but never
charged. Strzok was also fired for his misconduct in the investigation.
Comey intentionally leaked FBI material, including potentially classified information but
was never charged. Another FBI agent responsible for the secret warrants used for the Russia
investigation had falsified evidence to maintain the investigation. He is still not indicted.
The disconnect of these cases with the treatment of Flynn is galling and grotesque.
Even the judge in the case has added to this disturbing record. As Flynn appeared before
District Judge Emmet Sullivan for sentencing, Sullivan launched into him and said he could be
charged with treason and with working as an unregistered agent on behalf of Turkey. Pointing to
a flag behind him, Sullivan declared to Flynn, "You were an unregistered agent of a foreign
country while serving as the national security adviser to the president of the United States.
That undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country
out."
Flynn was never charged with treason or with being a foreign agent. But when Sullivan
menacingly asked if he wanted a sentence then and there, Flynn wisely passed. It is a record
that truly shocks the conscience. While rare, it is still possible for the district court to
right this wrong since Flynn has not been sentenced. The Justice Department can invite the
court to use its inherent supervisory authority to right a wrong of its own making. As the
Supreme Court made clear in 1932, "universal sense of justice" is a stake in such cases. It is
the "duty of the court to stop the prosecution in the interest of the government itself to
protect it from the illegal conduct of its officers and to preserve the purity of its
courts."
Flynn was a useful tool for everyone and everything but justice. Mueller had ignored the
view of the investigators and coerced Flynn to plead to a crime he did not commit to gain
damaging testimony against Trump and his associates that Flynn did not have. The media covered
Flynn to report the flawed theory of Russia collusion and to foster the view that some sort of
criminal conspiracy was being uncovered by Mueller. Even the federal judge used Flynn to rail
against what he saw as a treasonous plot. What is left in the wake of the prosecution is an
utter travesty of justice.
Justice demands a dismissal of his prosecution. But whatever the "goal" may have been in
setting up Flynn, justice was not one of them.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington
University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley . - "
Source "
In a dramatic new turn of events, the legal team for Flynn, President
Trump's former national security advisor, says the Department of Justice has turned over exculpatory
evidence in his case. Flynn is defending against charges he lied to FBI agents in the course of their
investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.
At a minimum, this information, which includes evidence that US government prosecutors illegally
coerced a guilty plea by threatening Flynn's son with prosecution, warrants the withdrawal of that
guilty plea. Whether or not the judge in the case, US District Court Judge Emmet G Sullivan, will
dismiss the entire case against Flynn on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct is yet to be seen.
One fact, however, emerges from this sordid affair: the FBI, lauded by its supporters as the world's
"premier law enforcement agency,"
is anything but.
Evidence of FBI misconduct during its investigation into alleged collusion between members of the
Trump campaign team and the Russian government in the months leading up to the presidential election
has been mounting for some time. From mischaracterizing information provided by former British MI6
officer Christopher Steele in order to manufacture a case against then-candidate Trump, to committing
fraud against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize wiretaps on former low-level
Trump advisor Carter Page, the FBI has a record of corruption that would make a third-world dictator
envious.
The crimes committed under the aegis of the FBI are not the actions of rogue agents, but rather
part and parcel of a systemic effort managed from the very top – both former Director James Comey and
current Director Christopher Wray are implicated in facilitating this criminal conduct. Moreover, it
was carried out in collaboration with elements within the Department of Justice, and with the
assistance of national security officials working for the Obama administration, making for a
conspiracy that would rival any investigation conducted by the FBI under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
The heart of the case against Michael Flynn – a flamboyant, decorated combat veteran, with 33 years
of honorable service in the US Army – revolves around a phone call he made to the Russian ambassador
to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, on December 29, 2016. That was the same day then-President Obama
ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US on charges of espionage. The conversation
was intercepted by the National Security Agency as part of its routine monitoring of Russian
communications. Normally, the identities of US citizens caught up in such surveillance are
"masked,"
or hidden, so as to preserve their constitutional rights. However, in certain instances
deemed critical to national security, the identity can be
"unmasked"
to help further an
investigation, using
"minimization"
standards designed to protect the identities and privacy
of US citizens.
In Flynn's case, these
"minimization"
standards were thrown out the window: on January 12,
2017, and again on February 9, the Washington Post published articles that detailed Flynn's phone call
with Kislyak. US Attorney John Durham, tasked by Attorney General William P Barr to lead a review of
the actions taken by law enforcement and intelligence officials as part of the Russian collusion
scandal, is currently investigating the potential leaking of classified information by Obama-era
officials in relation to these articles.
Flynn's phone call with Kislyak was the central topic of interest when a pair of FBI agents, led by
Peter Strzok, met with Flynn in his White House office on January 24, 2017. This meeting later served
as the source of the charge levied against him for lying to a federal agent. It also provided grist
for then acting-Attorney General Sally Yates to travel to the White House on January 26 to warn
then-White House Counsel Michael McGahn that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his
conversations with Kislyak, and, as such, was in danger of being compromised by the Russians.
That Flynn lied, or otherwise misrepresented, his conversation with Kislyak to Pence is not in
dispute; indeed, it was this act that prompted President Trump to fire Flynn in the first place. But
lying to the Vice President, while wrong, is not a crime. Lying to FBI agents, however, is. And yet
the available evidence suggests that not only did Flynn not lie to Strzok and his partner when
interviewed on January 24, but that the FBI later doctored its report of the interview, known in FBI
parlance as a
"302 report,"
to show that Flynn had. Internal FBI documents and official
testimony clearly show that a 302 report on Strzok's conversation with Flynn was prepared
contemporaneously, and that he had shown no indication of deception. However, in the criminal case
prepared against him by the Department of Justice, a 302 report dated August 22, 2017 – over seven
months after the interview – was cited as the evidence underpinning the charge of lying to a federal
agent.
The evidence of a doctored 302 report, when combined with the evidence that the US prosecutor
conspired with Flynn's former legal counsel to
"keep secret"
the details of his plea
agreement, in violation of so-called Giglio requirements (named after the legal precedent set in
Giglio v. United States which holds that the failure to disclose immunity deals to co-conspirators
constitutes a violation of due-process rights), constitutes a clear-cut case of FBI malfeasance and
prosecutorial misconduct. Under normal circumstances, that should warrant the dismissal of the
government's case against Flynn.
Whether Judge Emmet G Sullivan will agree to a dismissal, or, if not, whether the Department of
Justice would seek to retry Flynn, are not known at this time. What is known, however, is the level of
corruption that exists within the FBI and elements of the Department of Justice, regarding their
prosecution of a US citizen for purely political motive. Notions of integrity and fealty to the rule
of law that underpin the opinions of many Americans when it comes to these two institutions have been
shredded in the face of overwhelming evidence that the law is meaningless when the FBI targets you. If
this could happen to a man with Michael Flynn's stature and reputation, it can happen to anyone.
"... The person trying to tell the truth is forced to defend, 'Communist China' (Tom Cotton thinks that is one word), Russia, or Iran and to the U.S. public this is toxic. ..."
"... Someday it just won't matter anymore. We will have deceived ourselves for so long that we have squandered so much of our power that no one will pay attention to us. ..."
"... Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed ..."
"... Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed ..."
For brevity, I always post that our IC (Intelligence Community) is masterful in shaping
U.S. public opinion and causing problems for targeted countries but terrible in collecting
and analyzing Intel that would benefit the U.S. The truth of course, is more complicated.
There is a remnant that is doing their jobs properly but is shut out from higher level
offices. But I cannot give long disclaimers at the start of my posts, (I'm not talking about
the men and women ...) where 50 words later I finally start to make my point. It's boring,
sounds insincere, and defensive.
This is yet another effective defense mechanism that protects the troublemakers in our IC
bureaucracy.
1. The person trying to tell the truth is forced to defend, 'Communist China' (Tom Cotton
thinks that is one word), Russia, or Iran and to the U.S. public this is toxic.
2. These rogues get to use the remaining good people as human shields.
3. They know their customers, it gives the politicians a way to turn themselves into
wartime leaders rather than having to answer for their shortcomings.
Someday it just won't matter anymore. We will have deceived ourselves for so long that
we have squandered so much of our power that no one will pay attention to us.
/div> Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even
more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed . The
American public are easily enough fooled being constantly fed a racist diet, especially
Sinophobia, Russophopia and Iranophobia and the drumbeats for war, financial or military, are
easily banged to raise the public's blood pressure....but what about the consequences? America
can win neither, even with he assistance of a few vassal states. What happens if, and when,
normal service is resumed? If they managed to succeed with any of their hair-brained ideas,
what are the consequences for American companies in China, rare earth minerals, the IT
industries etc etc. Guard your words wisely for they can never be retracted.
Posted by: Séamus Ó Néill , May 1 2020 13:46 utc |
13
Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so
the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed . The American
public are easily enough fooled being constantly fed a racist diet, especially Sinophobia,
Russophopia and Iranophobia and the drumbeats for war, financial or military, are easily
banged to raise the public's blood pressure....but what about the consequences? America can
win neither, even with he assistance of a few vassal states. What happens if, and when,
normal service is resumed? If they managed to succeed with any of their hair-brained ideas,
what are the consequences for American companies in China, rare earth minerals, the IT
industries etc etc. Guard your words wisely for they can never be retracted.
Posted by: Séamus Ó Néill | May 1 2020 13:46 utc |
13
I think there is very good intelligence in the US. so much data is collected and there are
many analysts to go over the data and present their forecasts. The World Factbook is an
example of collected intelligence made available to the unwashed masses.
what you are thinking is that this information should be used to your benefit. that is
where it goes wrong. the big players are able to access and exploit that mass of data and use
it to their benefit.
Billmon used to say that this is a feature, not a bug.
"Not precluded" are also a Fort Detrick origin and contagion taken to Wuhan by the US
military, staying at a hotel where most of the first cluster of patients was identified. So
why wouldn't you always mention both in the same breath?
First hollywood movie I am aware of that deals with pandemics and has Fort Detrick front and
center was "Outbreak" 1995. In this film, the "Expert" played by D. Huffman uncovers a plot
by a rogue 2 star general sitting on the serum from another outbreak years ago, and how he
witheld this information and the serum to "protect their bioweapon". There is also a very
overt background sub-plot about Dod and CDC being at odds.
DoD is not listed in the credits for Outbreak. Many of the scenes are supposed to take
place in CDC and Fort Detrick.
--
Last hollywood movie was "Contagion" 2011. In this film, which pretty much anticipates
Covid-19 madness but with an actually scary virus, the "Expert" in charge tells the DHS man
that "Nature has already weaponized them!".
So this lie about the little bitty part "function gain" man-made mutations being the
critical bit for "weaponizing" viruses is turned on its head. It was "Nature" after all. A
wet market, you know.
Contagion does list DoD in its credits. Vincent C. Oglivie as US DoD Liason and Project
Officer.
Just some 'fun' trivia for us to while away our lives. Remember that consipirational
thought is abberational thought. Have a shot of Victory Gin and relex!
Blobsters are simply prostitute to the military industrial complex. No honesty, no courage required (Courage is replaced with
arrogance in most cases.) Pompeo is a vivid example of this creatures of Washington swamp.
Notable quotes:
"... historically courtiers themselves led their troops on the battlefield and considered it a question of honor for one or both of their oldest sons pursuing a military career, while Renaissance courtesans were among the most intellectual and educated women of their epoch. Neither is true for blobsters and blobstresses. ..."
"... In French and (I think) most other romance languages, the words for courtier and courtesan are the same. Something to think about. ..."
On the other hand, though, historically courtiers themselves led their troops on the
battlefield and considered it a question of honor for one or both of their oldest sons
pursuing a military career, while Renaissance courtesans were among the most intellectual
and educated women of their epoch. Neither is true for blobsters and blobstresses.
Just as i said many times, it is Trump driving US hostility and escalation in the world, and
not only those around him. He is the biggest US imperialist for the last 30 years.
A racist white man goes crazy the moment he understands he does not have the "biggest
dick" anymore, and is humiliated due to that, since this wasn't supposed to happen to the
people who ruled the world for 500 years.
What will happen is that american white male right wingers will start going crazy. Lashing
out in hatred against the world, after understanding they are no longer "number 1", and that
their fate will not be pretty.
You should expect US right wingers to go crazy as the US further declines. These people
thought they would rule the world. Instead they started to decline. This wasn't supposed to
happen to such superior people.
US elite will simply go crazy as the "best country in the world" loses its power.
Expect anglo craziness, outbursts of hate and hysteria. The US elite will become a mental
institution. If not for nukes, they would have started a world war already.
The absence of sufficient state controls in a democracy enables the wealthy class to
manipulate the economy, the press and elected representatives for its own gain. A widening gulf
between poverty and affluence develops, gradually dragging the working class to ruin
Notable quotes:
"... Our economy is based on the wet dream of sycophants like Mnuchin who barely escaped prison for his games in the wake of devastation of the subprime loan disaster on 2008, and neoliberals who are much better at playing him then the opposite. So he's a puppet for Wall Street AND a closet neocon. Would the demonstrably senile Biden be any better? Not a chance, so once again the majority of Americans are left with a sham election whereby two flavors of the same shit are what's being fed to us. ..."
@Priss
Factor Assuming he's even motivated by a desire to make America a better Constitutional
Republic, Trump is a salesman first and foremost. As a former pharmaceutical rep I am well
aware that most salesmen are suckers for most sales pitches as an intrinsic part of their
personalities.
So as I watch Trump being manipulated continuously by a variety of slick and confident
grifters inhabiting the world stage with their multitude of transparent agendas I can only
go, "that figures". I mean, he's basically just a more alpha version of GW Bush, so the fact
that we haven't gone full gonzo yet on another nation is something of a miracle. Instead he's
waging war by collapsing economies he views as competitors OR those of countries he wants to
invade to steal natural resources from. As for the health of America, we're fucked.
Our economy is based on the wet dream of sycophants like Mnuchin who barely escaped
prison for his games in the wake of devastation of the subprime loan disaster on 2008, and
neoliberals who are much better at playing him then the opposite. So he's a puppet for Wall
Street AND a closet neocon. Would the demonstrably senile Biden be any better? Not a chance,
so once again the majority of Americans are left with a sham election whereby two flavors of
the same shit are what's being fed to us.
Until the American people demand electoral reform – you ain't going nowhere.
You need another party and you need to vote for it.
Stuff the neo lib or neo lib or neo lib – of the existing choice.
You have a two headed hydra – in reality a one party state.
Financed and controlled by puppet masters.
The democracy in the US is a total sham
A fraud and farce.
And you need fair voting.
Used by most democracies – PR – Proportional Representation.
Where votes mean seats.
A Ron Paul party would be a dream.
But until America gets off its fat bots and seriously acts to become a democratic state
– you are getting what you continue to vote for.
Greed, corruption and elite rule – bought and paid for in the House and Senate
down.
Nothing but a puppet, pawn and tax collector for another foreign power.
And you dare to mass murder and bomb in the name of 'regime change' and democracy to create
your vile rule of law across the planet
Gross, an abomination – a facist state.
Devastating flashback clip of Comey just aired on @marthamaccallum show.
When asked who went around the protocol of going through the WH Counsel's office and instead decided to send the FBI agents
into White House for the Flynn perjury trap ...
...Comey smugly responds "I sent them."
Here is the clip:
@comey is preparing for prison and hoping to avoid
the death penalty. Will Obama be brought down too?
Imagine having your life and reputation ruined by rogue US govt. officials. Then years later when the plot finally comes to
light the first thing you do is post an American flag. This is the guy they wanted you to believe was a Russian asset. 🙄
https://t.co/TI768Vijn2
U.S. District Court Judge
Emmet
G. Sullivan unsealed four pages of stunning FBI emails and handwritten notes Wednesday, regarding former Trump National Security
Advisor Michael Flynn, which allegedly reveal the retired three star general was targeted by senior FBI officials for prosecution,
stated Flynn's defense attorney Sidney Powell. Those notes and emails revealed that the retired three-star general appeared to be
set up for a perjury trap by the senior members of the bureau and agents charged with investigating the now-debunked allegations
that President Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russia, said Sidney Powell, the defense lawyer representing Flynn.
Moreover, the
Department of Justice release 11 more pages of documents Wednesday afternoon, according to Powell.
While we await Judge Sullivan's order to unseal the exhibits from Friday, the government has just provided 11 more pages even
more appalling that the Friday production. We have requested the redaction process begin immediately.
@GenFlynn @BarbaraRedgate pic.twitter.com/YPEjZWbdvo
"What is especially terrifying is that without the integrity of Attorney General Bill Barr and
U.S. Attorney Jensen , we still would not have this clear exculpatory information as Mr. Van Grack and the prosecutors have opposed
every request we have made," said Powell.
It appears, based on the notes and emails that the Department of Justice was determined at the time to prosecute Flynn, regardless
of what they found, Powell said.
"The FBI pre-planned a deliberate attack on Gen. Flynn and willfully chose to ignore mention of Section 1001 in the interview
despite full knowledge of that practice," Powell said in a statement.
"The FBI planned it as a perjury trap at best and in so doing put it in writing stating 'what is our goal? Truth/ Admission
or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired."
The documents, reviewed and obtained by SaraACarter.com , reveal that
senior FBI officials discussed strategies for targeting and setting up Flynn, prior to interviewing him at the White House on Jan.
24, 2017. It was that interview at the White House with former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka that
led Flynn, now 61, to plead guilty after months of pressure by prosecutors, financial strain and threats to prosecute his son.
Powell filed a motion earlier this year to withdraw Flynn's guilty plea and to dismiss his case for egregious government misconduct.
Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017, under duress by government prosecutors, to lying to investigators about his conversations
with Russian diplomat
Sergey Kislyak about sanctions on Russia. This January, however, he withdrew his guilty plea in the U.S. District Court in Washington,
D.C. He stated that he was "innocent of this crime" and was coerced by the FBI and prosecutors under threats that would charge his
son with a crime. He filed to withdraw his guilty plea after DOJ prosecutors went back on their word and asked the judge to sentence
Flynn to up to six months in prison, accusing him of not cooperating in another case against his former partner. Then prosecutors
backtracked and said probation would be fine but by then Powell, his attorney, had already filed to withdraw his guilty plea.
The documents reveal that prior to the interview with Flynn in January, 2017 the FBI had already come to the conclusion that Flynn
was guilty and beyond that the officials were working together to see how best to corner the 33-year military veteran and former
head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The bureau deliberately chose not to show him the evidence of his phone conversation to
help him in his recollection of events, which is standard procedure. Even stranger, the agents that interviewed Flynn later admitted
that they didn't believe he lied during the interview with them.
Powell told this reporter last week that the documents produced by the government are "stunning Brady evidence' proving Flynn
was deliberately set up and framed by corrupt agents at the top of the FBI to target President Trump.
She noted earlier this week in her motion that the evidence "also defeats any argument that the interview of Mr. Flynn on January
24 was material to any 'investigation.' The government has deliberately suppressed this evidence from the inception of this prosecution
-- knowing there was no crime by Mr. Flynn."
Powell told this reporter Wednesday that the order by Sullivan to unseal the documents in Exhibit 3 in the supplement to Flynn's
motion to dismiss for egregious government conduct is exposing the truth to the public. She said it's "easy to see that he was set
up and that Mr. Flynn was the insurance policy for the FBI." Powell's reference to the 'insurance policy,' is based on one of the
thousands of texts exchanged by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and her then-lover former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok.
In an Aug. 15, 2016, text from Strzok to Page he states, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's
(former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) 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 40."
The new documents were turned over to Powell, by U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea. They were discovered after an extensive review by
the attorneys appointed by U.S. Attorney General William Barr to review Flynn's case, which includes U.S. Attorney of St. Louis,
Jeff Jensen.
In one of the emails dated Jan. 23, 2017, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who at the time was having an affair with Strzok and who worked
closely with him on the case discussed the charges the bureau would bring on Flynn before the actual interview at the White House
took place. Those email exchanges were prepared for former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired by the DOJ for lying
multiple times to investigators with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's office.
Former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by President Trump for his conduct, revealed during an interview with Nicolle Wallace
last year that he sent the FBI agents to interview Flynn at the White House under circumstances he would have never done to another
administration.
"I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration,"
Comey said. "In the George W. Bush administration or the Obama administration, two men that all of us, perhaps, have increased appreciation
for over the last two years."
In the Jan 23, email Page asks Strzok the day before he interviews Flynn at the White House:
"I have a question for you. Could the admonition re 1001 be given at the beginning at the interview? Or does it have
to come following a statement which agents believe to be false? Does the policy speak to that? (I feel bad that I don't know this
but I don't remember ever having to do this! Plus I've only charged it once in the context of lying to a federal probation officer).
It seems to be if the former, then it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in.
"Of course as you know sir, federal law makes it a crime to "
Strzok's response:
I haven't read the policy lately, but if I recall correctly, you can say it at any time. I'm 90 percent sure about that, but
I can check in the am.
In the motion filed earlier this week, Powell stated "since August 2016 at the latest, partisan FBI and DOJ leaders conspired
to destroy Mr. Flynn. These documents show in their own handwriting and emails that they intended either to create an offense they
could prosecute or at least get him fired. Then came the incredible malfeasance of Mr. Van Grack's and the SCO's prosecution despite
their knowledge there was no crime by Mr. Flynn."
Attached to the email is handwritten notes regarding Flynn that are stunning on their face. It is lists of how the agents will
guide him in an effort to get him to trip up on his answers during their questioning and what charges they could bring against him.
"If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide," state the handwritten notes.
"Or if he initially lies, then we present him (not legible) & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address
it."
The next two points reveal that the agents were concerned about how their interview with Flynn would be perceived saying "if we're
seen as playing games, WH (White House) will be furious."
"Protect our institution by not playing games," t he last point on the first half of the hand written notes state.
From the handwritten note:
Afterwards:
interview
I agreed yesterday that we shouldn't show Flynn (redacted) if he didn't admit
I thought @ it last night, I believe we should rethink this
What is (not legible) ? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?
we regularly show subjects evidence, with the goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing
I don't see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him
If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ & have them decide
Or if he initially lies, then we present him (not legible) & he admits it, document for DOJ, & let them decide how to address
it
If we're seen as playing games, WH will be furious
Protect our institution by not playing games
(Left column)
we have case on Flynn & Russians
Our goal is to (not legible)
Our goal is to determine if Mike Flynn is going to tell the truth or if he lies @ relationship w/ Russians
can quote (redacted)
Shouldn't (redacted
Review (not legible) stand alone
It appears evident from an email from former FBI agent Strzok, who interviewed Flynn at the White House to then FBI General Counsel
James Baker, who is no longer with the FBI and was himself under investigation for leaking alleged national security information
to the media.
The email was a series of questions to prepare McCabe for his phone conversation with Flynn on the day the agents went to interview
him at the White House. These questions would be questions that Flynn may ask McCabe before sending the agents over to interview
him.
Email from Peter Strzok, cc'd to FBI General Counsel James Baker: (January 24, 2017)
I'm sure he's thought through these, but for DD's (referencing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) consideration about how to answer
in advance of his call with Flynn:
Am I in trouble?
Am I the subject of an investigation?
Is it a criminal investigation?
Is it an espionage investigation? Do I need an attorney? Do I need to tell Priebus? The President?
Will you tell Priebus? The President? Will you tell the WH what I tell you?
What happens to the information/who will you tell what I tell you? Will you need to interview other people?
Will our interview be released publically? Will the substance of our interview be released?
How long will this take (depends on his cooperation – I'd plan 45 minutes)? Can we do this over the phone?
I can explain all this right now, I did this, this, this [do you shut him down? Hear him out? Conduct the interview if he starts
talking? Do you want another agent/witness standing by in case he starts doing this?]
President Donald Trump has bashed former FBI Director James Comey, after unsealed documents
revealed an agency plot to entrap Gen. Michael Flynn in a bid to take down the Trump
presidency. "DIRTY COP JAMES COMEY GOT CAUGHT!" Trump tweeted on Thursday morning, in
one of a series of tweets lambasting the FBI's prosecution of retired army general Michael
Flynn, which he called a "scam."
Flynn served as Trump's national security adviser in the first days of the Trump presidency,
before he was fired for allegedly lying about his contact with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak.
An FBI investigation followed, and several months later, Flynn pleaded guilty to Special
Counsel Robert Mueller about lying during interviews with agents. He has since tried to
withdraw the plea, citing poor legal defense and accusing the FBI and Obama administration of
setting him up from the outset.
Documents unsealed by a federal judge on Wednesday seem to support that argument. In one
handwritten note, dated the same day as Flynn's FBI interview in January 2017, the unidentified
note-taker jots down some potential strategies to use against the former general.
"We have a case on Flynn + Russians," the note reads. "What's our goal?
Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
#FLYNN docs just
unsealed, including handwritten notes 1/24/2017 day of Flynn FBI interview. Transcript: "What
is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
Read transcript notes, copy original just filed. @CBSNews
pic.twitter.com/8oqUok8i7m
The unsealed documents also include an email exchange between former agent Peter Strzok and
former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, in which the pair pondered whether to remind Flynn that lying to
federal agents is a crime. Page and Strzok were later fired from the agency, after a slew of
text messages emerged showing the pair's mutual disdain for Trump, and discussing the
formulation of an "insurance policy" against his election.
Flynn's discussions with Kislyak were deemed truthful by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe. Additionally, a Washington Post
article published the day before Flynn's January 2017 interview revealed that the FBI had
tapped his calls with the Russian ambassador and found "nothing illicit."
Still, Section 1001 of the US Criminal Code, which makes it illegal to lie to a federal
agent, is broad in its scope. Defense Attorney Solomon Wisenberg
wrote that "even a decent person who tries to stay out of trouble can face criminal
exposure under Section 1001 through a fleeting conversation with government agents."
Early January 2017 Recommendation To Close Case on General Flynn Rebuffed by FBI Leaders
by Larry C Johnson
The document dump from the Department of Justice on the Michael Flynn case continues and the
information is shocking and damning. It is now clear why previous leaders of the Department of
Justice (Sessions and Rosenstein) and current FBI Director Wray tried to keep this material
hidden. There is now no doubt that Jim Comey and Andy McCabe help lead and direct a conspiracy
to frame Michael Flynn for a "crime" regardless of the actual facts surrounding General Flynn's
conduct.
The most stunning revelation from today's document release is that the FBI agents who
investigated Michael Flynn aka "Crossfire Razor" RECOMMENDED on the 4th of January 2017 that
the investigation of Flynn be closed. Let that sink in. The FBI agents investigating Flynn
found nothing to justify either a criminal or counter-intelligence investigation more than two
weeks before Donald Trump was inaugurated as President. Yet, FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy
Director McCabe, with the help of General Counsel Jim Baker, Assistant Director for Counter
Intelligence Bill Priestap, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok decided to try to manufacture a crime
against Flynn.
The documents released on Wednesday made clear that as of January 21st, the FBI Conspirators
were scrambling to find pretext for entrapping and charging General Flynn. Here is the
transcription of Bill Priestap's handwritten notes:
Apologists for these criminal acts by FBI officials insist this was all routine. "Nothing to
see here." "Move along." Red State's Nick Arama did a good job of reporting on the absurdity of
this idiocy (
see here ). Former US Attorney Andy McCarthy cuts to the heart of the matter:
"They did not have a legitimate investigative reason for doing this and there was no
criminal predicate or reason to treat him [Flynn] like a criminal suspect," McCarthy
explained.
"They did the interview outside of the established protocols of how the FBI is supposed to
interview someone on the White House staff. They are supposed to go through the Justice
Department and the White House counsel's office. They obviously purposely did not do that and
they were clearly trying to make a case on this."
"For years, a number of us have been arguing that this looked like a perjury trap," McCarthy
said.
Today's (Thursday) document dump reinforces the validity of McCarthy's conclusion that this
was a concocted perjury trap. The key document is the "Closing Communication" PDF dated 4
January 2017. It is a summary of the FBI's investigation of Crossfire Razor (i.e., Mike Flynn).
The document begins with this summary:
The FBI opened captioned case based on an articulable factual basis that Crossfire Razor
(CR) may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation
which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security. . . . Specifically, .
. . CR had ties to various state-affiliated entities of the Russian Federation, as reported by
open source information; and CR traveled to Russia in December 2015, as reported by open source
information.
The Agent conveniently fails to mention that Flynn's contacts with Russia in December 2015
were not at his initiative but came as an invitation from his Speaker's Bureau. Moreover,
General Flynn, because he still held TS/SCI clearances, informed the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) of the trip, received permission to make the trip and, upon returning to the
United States from Russia, was fully debriefed by DIA. How is that an indicator of posing a
threat to the national security of the United States?
The goal of the investigation is stated very clearly on page two of the document:
. . . to determine whether the captioned subject, associated with the Trump campaign, was
directed and controlled by and/or coordinated activities with the Russian federation in a
manner which is a threat to the national security and/or possibly a violation of the Foreign
Agents Registration Act, 18 U.S.C. section 951 et seq, or other related statutes.
And what did the FBI find? NOTHING. NADA. ZIPPO. The Agent who wrote this report played it
straight and the investigation in the right way. He or she concluded:
The Crossfire Hurricane team determined that CROSSFIRE RAZOR was no longer a viable
candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case. . . . The FBI is closing
this investigation. If new information is identified or reported to the FBI regarding the
activities of CROSSFIRE RAZOR, the FBI will consider reopening the investigation if
warranted.
This document is dated 4 January 2017. But Peter Strzok sent a storm of text messages to the
Agent who drafted the report asking him to NOT close the case.
This is not how a normal criminal or counter-intelligence case would be conducted. Normally
you would have actual evidence or "indicia" of criminal or espionage activity. But don't take
me word for it. Jim Comey bragged about this outrageous
conduct:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/NxNhjFrjXqI
Comey is a corrupt, sanctimonious prick. I suspect he may not think what he did was so funny
in the coming months. He may have forgotten saying this stupidity, but the video remains
intact.
The documents being released over the last week provide great insight into Attorney General
William Barr's strategy. He is not going to entertain media debates and back-and-forth with the
apologists for treason. He is letting the documents speak for themselves and ensuring that US
Attorneys--who are not part of the fetid, Washington, DC sewer--review the documents and
procedures used to prosecute political figures linked to President Trump. Then those documents
are legally and appropriately released. Barr is playing by the rules.
We are not talking about the inadvertent discovery of an isolated mistake or an act of
carelessness. The coup against Trump was deliberate and the senior leadership of the FBI
actively and knowingly participated in this plot. Exposing and punishing them remains a top
priority for Attorney General Barr, who understands that a failure to act could spell the doom
of this Republic.
No indictments.
Not for this bunch of swamp rats.
One set of laws for the swamp, another for America.
And now the same swamp - the bureaucrat pinhead version - are destroying the economy and
shutting down the country?.
Why?
Terrible decisions based on worse "data" AND tank the economy and Trump's re-election
chances.
Flynn has been bankrupted. He has fought valiantly to restore his honor ALONE. His fate is in
many ways in the hands of Judge Sullivan.
Trump other than tweet has done what for someone that brought military and national
security cred to his campaign? Let's not forget that Flynn was fired ostensibly for lying to
VP Pence. Exactly what the putschists wanted to accomplish.
blue peacock
Flynn is a nice Irish Catholic boy from Rhode Island whose father a retired MP staff sergeant
and branch manager of a local bank successfully cultivated the ROTC staff at U of RI so that
his two sons were given army ROTC scholarships in management, something their father could
understand. Michael and his brother, both generals are NOT members of the WP club and
therefore available for sacrifice. Michael Flynn occupied a narrow niche in Military
Intelligence. He was a targeting guy in the counter-terrorism bidness and rode that train to
the top without much knowledge or experience of anything else. He and his boss Stan
McChrystal, soul mates. He was singularly unqualified to be head of one of the major agencies
of the IC. IMO Martin Dempsey, CJCS (a member of the WP club) used Flynn to stand up to
Brennan's CIA and the NSC nuts at the WH while standing back in the shade himself. That is
why Obama cautioned Trump to be wary of North Korea and Michael Flynn. And this "innocent"
was then mousetrapped by people he thought were patriots.
True then, but what was not expected was Trump neither resigning nor being impeached nor
getting a new AG who would launch the Durham investigation. I wonder what FISA warrants are
out related to the Chinese virus and associated communications with US and Chinese nationals.
At least we don't have Obama's cast of characters involved in that, unless we have his "j.v."
team.
Someone that doesn't show up much in The NY Times or the Washington Post now but was the
central character in numerous scurrilous stories. Svetlana Lokhova was falsely slandered for
having an affair with Gen.Flynn and accused as a Russian agent by CIA/FBI agent Stefan
Halper.
What we learned today from the STUNNING document release in the case of @GenFlynn 1. FBI
opened a full-blown counterintelligence investigation in 2016 on the ex head of the Defense
Intelligence Agency while he was working for a political campaign based on one piece of
false intel
Its mind blowing the vast tentacles of this conspiracy at the highest levels of our law
enforcement and intelligence agencies. It is even more mind blowing that the miscreants have
profited so handsomely with book deals, media sinecures, GoFundMe campaigns. None have been
prosecuted.
Our leaders were so preoccupied with remaking the world they failed to see that our country
was falling apart around them. Has the time come to bury the conceit of American
exceptionalism? In an article for the American edition of The Spectator , Quincy
Institute President Andrew Bacevich concludes just that:
The coronavirus pandemic is a curse. It should also serve as an opportunity, Americans at
long last realizing that they are not God's agents. Out of suffering and loss, humility and
self-awareness might emerge. We can only hope.
The heart of the American exceptionalism in question is American hubris. It is based on the
assumption that we are better than the rest of the world, and that this superiority both
entitles and obligates us to take on an outsized role in the world.
In our current foreign policy debates, the phrase "American exceptionalism" has served as a
shorthand for justifying and celebrating U.S. dominance, and when necessary it has served as a
blanket excuse for U.S. wrongdoing. Seongjong Song defined it in an 2015 article
for The Korean Journal of International Studies this way: "American exceptionalism is the
belief that the US is "qualitatively different" from all other nations." In practice, that has
meant that the U.S. does not consider itself to be bound by the same rules that apply to other
states, and it reserves the right to interfere whenever and wherever it wishes.
American exceptionalism has been used in our political debates as an ideological purity test
to determine whether certain political leaders are sufficiently supportive of an activist and
interventionist foreign policy. The main purpose of invoking American exceptionalism in foreign
policy debate has been to denigrate less hawkish policy views as unpatriotic and beyond the
pale. The phrase was often used as a partisan cudgel in the previous decade as the Obama
administration's critics tried to cast doubt on the former president's acceptance of this idea,
but in the years since then it has become a rallying point for devotees of U.S. primacy
regardless of party. There was an explosion in the use of the phrase in just the first few
years of the 2010s compared with the previous decades. Song cited a study that showed this
massive increase:
Exceptionalist discourse is on the rise in American politics. Terrence McCoy (2012) found
that the term "American exceptionalism" appeared in US publications 457 times between 1980
and 2000, climbing to 2,558 times in the 2000s and 4,172 times in 2010-12.
The more that U.S. policies have proved "American exceptionalism" to be a pernicious myth at
odds with reality, the more we have heard the phrase used to defend those policies. Republican
hawks began the decade by accusing Obama of not believing in this "exceptionalism," and some
Democratic hawks closed it out by
"reclaiming" the idea on behalf of their own discredited foreign policy vision. There may
be differences in emphasis between the two camps, but there is a consensus that the U.S. has
special rights and privileges that other nations cannot have. That has translated into waging
unnecessary wars, assuming excessive overseas burdens, and trampling on the rights of other
states, and all the while congratulating ourselves on how virtuous we are for doing all of
it.
The contemporary version of American exceptionalism is tied up inextricably with the belief
that the U.S. is the "indispensable nation." According to this view, without U.S. "leadership"
other countries will be unable or unwilling to respond to major international problems and
threats. We have seen just how divorced from reality that belief is in just the last few
months. There has been no meaningful U.S. leadership in response to the pandemic, but for the
most part our allies have managed on their own fairly well. In the absence of U.S.
"leadership," many other countries have demonstrated that they haven't really needed the U.S.
Our "indispensability" is a story that we like to tell ourselves, but it isn't true. Not only
are we no longer indispensable, but as Micah Zenko pointed out
many years ago, we never were.
It was 22 years ago when then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright publicly declared the
United States to be the "indispensable nation": "If we have to use force, it is because we are
America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries
into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us."
In a recent
interview with The New York T imes, Albright sounded much less sure of her old
position: "There's nothing in the definition of indispensable that says "alone." It means that
the United States needs to be engaged with its partners. And people's backgrounds make a
difference." Albright's original statement was an aggressive assertion that America was both
extraordinarily powerful and unusually farsighted, and that legitimized the frequent U.S.
recourse to using force.
After two decades of calamitous failures that have highlighted our weaknesses and
foolishness, even she can't muster up the old enthusiasm that she once had. No one could look
back at the last 20 years of U.S. foreign policy and still honestly say that "we see further"
into the future than others. Not only are we no better than other countries at anticipating and
preparing for future dangers, but judging from the country's lack of preparedness for a
pandemic we are actually far behind many of the countries that we have presumed to "lead." It
is impossible to square our official self-congratulatory rhetoric with the reality of a
government that is incapable of protecting its citizens from disaster.
The poor U.S. response to the pandemic has not only exposed many of the country's serious
faults, but it has also caused a crisis of faith in the prevailing mythology that American
political leaders and pundits have been promoting for decades. This found expression most
recently in a rather odd
article in The New York Times last week. The framing of the story makes it into a
lament for a collapsing ideology:
The pandemic sweeping the globe has done more than take lives and livelihoods from New
Delhi to New York. It is shaking fundamental assumptions about American exceptionalism -- the
special role the United States played for decades after World War II as the reach of its
values and power made it a global leader and example to the world.
The curious thing about this description is that it takes for granted that "fundamental
assumptions about American exceptionalism" haven't been thoroughly shaken long before now. The
"special role" mentioned here was never going to last forever, and in some respects it was more
imaginary than real. It was a period in our history that we should seek to understand and learn
from, but we also need to recognize that it was transitory and already ended some time ago.
If American exceptionalism is now "on trial," as another recent article put it
, it is because it offered up a pleasing but false picture of how we relate to the rest of the
world. Over the last two decades, we have seen that picture diverge more and more from real
life. The false picture gives political leaders an excuse to take reckless and disastrous
actions as long as they can spin them as being expressions of "who we are" as a country. At the
same time, they remain blind to the country's real vulnerabilities. It is a measure of how
powerful the illusion of American exceptionalism is that it still has such a hold on so many
people's minds even now, but it has not been a harmless illusion.
While our leaders have been patting themselves on the back for the enlightened "leadership"
that they imagine they are providing to the world, they have neglected the country's urgent
needs and allowed many parts of our system to fall into disrepair and ruin. They have also
visited enormous destruction on many other countries in the name of "helping" them. The same
hubris that has warped foreign policy decisions over the decades has encouraged a dangerous
complacency about the problems in our own country. We can't let that continue. Our leaders were
so preoccupied with trying to remake other parts of the world that they failed to see that our
country was falling apart all around them.
American exceptionalism has been the story that our leaders told us to excuse their neglect
of America. It is a flattering story, but ultimately it is a vain one that distracts us from
protecting our own country and people. We would do well if we put away this boastful fantasy
and learned how to live like a normal nation.
But what happened to the Trump who was going to drain the swamp? He filled it with more
sewage.
He murdered Soleimani and interferes in Venezuelan politics in ways that Russia has been
accused(falsely) of interfering in US politics.
@Priss
Factor I suspect the true backbreaker when it comes to disillusioning for me was seeing
how thoroughly Trump was disconnected from the levers of power except for those few cases
when he'd been surrounded by war lobby shills.
Whatever welcome change Trump could have brought has been completely negated by the fact
everyone he hired or could have hired is too stuck in the status quo to welcome change. Even
the people he though could have been the "rebels" on his side lead him down that path of
seeing Iranian ballistic missiles hitting US troop positions in Iraq.
The only thing that might have worked would have been firing everyone he could during the
first 7 days and filling as many posts as he could with clean cut (as opposed to neck
bearded) alt-right 20-somethings.
I voted for Trump, but Trump still wasn't enough to keep me in the US.
The degree to which government "by and for the people" cannot create consensus is the measure
of its failure to represent the people. The government is not trusted because it is
undemocratic. Rule By Secrecy is the rule.
Where did the Patriot Act come from? This abridgment of liberty appeared seemingly out of
nowhere in October 2001. No representative of the people actually read it and yet it was
voted into law. ( Hint: Joe Biden is principally responsible for the Patriot Act )
The surveillance state is well established in our midst and in our minds and the need to
promote the general welfare by defending against pandemics will entail more surveillance and
more constraints on personal liberty. The degree to which the government must rely on secrecy
and denial of the Bill of Rights to remain in power is the degree to which it will earn the
fear & loathing of the people and simple mistrust will become violence. When Elon Musk,
one of our favorite oligarchs, attacks government for its handling of the pandemic,
government should worry.
Newly unsealed documents indicate that the FBI targeted former National Security Advisor
Michael Flynn for prosecution, showing senior officials at the bureau discussing ways to
ensnare him in a "perjury trap" before an interview.
The four pages of documents were
unsealed by US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan on Wednesday, revealing in handwritten notes
and emails that the FBI's goal in investigating Flynn may have been "to get him to lie so we
can prosecute him or get him fired."
"The FBI planned it as a perjury trap at best and in so doing put it in writing,"
Flynn's defense attorney Sidney Powell said in a statement.
Sullivan also ordered another 11 pages of documents unsealed, which, according to Powell ,
may soon be redacted and published.
How they planned to get Flynn removed:1) Get Flynn "to admit to breaking the Logan Act";
or2) Catch Flynn in a lie.Their end goal was a referral to the DOJ - not to investigate
Flynn's contacts with the Russians. pic.twitter.com/Vty3FYaSt9
The potentially exculpatory documents were inexplicably denied to Flynn's defense team for
years, despite numerous requests to the government.
"What is especially terrifying is that without the integrity of Attorney General Bill
Barr and US Attorney Jensen, we still would not have this clear exculpatory information as ...
the prosecutors have opposed every request we have made," Powell said.
The role of the FBI in instigating the prosecution of Michael Flynn, the criminality of its conduct, and
the encouragement it received in doing so from senior Obama officials should offend everyone.
In a dramatic new turn of events, the legal team for Flynn, President Trump's former national security
advisor, says the Department of Justice has turned over exculpatory evidence in his case.Flynn is
defending against charges he lied to FBI agents in the course of their investigation into allegations of
Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.
At a minimum, this information, which
includes evidence that US government prosecutors illegally coerced a guilty plea by threatening Flynn's
son with prosecution, warrants the withdrawal of that guilty plea. Whether or not the judge in the case,
US District Court Judge Emmet G Sullivan, will dismiss the entire case against Flynn on the grounds of
prosecutorial misconduct is yet to be seen. One fact, however, emerges from this sordid affair: the FBI,
lauded by its supporters as the world's
"premier law enforcement agency,"
is anything but.
Evidence of FBI misconduct during its investigation into alleged collusion between members of the
Trump campaign team and the Russian government in the months leading up to the presidential election has
been mounting for some time. From mischaracterizing information provided by former British MI6 officer
Christopher Steele in order to manufacture a case against then-candidate Trump, to committing fraud
against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize wiretaps on former low-level Trump
advisor Carter Page, the FBI has a record of corruption that would make a third-world dictator envious.
The crimes committed under the aegis of the FBI are not the actions of rogue agents, but rather part
and parcel of a systemic effort managed from the very top – both former Director James Comey and current
Director Christopher Wray are implicated in facilitating this criminal conduct. Moreover, it was carried
out in collaboration with elements within the Department of Justice, and with the assistance of national
security officials working for the Obama administration, making for a conspiracy that would rival any
investigation conducted by the FBI under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The heart of the case against Michael Flynn – a flamboyant, decorated combat veteran, with 33 years of
honorable service in the US Army – revolves around a phone call he made to the Russian ambassador to the
United States, Sergey Kislyak, on December 29, 2016. That was the same day then-President Obama ordered
the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US on charges of espionage. The conversation was
intercepted by the National Security Agency as part of its routine monitoring of Russian communications.
Normally, the identities of US citizens caught up in such surveillance are
"masked,"
or hidden,
so as to preserve their constitutional rights. However, in certain instances deemed critical to national
security, the identity can be
"unmasked"
to help further an investigation, using
"minimization"
standards designed to protect the identities and privacy of US citizens.
In Flynn's case, these
"minimization"
standards were thrown out the window: on January 12,
2017, and again on February 9, the Washington Post published articles that detailed Flynn's phone call
with Kislyak. US Attorney John Durham, tasked by Attorney General William P Barr to lead a review of the
actions taken by law enforcement and intelligence officials as part of the Russian collusion scandal, is
currently investigating the potential leaking of classified information by Obama-era officials in
relation to these articles.
Flynn's phone call with Kislyak was the central topic of interest when a pair of FBI agents, led by
Peter Strzok, met with Flynn in his White House office on January 24, 2017. This meeting later served as
the source of the charge levied against him for lying to a federal agent. It also provided grist for then
acting-Attorney General Sally Yates to travel to the White House on January 26 to warn then-White House
Counsel Michael McGahn that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with
Kislyak, and, as such, was in danger of being compromised by the Russians.
That Flynn lied, or otherwise misrepresented, his conversation with Kislyak to Pence is not in
dispute; indeed, it was this act that prompted President Trump to fire Flynn in the first place. But
lying to the Vice President, while wrong, is not a crime. Lying to FBI agents, however, is. And yet the
available evidence suggests that not only did Flynn not lie to Strzok and his partner when interviewed on
January 24, but that the FBI later doctored its report of the interview, known in FBI parlance as a
"302 report,"
to show that Flynn had. Internal FBI documents and official testimony clearly show
that a 302 report on Strzok's conversation with Flynn was prepared contemporaneously, and that he had
shown no indication of deception. However, in the criminal case prepared against him by the Department of
Justice, a 302 report dated August 22, 2017 – over seven months after the interview – was cited as the
evidence underpinning the charge of lying to a federal agent.
The evidence of a doctored 302 report, when combined with the evidence that the US prosecutor
conspired with Flynn's former legal counsel to
"keep secret"
the details of his plea agreement,
in violation of so-called Giglio requirements (named after the legal precedent set in Giglio v. United
States which holds that the failure to disclose immunity deals to co-conspirators constitutes a violation
of due-process rights), constitutes a clear-cut case of FBI malfeasance and prosecutorial misconduct.
Under normal circumstances, that should warrant the dismissal of the government's case against Flynn.
Whether Judge Emmet G Sullivan will agree to a dismissal, or, if not, whether the Department of
Justice would seek to retry Flynn, are not known at this time. What is known, however, is the level of
corruption that exists within the FBI and elements of the Department of Justice, regarding their
prosecution of a US citizen for purely political motive. Notions of integrity and fealty to the rule of
law that underpin the opinions of many Americans when it comes to these two institutions have been
shredded in the face of overwhelming evidence that the law is meaningless when the FBI targets you. If
this could happen to a man with Michael Flynn's stature and reputation, it can happen to anyone.
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing
the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on
Twitter @RealScottRitter
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
One of trademarks of Trump administration is his that he despises international law and
relies on "might makes right" principle all the time. In a way he is a one trick pony, typical
unhinged bully.
In a way Pompeo is the fact of Trump administration foreign policy, and it is not pretty
It is mostly, though not only, Trump related or libertarian pseudo "alt media" behind "just
the flu" theories or "China unleashed virus to attack US".
There is a small military/zionist cabal at the White House that is pushing for that
information war in order to prop up the dying US empire as well as US oligarhic business
interests, and to secure Trump reelection prospects.
It is enough to see how Zerohedge have been turned into full blown imperialist media with
many "evil China" outbursts every day.
Beware of Trumptards infiltrating alt media to prop up the dying US Empire and its
business interests.
Trump is the biggest US imperialist for the last 30 years. He made a good job at deceiving
many anti-system voices.
His WTO attacks are too part of US efforts to take over the organisation. His has no
problem with international institutions as long as they are US empire controlled (such as
OPCW, WADA, etc.)
Trump-tards and related libertarians (Zerohedge etc.) made their choice on the side
of global US imperialism (driven by their hidden racism, hence the evil "chinks" making a
good enemy) and are now the enemy of the multipolar world.
Trump is scum. He turned on Russia and Assange after he got into the White House and did
far more against Russia than even Obama. I say that as someone who initially made the mistake
to support him.
This is part of Tom's description of the Article on Pompeo, Esper and the gang of 1986
(west pointers). They are well embedded. In fact, one class from West Point, that of 1986, from which both Secretary of Defense
Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo graduated, is essentially everywhere in a
distinctly militarized (if still officially civilian) and wildly hawkish Washington in the
Trumpian moment.
In case you missed it the first time, I repeat this link from the beginning of April,
-----------------
Red Ryder | Apr 27 2020 17:07 utc | 14
One addition there. The EU lost "market share" in Iran due to US sanctions. (As
they did with Russia). What they would like to do is to get it back. (France was one
of the bigger losers)
The US is very good at making enemies and loosing friends, simply due to their treatment of
other nations in the same manner they treat their domestic population.
The United States announced its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA), also known as the "Iran nuclear deal" or the "Iran deal", on May 8, 2018.
This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA in
detail:
1. Joe Biden is accused of having done what Trump bragged about, i.e., having inserted
finger or fingers into a woman staffer's vagina by force and without her consent, she being a
senate staffer at the time. Is this not rape?
having done what Trump bragged about, i.e., having inserted finger or fingers into a woman
staffer's vagina by force and without her consent,
My understanding was that Trump claimed that any woman would consent to Trump's advances,
and thus Trump always claimed to enjoy the consent of any woman he grabbed. Whatever Trump's
sins, I doubt that Trump has groped as many women and children as Biden has.
I have to say that as a Democrat, I believed the accusers of Trump and Kavanaugh. So I also
have to believe the accuser of Biden. Because of this and his apparent old age disabilities,
I will not vote for him, or Trump either for that matter. But I am 71 years old and I guess
it is up to other generations to determine the fate of the country.
Yves here. Larry Summers watchers may recall our piece,
Why Larry Summers Should Not Be Permitted to Run Anything More Important than a Dog Pound .
Summers had put his hat in the ring to become Fed chairman, which elicited an impressive level
of negative coverage. So memories have now faded enough that Summers be allowed to hold an
important domestic role again?
In fairness, Summers has attempted some rehabilitation, and now regularly takes positions to
the left of the former boundary-setter of the limits of Goodthinking Liberal policy, Paul
Krugman. Not that that stands for much.
By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published at DownWithTyranny
Joe Biden has chosen as his economic adviser the main Democratic proponent of the China
PNTR deal and Wall Street deregulation. Apparently, Biden may really have meant it when he
said "nothing will fundamentally change." https://t.co/UokamnmgyA
Over the past three decades, Summers has amassed a policy record of almost unrivaled
social ruin.
-- Zach Carter, Huffington
Post
In a slap
in the face to progressives , Joe Biden, who has already announced that if he's elected
"nothing would fundamentally change," has appointed the head of Barack Obama's National
Economic Council, Larry Summers, as a key adviser to his campaign.
Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers is advising Joe Biden's presidential campaign
on economic policy, including its plans to revive the U.S. economy after the coronavirus
pandemic, according to five people familiar with his involvement.
The Obama and Clinton administration veteran's role roiled progressives who view his past
work on the 2009 recovery as too favorable to big banks. That's awkward for the Biden
campaign at a time when it is trying to win the trust of former supporters of Bernie Sanders
and Elizabeth Warren.
Five people confirming is a deliberate leak, especially since non of them are said to be
"unauthorized to speak about the matter."
Progressive groups are aghast, of course:
Two Sanders-aligned groups, Justice Democrats and Sunrise Movement, said Friday they "hope
Biden publicleconomic y rejects Summers's role as an economic adviser to better earn the
trust of our generation." They said they also plan to start a petition calling on Biden to
pledge to exclude Summers from his transition team or administration.
" Larry Summers's legacy is advocating for policies that contributed to the
skyrocketing inequality and climate crisis we're living with today," the groups said in a
joint statement.
But as Rising's Saagar Enjeti
points out , the real group that Biden needs to assure isn't Progressive Avenue, or even
Main Street -- it's Wall Street -- and leaking via five sources to Bloomberg News that Summers
is now in Biden's inner circle does just that. As Bloomberg put it, with this move Biden has
"offered some reassurance [to] Wall Street that Biden is not moving too far to the left from
the centrist positions that earned him his establishment support."
I'm not if sure this will get him elected, but it is certain to be noticed, even by
not-well-read voters who nonetheless care about the direction of the country. Summers was a
marquee name in the Obama administration. As Robert Kuttner points
out :
Under Clinton, Summers was a prime architect and huge enthusiast of what proved to be
fatal financial deregulation. He was also in charge of Clinton's economic policy for post-Soviet Russia
, and was responsible for pushing for early and catastrophic privatization of state assets, a
fire sale that led directly to the creation of Russia's oligarchs. As president of Harvard,
he proved to be both arrogant and sexist, to the point where he got himself fired.
[As Obama's chief economic advisor, Summers] not only lowballed the necessary economic
stimulus and ended it prematurely, but he successfully fought for rescuing the biggest
banks rather than taking them into temporary receivership . Back at Harvard, Summers
earns over $600,000 as a university professor but also moonlights at the hedge fund D.E.
Shaw, where his compensation is well into the seven figures. (Some would say he moonlights at
Harvard.)
There are so many ways that Summers is a bad choice, it's difficult to enumerate them,
though both Kuttner and the HuffPost's Zach Carter try. ( Carter
: "Over the past three decades, Summers has amassed a policy record of almost unrivaled social
ruin." Then he lists the ways.)
It's sufficient to say that his appointment is the economic-policy equivalent of bringing in
Rahm Emanuel, who famously called liberals " fucking
retarded ," to handle the Biden's relationship with progressive groups.
If Larry Summers' appointment is part of the mainstream Democratic plan to unite the Party
and rally "change voters" behind the Biden candidacy, good luck.
I sincerity doubt that Bernie supporter would vote for Neoliberal Dems (Clinton wing of Democratic Party) at all.
Most probably will vote for the third party, or not vote at all. Few will vote for Trump -- much less then in 2018 as it is
not clear what Trump represents and it has nothing to do with bernie program.
What? After appointing Summers as an economics advisor!? I don't get that as a progressive
move, especially after (Biden ally) Pelosi appoints Shalala to oversee CARE. In fact I see no
explicit concessions to progressives by the D's or Biden and would welcome the chance to be
wrong.
Meanwhile, in my neighborhood, one car with a "Bernie" sticker now has a (home-made) "F*ck
Biden" sticker. So there's at least one person Status Quo Joe hasn't convinced.
The gloves are now off as China has called out Pompeo quite correctly saying, "Pompeo an enemy to world
peace" --and we ought to expect more disruptions here at MoA. Here's just one of several
slaps in Pompeo's face:
"The former top intelligence official is steering the US Department of State into becoming
the Central Intelligence Agency. He is playing with fire, making the 21st century an era of
major power confrontation and undermining the foundations for peace. Despite being the chief
diplomat of the US, he totally betrayed the basic responsibility with which he is entrusted
to promote international understanding. He has become the enemy of world peace."
What's most unfortunate is few seem to consult Global Times , as I was rather
surprised this major editorial wasn't already linked. Here's yet another slap:
"Geopolitics cannot dominate the world anymore. Pompeo and his like are desperately
pulling the world backwards. They are unable to handle a diverse and complicated new century
and so they attempt to resume the Cold War. They can only 'realize their ambition' in
polarized confrontation."
And that clearly wasn't enough as yet another slap's delivered in the closing two
sentences:
"Lies may fulfill Pompeo's personal ambition, but they will never accomplish the US dreams
to be "great again." Pompeo is not only a figure harmful to world peace, but also should be
listed as the worst US secretary of state in its history."
Hmm... Don't know if he qualifies as "worst" yet as he must still top Ms. Clinton, but she
certainly didn't treat China as has Pompeo.
If the new coronavirus pandemic has taught us one thing, it is that we need to rethink what
we need to do to keep America safe. That's why Secretary of Defense Mark Esper's recent
tweet calling modernization of U.S. nuclear forces a "top priority ... to protect the
American people and our allies" seemed so tone deaf.
COVID-19 has already
killed more Americans than
died in the
9/11 attacks and the Iraq and Afghan wars combined, with projections of many more to come.
The pandemic underscores the need for a systematic, sustainable, long-term investment in public
health resources,
from protective equipment , to ventilators and hospital beds, to research and planning
resources needed to deal with future outbreaks of disease.
As Kori Schake, the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American
Enterprise Institute, has
noted : "We're going to see enormous downward pressure on defense spending because of other
urgent American national needs like health care." And that's as it should be, given the
relative dangers posed by outbreaks of disease and climate change relative to traditional
military challenges.
... ... ...
ICBMs are dangerous because of the short decision time a president would have to decide
whether to launch them in a crisis to avoid having them wiped out in a perceived first strike
-- a matter of
minutes . This reality greatly increases the prospect of an accidental nuclear war based on
a false warning of attack. This is a completely unnecessary risk given that the other two legs
of the nuclear triad -- ballistic missile submarines and nuclear-armed bombers -- are more than
sufficient to deter a nuclear attack, or to retaliate, should the unlikely scenario of a
nuclear attack on the United States occur.
... ... ...
Eliminating ICBMs and reducing the size of the U.S. arsenal will face strong opposition in
Washington, both from strategists who maintain that the nuclear triad should be sacrosanct, and
from special interests that benefit from excess spending on nuclear weapons. The Senate
ICBM Coalition , composed of senators from states with ICBM bases or substantial ICBM
development and maintenance work, has been particularly effective in fending any changes in
ICBM policy, from reducing the size of the force to merely studying alternatives, whether those
alternatives are implemented or not.
Shimizu Randall Personally I don't see why the Trident subs cannot be refurbished and have
a extended life. I think the Minuteman missiles need to be replace. But I don't understand why
the cost is exorbitant. Terry Auckland
OMG.....what a sensible idea..Other nuclear capable countries will fall into line if this is
adopted....peace could thrive and flourish ...sadly it could never happen..too much money at
state...too many careers truncated...and too many lobbyists and thinktank type's and loyalist
senators to cajole and appease..
A pipe dream I think. ..situation normal will continue to annhilation...
Ted Arison, the Israeli-American founder of Carnival [Covid] Cruise Line is among those
appointed to advise president Trump on how to open up the US economy. Perhaps, as music to
the ears of a seasoned New York real estate shark, he will advise Trump to blame China and
then default on the China debt mountain. Litigation pays as Arison is about to find out.
"Evidence" means testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the
senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. -- California
Evidence Code sec 140
Even the NYT acknowledged (before it erased the text in its story on Reade that noted
there were no other sexual misconduct charges pending against him other than that long
history of assaults and sniffing and hands-on, text removed by the Times at the instance of
the Biden campaign staff?
Here's the original text: " The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden,
beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."
Waiting for the apologists to tell us why the edit to remove the last clause starting "beyond
" is just "Good journalism."
He and Trump are bad examples of the male part of the species. Nothing to choose that I
can see, other than who among the people that revise those bribes to them will be the first
in line at the MMT watering hole
i had a lengthy discussion about this with my brother and sil, it came down to her saying
I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT re bidens history of being a ttl letch plus possible rapist and my
brother questioning what is obvious discomfort in multiple video evidence.
They said defeating trump was paramount to anything against biden. i simply give up at
this point.
Lots of partisan hackery and TDS going around in the last few years in once respectable
lefty publications. Mother Jones has gone completely to hell rather than raising any, as was
once their mission statement. I haven't read the Nation as much in recent years – I let
my subscription lapse a while ago as I found I just couldn't keep up with reading it.
Coincidentally I think that was about the time I started reading NC. The Nation has a history
of sheepdogging lefties to rally behind bad Dem candidates, which was another reason I didn't
feel bad letting my subscription go.
I do still have my subscription to Harper's but they were getting on my nerves quite a bit
to the point I considered cancelling them too. Rebecca Solnit wrote some truly cringe-worthy
editorials for them after Trump's election. They seem to have removed her from writing the
main editorial so maybe I wasn't the only one who felt she left a little to be desired. I'm
quite fond of the newer woman they have doing editorials, Lionel Shriver. She seems like
she'd fit in quite well here!
I left (pun intended) the Nation pub in the dust way back in the 1990's and buried it post
9/11. Used to be a real good alternative press pub 30-40 years ago. Somewhere along the line
it lost it's way and joined the wishy-washy "gatekeeper' society of "approved news."
RIP
The Nation was a sanity saviour back in late 70s and through 1980s; then something
happened. Not clear when or what, but I know I let my subscription lapse. Tried again later,
but it was never the same. It's mostly unbearable now, except for Stephen Cohen. Walsh has
been in the unbearable category for many years now.
Leonard Pitts just had an editorial in my local paper where he opined that even if Biden
had sexually assaulted Reade, it didn't really matter because we had to vote against
Trump.
I wrote this in reply:
So Leonard Pitts thinks that Biden's alleged sexual attack on Tara Reade isn't disqualifying,
even if true. Strange, he didn't think that way about Brett Kavanagh. I didn't want to attack
the columnist as a hypocrite without being sure, so I looked it up. Here is what he
wrote:
"It's a confluence of facts that speak painfully and pointedly to just how unseriously
America takes men's predations against women. You might disagree, noting that the Senate
Judiciary Committee has asked Ford to testify. But if history is any guide, that will prove
to be a mere formality – a sop to appearances – before the committee recommends
confirmation."
Looks very much like "Well, It's excusable when our guys do it."
Always had a crush on K v d Heuvel. (How's that for an opening to a post about misogyny
and sexual misconduct)?
But can't we disqualify Joe! as the craven proponent of the worst neo-lib policies that
got us exactly where we are today? Or, in polite company, ask politely whether he is even in
a mental state to hand over the keys to the to the family car, let alone the nuclear
football?
Let's take the Id out of IdPol, I don't care if the candidate has green skin and three
eyes if the policies they would enact come within smelling distance of benefiting the 99% (or
more precisely in Joe's case within hair smelling distance).
We can use his personal conduct as a component in our judgement but pleeease can we focus
on the stuff that would actually affect our lives. In his case, for the absolute worse.
(Note: I sincerely doubt whether Joe is currently allowed to drive a car, please oh please
Mr.God-Yahweh-Mohammed-Buddha-Obama can we not let him drive a nation).
"... To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community, which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after he was elected, his presidency ..."
"... While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as Trump does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration is nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly everyone surrounding the president ..."
"... Most damaging to consumer interests, the rot has also affected the so-called regulatory agencies that are supposed to monitor the potentially illegal activities of corporations and industries to protect the public. As University of Chicago economist George Stigler several times predicted, under both Obama and Trump advocates of ostensibly "regulated" corporations have taken over every U.S. federal regulatory agency . The captured U.S. government regulators now represent the interests of the corporations, not the public. This is more like government by a criminal oligarchy rather than of, by and for The People. ..."
The 24/7 intensified media coverage of the coronavirus story has meant that other news has
either been ignored or relegated to the back pages, never to be seen again. The Middle East has
been on a boil but coverage of the Trump administration's latest
moves against Iran has been so insignificant as to be invisible. Meanwhile closer to home,
the declaration by the ubiquitous Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that current president of
Venezuela Nicolas Maduro is a drug trafficker did generate somewhat of a ripple, as did
dispatch of warships to the Caribbean to intercept the alleged drugs, but that story also
died.
Of more interest perhaps is the tale of the continued purge of government officials,
referred to as "draining the swamp," by President Donald Trump as it could conceivably have
long-term impact on how policy is shaped in Washington. Prior to the virus partial lockdown,
some of the impending shakeup within the
intelligence community (IC) and Pentagon were commented on in the media, but developments
since that time have been less reported, even when several inspectors-general were removed.
To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community,
which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after
he was elected, his presidency. Whether one argues that what took place was due to a "Deep
state" or Establishment conspiracy or rather just based on personal ambition by key players,
the reality was that a number of top officials seem to have forgotten the oaths they swore to
the constitution when it came to Donald Trump.
Be that as it may, beyond the musical chairs that have characterized the senior level
appointments in the first three years of the Trump administration, there has been a concerted
effort to remove "disloyal" members of the intelligence community, with disloyal generally
being the label applied to holdovers from the Bush and Obama administrations. The February
appointment of U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard "Ric" Grenell as interim Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), a position that he will hold simultaneously with his ambassadorship, has
been criticized from all sides due to his inexperience, history of bad judgement and
partisanship. The White House is now claiming
that he will be replaced by Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe after the interim appointment
is completed.
Criticism of Grenell for his clearly evident deficiencies misses the point, however, as he
is not in place to do anything constructive. He has already initiated a purge of federal
employees in the White House and national security apparatus considered to be insufficiently
loyal, an effort which has been supported by National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien and
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Many career officers have been sent back to their home agencies
while the new appointees are being drawn from the pool of neoconservatives that proliferated in
the George W. Bush administration. Admittedly some prominent neocons like Bill Kristol have
disqualified themselves for service with the new regime due to their vitriolic criticism of
Trump the candidate, but many others have managed to remain politically viable by keeping their
mouths shut during the 2016 campaign. To no one's surprise, many of the new employees being
brought in are being carefully vetted to make sure that they are passionate supporters of
Israel.
While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as Trump
does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration is
nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly
everyone surrounding the president, even several layers down into the administration where
employees are frequently apolitical. As the Trump White House has not been renowned for its
adroit policies and forward thinking, the loss of expertise will be hardly noticeable, but
there will certainly be a reduction in challenges to group think while replacing officials in
the law enforcement and inspector general communities will mean that there will be no one in a
high enough position to impede or check presidential misbehavior. Instead, high officials will
be principally tasked with coming up with rationalizations to excuse what the White House
does.
... ... ...
Subsequent to the defenestration of Atkinson, Trump went after another inspector general
Glenn Fine, who was principal deputy IG at the Pentagon and had been charged with heading the
panel of inspectors that would have oversight responsibility to certify the proper
implementation of the $2.2 trillion dollar coronavirus relief package. As has been noted in the
media, there was particular concern regarding the lack of transparency regarding the $500
billion Exchange Stabilizing Fund (ESF) that had been set aside to make loans to corporations
and other large companies while the really urgently needed Small Business Loan allocation has
been failing to work at all except for Israeli
companies that have lined up for the loans. The risk that the ESF would become a slush fund
for companies favored by the White House was real, and several investigative reports observed
that Trump business interests might also directly benefit from the way it was drafted.
Four days after the firing of Atkinson, Fine also was let go to be replaced by the EPA
inspector general Sean O'Donnell, who is considered a Trump loyalist. On the previous day the
tweeter-in-chief came down on yet another IG, the woman responsible for Health and Human
Services Christi Grimm, who had issued a report stating that the her department had found "severe"
shortages of virus testing material at hospitals and "widespread" shortages of personal
protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers. Trump quipped to reporters "Where did he
come from, the inspector general. What's his name?"
On the following day, Trump unleashed the tweet machine, asking "Why didn't the I.G., who
spent 8 years with the Obama Administration (Did she Report on the failed H1N1 Swine Flu
debacle where 17,000 people died?), want to talk to the Admirals, Generals, V.P. & others
in charge, before doing her report. Another Fake Dossier!"
A comment about foxes taking over the hen house would not be amiss and one might also note
that the swamp is far from drained. A concerted effort is clearly underway to purge anyone from
the upper echelons of the U.S. government who in any way contradicts what is coming out of the
White House. Inspectors general who are tasked with looking into malfeasance are receiving the
message that if they want to stay employed, they have to toe the presidential line, even as it
seemingly whimsically changes day by day. And then there is the irony of the heads at major
agencies like Environmental Protection now being committed to not enforcing existing
environmental regulations at all.
Most damaging to consumer interests, the rot has also affected the so-called regulatory
agencies that are supposed to monitor the potentially illegal activities of corporations and
industries to protect the public. As University of Chicago economist George Stigler several
times predicted, under both Obama and Trump advocates of ostensibly "regulated" corporations
have taken over every U.S. federal regulatory agency . The captured U.S. government
regulators now represent the interests of the corporations, not the public. This is more like
government by a criminal oligarchy rather than of, by and for The People.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected] .
I yield to no one in my contempt for the fraud-failure of God Emperor Bush III but the author
has to be aware that talk of "impeachable" offenses is meaningless in American politics.
There has never been and never will be an impeachment effort that's not primarily
political rather than process-motivated. It's an up-or-down vote based on a partisan
head-counting and opportunism and public dissatisfaction. All the Article-this-and-that is
Magic Paper Talmudry.
Trump is a somewhat rogueish, somewhat rival Don and faction-head in the same criminal
(((Commission))) that's been running America for well over a century. He's Jon Gotti to their
Carlo Gambino, and his gauche nouveaux-elite style offends the sensibilities of the more
snobbish Davoise, but he's just angling for a seat at the table and a cut of the spoils, not
a return of power to the people.
Impeachment would serve no purpose but what we've seen so far with Russiagate, etc..
– a sideshow distraction from the real backroom, long-knife action going down, ala the
"settling scores" montage in Godfather III.
"To be sure, Trump has good reason to hate the intelligence and national security community,
which utterly rejected his candidacy and plotted to destroy both his campaign and, even after
he was elected, his presidency." -- Yes to this. This is OBVIOUS to all but the dullest rubes
or those who are in on it and trying to escape what they tried to do in attempting to over
throw the US Government. The rest?
Once you have this stated– that an actual Coup which was certainly plotted/sprung by
the last occupant of the Presidency along with Clinton, Brennan, Comey, and many other NWO
Globalists throughout the Government (FBI, CIA, DOJ ) and outside of it (the Globalist NWO
MEDIA) the rest is drivel -- they tried to take him out–JFK they used a bullet, here
not yet– so to say he shouldn't put in people he absolutely trusts at this time into
any position he can? Are you kidding or what? You can't be serious– I've actually had
someone try and kill me they were quite serious about it– my reaction after was not
anything like what I see you suggesting or mirrored in your "analysis". This is how the CIA
"counsels" in response to a murderous Coup -- an attempt to overthrow the duly elected
Government?
How do you overreact to a group of the most powerful people in the World getting together
to try to murder you? That's your argument basically– he's over reacting to that? He
shouldn't have "Loyalists". He needs to work with these other people -- the ones who want to
murder him -- keep some of those "non-Loyalists" on board who time after time have plotted
against him in every way possible during the last nearly 4 years?
You seem to be one strange dude from my life's vantage point any way, what a perspective
.Maybe you would actually deal with people of this magnitude trying to destroy you in the way
you state but no sane/fairly intelligent person would -- I can't get past you have that
sentence in there and then follow it with all the rest -- you seem to live in some alternate
reality where when someone tries to murder you the right reaction is to blow it off and work
with them– give them another few shots at you– say what? You learned this from
your years at the CIA– this is how they train/advise things like this should be dealt
with up at Langley? Or is it just wishful thinking on your part that they get another shot at
him?
While it is not unusual for presidents to surround themselves with devoted yes-men, as
Trump does with his spectacularly unqualified son-in-law Jared Kushner, his administration
is nevertheless unusual in its tendency to apply an absolute loyalty litmus test to nearly
everyone surrounding the president
True enough. Trump has also injected into Washington his own nest of swamp creatures and
Wall St. bigwigs. However it is also true that Trump has been under unrelenting attack since
the day he announced his candidacy. This is not fair. With the possible exception of Nixon,
I've never seen a more ruthless campaign by political insiders to demean a public figure.
But to whom must Trump show ceaseless and attentive loyalty to?–no matter what?
I can't get too worked up about the firing of the prison guards; I rather enjoy the
charade.
The real problem is that: 'It's the system, stupid!' and no amount of tinkering or puting
the 'right' people in these positions will ever do anything more than just changing the
illusion that something is being done.
It reminds me a little of that late Soviet Union film "Burned by the Sun" about Stalin's
purges of the criminals that had ridden his coat tails to power. Try as the movie makers did,
I could not and would not feel an ounce of sorrow for those (these) scumbags who had wielded
immoral, arbitrary, and disproportionate power over their subjects.
The government has been against the people for my entire lifetime (I'm an old man now). One
of the only glimmers of light in that time, JFK was snuffed out. After all, who did he think
he was, trying to stop the elites from having their war in Vietnam?
He (Trump) should have purged all of the Obama appointees on day one.
The Vindman twins are a perfect example of the Deep State.
While I can understand your loathing of Trump's middle East policies, I do also, what he has
blatantley done vis a vis the Zionist Entity is very little different than what slick Obama
did under the table, outside of the Iran deal.
And to tell you the truth, as much as I loathe Israel the Iran deal was definitely flawed and
should have been more advantageous to America and the West. Iran should have seen the
advantages of totally relinquishing nuclear weapons even with mad Zionists in their
neighborhood. They could have still kept their ballistic missiles, sans nuclear tips.
@Getaclue
The idea that Trump is fighting the Deep State is ludacris this is a charade if the Deep
State didn't want Trump to be President he wouldn't be. Trump is a Deep State minion. No
matter the existential threat to the US the 1% get richer and the 99% get poorer.
He (Trump) should have purged all of the Obama appointees on day one.
That supposes that Trump is not a Deep Stater as was Obama this is a poor supposition.
Iran should have seen the advantages of totally relinquishing nuclear weapons even with
mad Zionists in their neighborhood. They could have still kept their ballistic missiles,
sans nuclear tips.
Ballistic missiles, sans nuclear tips are useless. Did anybody care when North Korea had
ballistic missiles before they had something worthwhile to put on the tip? Hell no.
Trump has had two open coup attempts in three years, and a constant barrage of leaks etc. His
purges are clearly at least three years too late.
Also, to an outsider, it's strange how some right-wing American journalists write in a way
which indicates that they have faith in the due process, checks-and-balances etc afforded by
the American system. I don't understand how any American right-winger could maintain their
faith in the U.S. political system, it seems corrupt approaching the point that it is
beyond-repair.
Trump's MAGA For The People efforts, must take steps to undo the damage done by the
prior criminal admistration.
Here is an detailed explanation of how Barack Hussein intentionally undermined the rule of
law:(1)
Aside from the date the important part of the first page is the motive for sending it.
The DOJ is telling the court in July 2018: based on what they know the FISA application
still contains "sufficient predication for the Court to have found probable cause" to
approve the application. The DOJ is defending the Carter Page FISA application as still
valid.
However, it is within the justification of the application that alarm bells are found.
On page six the letter identifies the primary participants behind the FISA
redactions:
DOJ needed to protect evidence Mueller had already extracted from the fraudulent FISA
authority. That's the motive.
In July 2018 if the DOJ-NSD had admitted the FISA application and all renewals were
fatally flawed Robert Mueller would have needed to withdraw any evidence gathered as a
result of its exploitation. The DOJ in 2018 was protecting Mueller's poisoned fruit.
If the DOJ had been honest with the court, there's a strong possibility some, perhaps
much, of Mueller evidence gathering would have been invalidated and cases were pending. The
solution: mislead the court and claim the predication was still valid.
I am not sure why Giraldi is defending Barack Hussein and Hillary Clinton's behaviour
& staff choices. All rational human beings see the damage that Hillary created at the
State Department.
"... "No matter what you do for the Do Nothing Democrats, no matter how GREAT a job you are doing, they will only respond to their Fake partners in the Lamestream Media in the negative, even in a time of crisis," ..."
"... "rude and nasty" ..."
"... "He gave them everything that they would have wanted to hear in terms of gaining ground on the CoronaVirus, but nothing that anyone could have said, including 'it's over,' could have made them happy," ..."
"... "They were RUDE and NASTY. This is their political playbook, and they will use it right up to the election on November 3rd," ..."
"... "America will not be fooled!!!" ..."
"... "never been so mad about a phone call" ..."
"... "the administration still doesn't have a plan to track daily testing capacity in every lab in the country, publicly release that data, and put forward a plan and timeline for identifying gaps." ..."
Donald Trump slammed Democrats for a "rude and nasty" phone call with the vice president
over the Covid-19 pandemic, and theorized nothing will satisfy them as they try to "fool"
America in November's election.
"No matter what you do for the Do Nothing Democrats, no matter how GREAT a job you are
doing, they will only respond to their Fake partners in the Lamestream Media in the negative,
even in a time of crisis," Trump tweeted on Saturday.
He added that his working relationship with Democrats during the Covid-19 pandemic has been
"even worse" than before and revealed senators held a "rude and nasty"
conference call with Vice President Mike Pence, who heads the White House Coronavirus Task
Force, on Friday where little progress was made.
"He gave them everything that they would have wanted to hear in terms of gaining ground
on the CoronaVirus, but nothing that anyone could have said, including 'it's over,' could have
made them happy," the president vented.
"They were RUDE and NASTY. This is their political playbook, and they will use it right
up to the election on November 3rd," he continued, adding that "America will not be
fooled!!!"
No matter what you do for the Do Nothing Democrats, no matter how GREAT a job you are
doing, they will only respond to their Fake partners in the Lamestream Media in the negative,
even in a time of crisis. I thought it would be different, but it's not. In fact, it's even
worse...
....them happy, or even a little bit satisfied. They were RUDE and NASTY. This is their
political playbook, and they will use it right up to the election on November 3rd. They will
not change because they feel that this is the only way they can win. America will not be
fooled!!!
Some lawmakers have expressed just as much animosity over the talk as the president. Maine
Sen. Angus King (I) said he has "never been so mad about a phone call" in his
life.
A point of contention appears to be Trump's desire to begin rolling back stay-at-home orders
and reopening the US economy next month, while many Democrats insist more Covid-19 testing must
be done first.
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-New Hampshire) tweeted after the call that she is concerned "the
administration still doesn't have a plan to track daily testing capacity in every lab in the
country, publicly release that data, and put forward a plan and timeline for identifying
gaps."
Various governors, such as New York's Andrew Cuomo, continue to insist more thorough testing
and tracing of the virus is needed before they consider reopening their states and easing back
lockdown orders, while places like Texas, Minnesota, and Florida have already begun dropping
restrictions as more and more citizens take to demonstrating and protesting against the
measures.
Whilst most of the text is basically true, it never at any point rises above the level of
a rant. And whilst I agree that Trump is a malicious and incompetent psychopath and
pathological liar, I disagree that he has no redeeming features.
His first and most precious redeeming feature is his crude, brazenly outspoken directness,
which aggravates and strains psychopathic relations with close mafia colleagues (i.e.
"allies"), opens the eyes of potential doubters, and stirs to a fever the passions of the
US's many opponents and victims.
His second most important redeeming feature is his incompetence and his proclivity to
surround himself by retarded idiots blinded by their hippocracy, bigotry and hubris.
Together, these two valuable redeeming features serve to accelerate the high speed train
leading to the inevitably and amply deserved collapse of Empire.
In his maliciousness, his incompetence, his psychopathic behaviour, his pathological
lying, his brutal scheming, his avidly undertaken crimes against humanity, and his gross
inhumanity he differs not one single iota from all other US presidents in living memory if
not beyond. All that differentiates him from those other presidents are his redeeming
features. We would do well to bear that in mind when judging him. That is in sharp contrast
to the slimy suave lies and crafty covering up of Obomber, from whom he differs in no other
respect.
It is very unfortunate about the Covid-19 outbreak, but that too may have a potential
redeeming feature - maybe, just maybe, we will be able to see the collapse of Empire without
war. Or even if there is a war initiated by these crazed psychopaths, in their drunken
Covid-19 laden stupors, maybe the US military will simply fizzle out like a damp firework
under their weight of gross incompetence, ineptitude and Covid-19 enstranglement.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you a toast: to the collapse of Empire, may it be speedy and
thorough, like a high speed train crashing headling into a cliff, and may it be without
war!
There, a rant in reply to a rant! Alas, MoA is not at its finest hour.
Joe Biden is sunk if the "Blame China" meme endures.
Hello Hunter B. and $1.5 billion deals with Chinese banks!!
Hunter Biden appears to still be on the board of a Chinese private equity firm he
co-founded, despite his lawyer pledging late last year that the potential first son would
resign, a report alleges.
Chinese business records, the Daily Caller reports, still list Robert Hunter Biden --
the younger Biden's full name -- as a director and board member of BHR Partners.
George Mesires, a lawyer for Biden, said back in October that Biden would be
relinquishing his director title "on or by October 31," but the outlet reported that
business records it obtained were submitted as recently as March 24.
Perhaps as the election year continues to drag on with Trump desperately flailing around for
anything to rally his supporters (hit hard by COVID-19 now that the contagion has reached all
50 states) and the increasingly dementia-addled Joe Biden having nothing to say, it's time
for the imagination-deficient Democrats or the FBI to go over Christopher Steele's dog-eared
dossier again with the most powerful microscopes they have to find evidence that Beijing as
well as Moscow was also assisting Trump's 2016 Presidential campaign.
Would sheeple around the world fall for a whopper like that? Australian news media eedjits
certainly would.
MCC is married to a VC multi-millionaire. To have hubby's business friends throw a couple
hundred grand at her is unsurprising. It's kind of like when your kid has to sell chocolate
bars so the marching band to go to the Thanksgiving Day parade. I doubt she'll get a thousand
votes. It's a lark and great fun to talk about over cocktails with the other Masters of the
Universe.
But then again Claire Booth Luce was a Congressperson but she had the good taste to run in
Connecticut not the Bronx.
As above, so below.
I wonder how one would go about valuing evil on one's balance sheet?
I used to think that the proper term to describe a group of Evils was : "A plethora of
evils." Now I know that the proper term of venery to describe a group of Evils is: "An
incorporation of evils."
The USA government was paralyzed by Ukrainegate and impeachment in January.
Notable quotes:
"... Another factor was that any real measures against the virus were a huge blow to the neoliberal globalization and the USA as the central force that pushed neoliberal globalization was vary to implement them. ..."
"... Pentagon treatment of the USS Theodor Roosevelt epidemic was worse than incompetent because clearly, this was just the tip of the iceberg. Instead of looking into the core problem, they decided to find a scapegoat. Why they did not react as soon as problems on Diamond Princess surfaced are unclear to me. They failed even to provide masks. That's simply incredible. I think a bunch of perfumed princes of Pentagon needs to be fired. I wonder what is the situation on submarines. ..."
The WHO provided validated working test kits on 16th of January.
Even if I am not happy with the Chinese policy overall, the main problem in most advanced
western countries was and still is that the response of the governments are often poor:
Not implementing a coherent communication strategy. It does not make sense when one
minister tells that the virus situation is an real issue and another minister tell you at
the same time that everything is not so bad.
Downplaying the infection numbers for domestical political reasons. Complete lack of
understanding of an exponential function or more precise the combination of an virus
operating on an exponential function, while the own resources are more or less a
constant.
Too late start of testing, be it a result of faulty administrative structures, rooky
mistakes during test kit development or combination of both.
Fighting a virus is like warfare on the operational level, you start with incomplete
information, but have to make important decisions, time is a very important resource, lost
time is almost impossible to regain.
Fighting a virus is like warfare on the operational level, you start with incomplete
information, but have to make important decisions, time is a very important resource, lost
time is almost impossible to regain.
Very true. But we should not forget the role of Pelosi in this mess: Trump administration was
partially paralyzed in January by impeachment proceedings. She acted like the fifth column in
this respect.
Another factor was that any real measures against the virus were a huge blow to the
neoliberal globalization and the USA as the central force that pushed neoliberal
globalization was vary to implement them.
IMHO, Trump demonstrated some level of courage by closing flights from China on Jan 31. I
guess pressure to postpone this measure further was tremendous. But they missed the time, and
it was too late.
3) Too late start of testing, be it a result of faulty administrative structures, rooky
mistakes during test kit development, or a combination of both.
That's true, and the CDC needs to be investigated for this blunder. But also implementing
social distancing measures and the obligatory wearing of masks in large cities was completely
botched.
Retired persons can be quarantined without a major blow to the economy. And that should
have been done first. The nursing homes are starkly vulnerable to the coronavirus. It was
clear from the beginning. That means that the medical personnel in them need to be provided
with full protection gear and isolated with patients. That was not done. On the contrary,
they became hotspots that spread the disease.
Treatment of medical personnel, who along with patients in nursing homes are the most
vulnerable category, was abysmal. No free hotel stay (for those without children), no special
transportation and free meals were provided for them. Even basic protection equipment was
absent in home hospitals until late March.
The USA did not have strategic storage of masks and, which is more important, equipment to
make them and materials from which they are made. That was a big blunder for which previous
administrations also share responsibility.
Pentagon treatment of the USS Theodor Roosevelt epidemic was worse than incompetent
because clearly, this was just the tip of the iceberg. Instead of looking into the core
problem, they decided to find a scapegoat. Why they did not react as soon as problems on
Diamond Princess surfaced are unclear to me. They failed even to provide masks. That's simply
incredible. I think a bunch of perfumed princes of Pentagon needs to be fired. I wonder what
is the situation on submarines.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Thursday is expected to lay out a strategy
to phase out the month-long economic shutdown aimed at stanching the coronavirus pandemic,
despite concerns from health experts, state governors and business leaders about the
dangers of lifting restrictions without widespread testing in place.[.]
The state restrictions have strangled the U.S. economy to an extent not seen since the
Great Depression nearly a century ago. Another 5.2 million more Americans sought
unemployment benefits last week, the Labor Department reported on Thursday, lifting total
filings for claims over the past month to more than 20million.
The Republican president, who has staked his re-election in November on the strength of
the U.S. economy, is scheduled to hold a call with the nation's governors at 3 p.m. (1900
GMT) and said he would announce his plan at a news conference later on Thursday. The White
House coronavirus task force is scheduled to hold its daily public briefing at 5 p.m.
[.]
"The worst thing that could happen would be for us to throw everyone back into the economic
cycle and have to go back to having 97% of our people being told to stay home again,"
Trump's former White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn told CBS News on
Thursday.[.]
Trump v. Biden. That's the choice and we are doomed.
People will forget all that populism nonsense, and just be grateful for whatever McJobs
they can get to be able to pay the interest on their debts, because, hey global capitalism
isn't so bad compared to living under house arrest!
Hard to imagine that happening in Americastan, where the economy has been completely
destroyed by the lockdown. We'll be lucky 'merely' to have Great Depression levels of
unemployment when this madness finally ends.
For all the MAGApedes out there: Trump had better be seen to be fighting the
lockdown-shysters, not acquiescing to them, if he wants to get re-elected. If he spends the
summer continuing to genuflect before Dr. Falsie, Trump is toast come November.
"... Authored by Sara Carter via SaraACarter.com, ..."
"... "Having reviewed the matter, and having consulted the heads of the relevant Intelligence Community elements, I have declassified the enclosed footnotes." ..."
"... , and that they were the product of RIS (Russian Intelligence Services) ..."
Systemic FBI Effort To Legitimize Steele and Use His Information To Target POTUS
Newly declassified footnotes from Department of Justice Inspector General
Michael Horowitz's December FBI report reveals that senior Obama officials, including
members of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane team knew the dossier compiled by a former British spy
during the 2016 election was Russian disinformation to target President Donald Trump.
Further, the partially declassified footnotes reveal that those senior intelligence
officials were aware of the disinformation when they included the dossier in the Obama
administration's Intelligence Communities Assessment (ICA).
As important, the footnotes reveal that there had been a request to validate information
collected by British spy Christopher
Steele as far back as 2015, and that there was concern among members of the FBI and
intelligence community about his reliability. Those concerns were brushed aside by members of
the Crossfire Hurricane team in their pursuit against the Trump campaign officials, according
to sources who spoke to this reporter and the footnotes.
The explosive footnotes were partially declassified and made public Wednesday, after a
lengthy review by the Director of National Intelligence Richard
Grenell's office. Grenell sent the letter Wednesday releasing the documents to Sen. Chuck
Grassley, R-Iowa and Sen. Ron Johnson, R- Wisconsin, both who requested the
declassification.
"Having reviewed the matter, and having consulted the heads of the relevant
Intelligence Community elements, I have declassified the enclosed footnotes." Grenell
consulted with DOJ Attorney General William Barr on the declassification of the
documents.
Grassley and Johnson released a statement late Wednesday stating "as we can see from these
now-declassified footnotes in the IG's report, Russian intelligence was aware of the dossier
before the FBI even began its investigation and the FBI had reports in hand that their central
piece of evidence was most likely tainted with Russian disinformation."
"Thanks to Attorney General Barr's and Acting Director Grenell's declassification of the
footnotes, we know the FBI's justification to target an American Citizen was riddled with
significant flaws," the Senator stated. "Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his team did
what neither the FBI nor Special Counsel Mueller cared to do: examine and investigate
corruption at the FBI, the sources of the Steele dossier, how it was disseminated, and
reporting that it contained Russian disinformation."
The Footnotes
A U.S. Official familiar with the investigation into the FBI told this reporter that the
footnotes "clearly show that the FBI team was or should have had been aware that the Russian
Intelligence Services was trying to influence Steele's reporting in the summer of 2016, and
that there were some preferences for Hillary; and that this RIS [Russian Intelligence Services]
sourced information being fed to Steele was designed to hurt Trump."
The official noted these new revelations also "undermines the ICA on Russian Interference
and the intent to help Trump. It undermines the FISA warrants and there should not have been a
Mueller investigation."
The footnotes also reveal a startling fact that go against Brennan's assessment that Russia
was vying for Trump, when in fact, the Russians appeared to be hopeful of a Clinton
presidency.
"The FBI received information in June, 2017 which revealed that, among other things, there
were personal and business ties between the sub-source and Steele's Primary Sub-source,
contacts between the sub-source and an individual in the Russian Presidential Administration
in June/July 2016 [redacted] and the sub source voicing strong support for candidate Clinton
in the 2016 U.S. election. The Supervisory Intel Analyst told us that the FBI did not have a
Section 702 vicarage on any other Steele sub-source."
Steele's Lies
The complete four pages of the partially redacted footnotes paint a clear picture of the
alleged malfeasance committed by former FBI Director James Comey, former DNI James Clapper and
former CIA Director John Brennan, who were all aware of the concerns regarding the information
supplied by former British spy Christopher Steele in the dossier. Steele, who was hired by the
private embattled research firm Fusion GPS, was paid for his work through the Hillary Clinton
campaign and Democratic National Committee. The FBI also paid for Steele's work before ending
its confidential source relationship with him but then used Obama DOJ Official Bruce Ohr as a
go between to continue obtaining information from the former spy.
In footnote 205, for instance, payment documents show that Steele lied about not being a
Confidential Human Source.
"During his time as an FBI CHS, Steele received a total of $95,000 from the FBI," the
footnote states. "We reviewed the FBI paperwork for those payments, each of which required
Steele's Signed acknowledgement. On each document, of which there were eight, was the caption
'CHS payment' and 'CHS Payment Name.' A signature page was missing for one of the
payments."
Footnote 350
In footnote 350, Horowitz describes the questionable Russian disinformation and the FBI's
reliance on the information to target the Trump campaign as an attempt to build a narrative
that campaign officials colluded with Russia. Further, the timeline reveals that Comey, Brennan
and Clapper were aware of the disinformation by Russian intelligence when they briefed then
President-elect Trump in January, 2017 on the Steele dossier.
"[redacted] In addition to the information in Steele's Delta file documenting Steele's
frequent contacts with representatives for multiple Russian oligarchs, we identified
reporting the Crossfire Hurricane team received from [redacted] indicating the potential for
Russian disinformation influencing Steele' election reporting," stated the partially
declassified footnote 350. "A January 12, 2017 report relayed information from [redacted]
outlining an inaccuracy in a limited subset of Steele's reporting about the activities of
Michael Cohen. The [redacted] stated that it did not have high confidence in this subset of
Steele's reporting and assessed that the referenced subset was part of a Russian
disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.
A second report from the same [redacted] five days later stated that a person named in the
limited subset of Steele's reporting had denied representations in the reporting and the
[redacted] assessed that the person's denials were truthful. A USIC report dated February 27,
2017, contained information about an individual with reported connections to Trump and Russia
who claimed that the public reporting about the details of Trump's sexual activities in Moscow
during a trip in 2013 were false , and that they were the product of RIS (Russian
Intelligence Services) 'infiltrate[ing] a source into the network' of a [redacted] who
compiled a dossier of that individual on Trump's activities. The [redacted] noted that it had
no information indicating that the individual had special access to RIS activities or
information," according to the partially declassified footnote.
Looming Questions
Another concern regarding Steele's unusual activity is found in footnote 210, which states
"as we discuss in Chapter Six, members of the Crossfire Hurricane Team were unaware of Steele's
connections to Russian Oligarch 1."
The question remains that "Steele's unusual activity with 10 oligarch's led the FBI to seek
a validation review in 2015 but one was not started until 2017," said the U.S. Official to this
reporter. "Why not? Was Crossfire Hurricane aware of these concerns? Was the court made aware
of these concerns? Didn't the numerous notes about sub sources and sources having links or
close ties to Russian intelligence so why didn't this set off alarm bells?"
More alarming, it's clear, Supervisory Intelligence Agent Jonathan Moffa says in June 17,
that he was not aware of reports that Russian Intelligence Services was aware of Steele's
election reporting and influence efforts.
"However, he should have been given the reporting by UCIS" which the U.S. Official says,
goes back to summer 2016.
Footnote 342 makes it clear that "in late January, 2017, a member of the Crossfire Hurricane
team received information [redacted] that RIS [Russian Intelligence Services] may have targeted
Orbis."
AMERICA-HYSTERICA. US Attorney General
Barr just said the Russia collusion probe was a travesty, had no basis and was intended to
sabotage Trump . All true of course. May we take this as a sign that at last (at last!)
Durham is ready to go with indictments? Or will it prove to be another false alarm? There's
certainly a lot to reveal: A recent
investigation showed that every FISA application (warrant to spy on US citizens) examined
had egregious deficiencies. It's not just Trump.
MEANINGLESSNESS. Remember the Steele dossier? Now it's being spun as Russian
disinformation . So we're now supposed to believe that Putin smeared Trump because he
really wanted Clinton to win? Gosh, that Putin guy is so clever that it's impossible to figure
out what he's doing!
Noticed that in American politics, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Obama all
endorsed Joe Biden this week. Can't help but wonder if this has something to do with the
rising profile of NY state governor, Cuomo. Cuomo must have the backing of some of New York's
most powerful.
Are the New York elites jumping ship? I think about the rats deserting a sinking ship,
with Washington DC as the ship, but it seems a lot of rats are still on that ship (with
Captain Joe at the helm.) Maybe it's the deplorables among the New York upper-crust who are
deserting Good Ship Washington?
It makes me wonder what they know that I don't. And then it leads to intriguing thoughts
of what political structure could emerge from this. An aristocracy?
Of course we should be search for intelligence assets under each bed. But Bernie in retrospect does look like a second rate
preacher who was controlled or whom campaign was infiltrated by intelligence agencies having completely different agenda and pushing
him to self-destruct. His approval of Russiagate tells you everything you need to knoww about him: a sheep dog on a mission.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi exposed Kamala as not only lacking scruples, but also as weak and easily flustered. The [Intelligence] Man right then and there understood that with Tulsi, the revolution might NOT be televised . ..."
"... Bernie and his campaign then inexplicably began to help The [Intelligence] Man by embracing the negative branding being pushed onto Bernie and his campaign. What about Cuba, huh Bernie? The [Intelligence] Man 's puppets asked. Nice guys! Said Bernie and his people. Well, what about Socialism, huh Bernie? Socialism is Awesome! Bernie and his people said. And with that, The [Intelligence] Man knew he had won. ..."
"... Was Bernie following the advice of people secretly working for The [Intelligence] Man ? It sure looked like that ..."
"... Bernie's campaign should have stuck to his working-class New Deal branding. Instead, many of his leading surrogates had their own social conditioning agendas. An example of that elitist liberal mindset is with Hillary Clinton's basket of deplorables comment. ..."
"... That mentality from a political surrogate is poison to a campaign. Voters dislike politicians who scold them. Which is why so many of those types of Bernie surrogates are also known for being liberal interventionists. They scolded people who were against invading and bombing countries "for their own good." They called people traitors for not supporting their demands for regime-change wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. ..."
Before the loss of momentum on Super Tuesday the mounting enthusiasm among Berniecrats was palpable. Was Gil Scott-Heron wrong,
was the revolution going to be televised?
Tulsicrats already knew the revolution would not be televised. Tulsi Gabbard took down The [Intelligence] Man 's #1 choice
to lead Amerika, and that was televised live to the world. Kamala Harris had the
full backing of the Clinton/neocon foreign policy establishment . Tulsi exposed Kamala as not only lacking scruples, but
also as weak and easily flustered. The [Intelligence] Man right then and there understood that with Tulsi, the revolution might NOT
be televised .
After seeing the revolution begin to be televised, The [Intelligence] Man went after Tulsi will all the ferocity
that The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine could muster by inundating America 24/7 with:
Tulsi Gabbard works for Putin, she's a nazi, a fascist, a monster and (gasp) a Republican!
The [Intelligence] Man even
got some "Berniecrats" to smear
Tulsi . To make sure the revolution will not be televised The [Intelligence] Man then deplatformed Tulsi from televised
town halls, televised debates, and televised news.
The [Intelligence] Man then saw Bernie Sanders gaining momentum over the crowded field of candidates. The [Intelligence]
Man knew from seeing Tulsi in the debates that the revolution could be televised , but, The [Intelligence] Man
also knew he couldn't deplatform a front runner like Bernie. The [Intelligence] Man 's choice moving forward was simple
and obvious to calculate. Americans needed to learn that Bernie's economic plan to help the working class -- was in reality a communist
plot.
The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine went into overdrive to tell Americans that Bernie Sanders is an incarnation
of Karl Marx, of Mao and Stalin, of Venezuelan poverty, of Cuban totalitarianism, of all things Un-American. Just because Tulsi had
shown that the revolution could be televised .
Bernie and his campaign then inexplicably began to help The [Intelligence] Man by embracing the negative branding
being pushed onto Bernie and his campaign. What about Cuba, huh Bernie? The [Intelligence] Man 's puppets asked. Nice guys!
Said Bernie and his people. Well, what about Socialism, huh Bernie? Socialism is Awesome! Bernie and his people said. And with that, The [Intelligence] Man knew he had won.
The revolution will not be televised . The Bernie Sanders campaign didn't know how to relate to the average middle class
American. Why did they embrace The [Intelligence] Man 's negative branding? Did they believe they could easily change the
average American's attitude towards communism and socialism because like The Blues Brothers, they're on a mission from God?
Was Bernie following the advice of people secretly working for The [Intelligence] Man ? It sure looked like that.
Couldn't he see that by embracing being branded as The Socialist Savior™ it would ensure their campaign was doomed? Wasn't it obvious
that The [Intelligence] Man 's media/political machine would work 24/7 to convince Americans that Bernie Sanders is a communist
if he accepted the socialist branding? The [Intelligence] Man 's plan was simple and obvious -- repeat to people over and
over every single day that socialism=communism. That socialism=taking your money away. That socialism=making America a failed state.
That socialism=totalitarianism. The tactic to brand Bernie as a communist, as an enemy of the freedom loving American people, was
obvious to everyone in politics. Except to the people running Bernie's campaign. It seems they had no qualms with socialist branding.
The Sanders campaign embraced the socialism™ brand instead of fighting it. They embraced woke branding as well. Didn't they know
that the African American community are to a great extent devout Christians? Their vote was needed to have any chance of winning
the primary. Using a lot of political energy on promoting Identity politics may be popular with college kids and liberal elites,
but that worldview typically runs counter to the Bible based morality believed in by so many in the African American community. Devout
people don't like to be told there is something wrong with them if they believe in scriptural authority. And woke politics is nothing
if not a subjective exercise in didactic moralizing. So the revolution will not be televised.
Bernie's campaign should have stuck to his working-class New Deal branding. Instead, many of his leading surrogates had their
own social conditioning agendas. An example of that
elitist liberal mindset is with Hillary Clinton's basket of deplorables comment. Did anyone ask why she felt confidant enough
in that liberal upper-class environment to say that? She was playing to a crowd she was intimate with. She knew they had the same
type of liberal elitist views as her own. Which are a woke version of the attitude of Professor Henry Higgins towards the Eliza Doolittles
of the working class -- as in this video:
That mentality from a political surrogate is poison to a campaign. Voters dislike politicians who scold them. Which is why so
many of those types of Bernie surrogates are also known for being liberal interventionists. They scolded people who were against
invading and bombing countries "for their own good." They called people traitors for not supporting their demands for regime-change
wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. So the revolution will not be televised.
That let-them-eat-cake liberal upper-class attitude gets people killed. And not only in interventionist regime-change wars.
You see almost all liberal elites in America supporting harsh economic sanctions against countries who voted for the wrong type of
leader. Those leaders who nationalize natural resources instead of letting American and European corporations control them, tend
to find themselves all of a sudden being labeled dictators and drug kingpins. They find themselves all of a sudden fighting for their
lives against an opposition armed to the teeth. They see the liberal elite in America going all in for sanctions against their countries
which leaves their economies in tatters. For example, Trump's sanctions and coups against numerous leftist governments in Latin America
are supported by
the liberal elites . So the revolution will not be televised.
Bernie's surrogates who push their own pet social agendas in order to "educate" Americans lead people to feel like they are trying
to convert them to a religious cause. What they want is to be offered political help from a politician. Instead they often feel like
they are being asked to support a cause. That mentality doomed Liz Warren and it doomed Bernie Sanders as well. Those surrogates
may well know how to appeal to their like-minded trust fund nepotistic media gentry pals and liberal elites from Brooklyn, D.C.,
and L.A. -- but they know how to appeal to average Americans about as much as they do to Martians. Is that why Bernie lost even with
so much good will going into the primary? I don't know what went on inside their decision making process, all I can offer is what
I saw as an average person outside the campaign who wanted Bernie to succeed.
It is funny not-funny how Tulsi Gabbard always came to the aid of Bernie when The [Intelligence] Man was smearing
him. Whether it was over sexism claims or Russiagating him or anything else -- Tulsi always had his back. But Bernie was reluctant
to have anything to do with Tulsi when she was being openly deplatformed. Was it his decision or the people running his campaign
who helped to deplatform and shut down the only other true progressive and only ally in the primary? Who can say if it was their
pet causes which guided them? Or maybe it was their not wanting to jeopardize jobs after the Sanders campaign in the liberal elite
neocon dominated media/political job market? Or maybe it was something more basic. Like love for liberal elite money. Or love for
TurkishSaudiQatariPakistani money? With all those influences on the people running his campaign and on his media surrogates, who
can say if Bernie was sabotaged by them (like they did to Tulsi) or not. The revolution will not be televised.
"American collusion with kleptocracy comes at a terrible
cost for the rest of the world. All of the stolen money, all of those evaded tax dollars sunk
into Central Park penthouses and Nevada shell companies, might otherwise fund health care and
infrastructure. (A report from the anti-poverty group One has argued that 3.6 million deaths
each year can be attributed to this sort of resource siphoning.)
Thievery tramples the possibilities of workable markets and credible democracy. It fuels
suspicions that the whole idea of liberal capitalism is a hypocritical sham: While the world is
plundered, self-righteous Americans get rich off their complicity with the crooks.
The Founders were concerned that venality would become standard procedure, and it has. Long
before suspicion mounted about the loyalties of Donald Trump, large swaths of the American
elite -- lawyers, lobbyists, real-estate brokers, politicians in state capitals who enabled the
creation of shell companies -- had already proved themselves to be reliable servants of a
rapacious global plutocracy.
"Richard Palmer was right: The looting elites of the former Soviet Union were far from rogue
profiteers. They augured a kleptocratic habit that would soon become widespread.
One bitter truth about the Russia scandal is that by the time Vladimir Putin attempted to
influence the shape of our country, it was already bending in the direction of his."
Sanders supporting Biden just as his message had relevance suggests he was a "stalking horse"
from the very beginning. If the DNC replaces Biden with Governor Cuomo (New York) or Governor
Newsom (California) ... in spite of the primary elections ... it will prove beyond a doubt
that democracy in the USA is a sham. The evidence suggests that federal elections are decided
in back rooms and then posted on the Internet with storylines that fake elections.
No wonder neoliberals (a euphemism for globalists) hate Trump. He pulled a fast one on the
establishment. Hillary rolled up a few population centers ... but they forgot about the
Electoral College that abrogates "one man one vote" in Presidential elections by giving the
states in the Great Flyover more votes than the coasts. Trump "out scammed the scammers" ...
a cardinal sin in neoliberal politics. The neoliberals desperately want revenge to ensure
this never happens again.
Pindos | Apr 13 2020 18:51 utc | 5 "Sanders - a weak commie. His jew pals are embarrassed. 🤢"
You got it the wrong way round.
On the morning after Sanders withdrew from the race DMFI** president Mark
Mellman sent out an email to supporters expressing his pleasure over the result. He also took
some credit for the outcome "Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign for president. That's a
big victory -- one you helped bring about."
Mellman also reminded his associates that the victory was only a first step in making
sure that the Democratic Party platform continues to be pro-Israel, writing that "Extreme
groups aligned with Sanders, as well as some of his top surrogates -- including Congresswomen
Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar -- have publicly declared an effort to make the platform
anti-Israel. As a career political professional, I will tell you that if Democrats adopt an
anti-Israel platform this year, the vocabulary, views, and votes of politicians will shift
against us dramatically. We simply can't afford to lose this battle."
**Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) . The DMFI is a registered political action
committee (PAC) that lobbies on behalf of the Jewish state. It was organized in 2019 by
Democratic Party activists to counter what was perceived to be pro-Palestinian sentiment
within the party's progressive wing.
Basically they did a "Corbyn" on a candidate who was considered a "socialist" and too
pro-Palestinian.
The following quote has been attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson by Ronald Kessler, journalist
and historian.:
These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since
they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their
uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little
something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.
I'll have those n**gers voting Democratic for 200 years.
Looks like Johnson was right! All it took was the Civil Rights Act to get blacks to vote
against their best interests for 56 years. So there's 144 years left before blacks realize
they sold their soul to a blue devil that's no different from the red devil and until
progressives will finally have a real democracy. Oh how I despise herd mentality.
Look, I'm not going to trash Bernie Sanders, because I know his heart, and I now see the
majority of blacks will never be with him no matter what he tried to gain their confidence,
so he was doomed whichever way you look at it.
That said, Biden is out of the question and I'll be damned if Democrats are going to win
after what they pulled on Bernie again.
Looks like Ziofascist Trump regime is set to win again.
How almost everyone dropped out after the South Carolina primary looks staged. But Sanders,
the sheepdog candidate is also a part of the play, whether he is fully aware of it.
What reason would there be for voting for a corrupt neoliberal proponent of all illegal US
wars of aggression who played a key role for mass incarceration and whose career was
bankrolled by the credit card industry and other special interests? Close to none, certainly
for people who are remotely progressive. There had been little reason for supporting a
far-right warmonger like Biden a few years ago, and with obvious signs of mental decline,
there are hardly more reasons.
But with Bernie Sanders, a center-left candidate who, in contrast to Biden, has some
semblance of personal integrity, campaigning for the corrupt warmonger, there may be the hope
that some people who do not share Biden's far right views will still vote for him. But I
think Sanders' behavior does more for undermining his own credibility than for creating the
illusion that Biden has any credibility.
So there I was wreching - Bernie endorses the babbling crook Biden... and then - well full on
barfing! Michelle O'Bomber!!??? What exactly is her skill set? other than the fact that she
is married to the manchurian O'Bomber - who bombed at least one somebody - often without even
knowing the victims name/s - Every Single Day of his Miserable Regime. Just call him Mr.
Dyncorp. Really, as William Griff observed in another thread, murkans are
completely irreparably delusional.
Sad to see that whatever political legacy Bernie Sanders leaves behind, it will be tainted by
his behaviour and decisions he made during his Presidential election campaigns in 2016 and
2020. Particularly inexplicable is how he failed to challenge the Super Tuesday results back
in March. Surely of all people, given his career background, Sanders could have disputed the
results.
Makes me wonder if Bernie was an "asset" the whole time. Certain elements make more sense
that way. I am both horrified and amused at the way progressives seem to be on board
with the sellout. Ah well, looks like I'll actually have to vote for Trump this time. Didn't
see that coming but I'll be damned if I silently consent to Biden being President.
I'll have to start building guillotines for the spike in demand come next year.
Former longtime Bernie-booster Jimmy Dore has been ripping Sanders relentlessly (and
hilariously) on his YT channel for weeks, ever since Bernie rolled over and went dead during
debate w/Biden.
Sandersites here can protest all they want that they did not expect "this", it doesn't change
the fact that Sanders was nothing but the sheepdog that gets out at every election season.
Now that all those Sanders-supporting boobies have definitively destroyed any chance of doing
anything significant in the way of third parties, it's useless to protest that they "won't
vote Biden". The useless Hopium-addicted gulls already did the wrecking job, even though they
had been warned. Both times. Good job... liberals.
re Josh | Apr 14 2020 0:44 utc | 54 who claimed "When he decided to run as a Democrat you
have to sign a contract that you will endorse the person nominated" As you conceeded it
isn't the convention yet so sanders did not have to endorse right now. That and the way it
was done - not a quiet press release, he took part in creepy joe's campaign release to make
his fawning pronouncement. Nowhere does that get stated in any 'contract'.
It is plain that if sanders isn't some sort of dungeon visiting masochist who enjoys the
humiliation, he has to be a run of the mill greedhead prepared to do say anything that will
get a cash payoff. That was probably his plan from the beginning as everything he did from
the 1st caucus to the end was all about scraping and bowing to his 'betters' no mind what
cheating and robbery was inflicted on his campaign.
A liar, a sellout who has created another generation of cynics - well done 'bernie'.
For anyone running for office in modern
America, accusations of sexual assault are par for the course. But when it comes to weighing up these accusations, the US’
mainstream paper of record applies some very uneven standards.
Take Joe Biden, the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee. If doubts weren’t already raised by his fondness for
sniffing women,
the emergence last month of a sexual assault allegation against the former vice president could have caused a major headache for
his campaign.
Yet amid the coronavirus pandemic, and given the political leanings of most media outlets, the scandal barely registered.
The
Intercept ran a story in March on how Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer, claimed that in 1993 Biden pushed her against a
wall, groped her, and penetrated her with his fingers. Reade had spoken up about the alleged incident a year earlier, but was
met with accusations that she was doing Russia’s bidding. The US media was still doing ‘Russiagate’ back then, remember?
A lot of illusions. Democratic Party is a party of neoliberal billionaires and want to remains this way. They will never
reform. They are a part of Pepsi-Cola scam -- the party duopoly in the USA.
In ancient Greek dramas, a deus ex machina would sometimes be enacted; a god, wheeled in on
a mechanical contraption, would appear upon the stage and go on to set an otherwise intractable
situation right.
Notable quotes:
"... The Republican Party was already unspeakably odious before Trump waddled into the scene, but, by giving a large and growing segment of its base – its mainly male, mainly rural, mainly geezerly, poorly educated, socially dislocated and economically stressed component -- permission to give their most noxious impulses free rein, Trump has turned the Republican Party into a personality cult for him to manipulate as he sees fit. ..."
"... Meanwhile, playing on their rank opportunism and mindless disregard of values and principles, he has brought the God Squad, rightwing Christian evangelicals and their Jewish counterparts, into the Trumpian fold, along with many of the most base and shamelessly venal plutocrats and plutocrat wannabes in creation. ..."
"... Biden is a doofus who, even in his prime, could actually make the Clintons look good. That was surely one of the reasons why Barack Obama picked him to be his running mate; the future President Drone and Deporter-in-Chief, anticipating taking up where Bill Clinton left off, wanted to look good too. ..."
"... ["Kakistocracy," for those who still don't know, is an old word that has lately become timely. It means: rule of the worst, the most vile, corrupt, and incompetent.] ..."
"... One would think that mainstream Democrats would have learned something from 2016 about the wisdom of fielding a stalwart of the ancien régime , a "moderate" -- she called herself a "progressive pragmatist" – against a buffoonish, sociopathic liar, a reality TV conman, who promises "to drain the swamp." ..."
"... There is a certain irony in what Democrats are now saying about that prospect, now that, barring a miracle, Biden is the presumptive nominee. They are saying just what people were saying about Trump when his more thoughtful supporters were starting to anticipate and then to experience voters' remorse – that, however awful he may be, however much out of his depth in the Oval Office, "the adults in the room" will be there to keep him in line. ..."
"... By almost any relevant standard, Franken was a far better Senator than Biden or, for that matter, than nearly every other Democratic Senator, Gillibrand included. By almost any relevant standard, Biden, even in his prime, was a dunce. But no matter. Anything for banality's sake; anything not to field a candidate worth supporting. ..."
"... In ancient Greek dramas, a deus ex machina would sometimes be enacted; a god, wheeled in on a mechanical contraption, would appear upon the stage and go on to set an otherwise intractable situation right. ..."
"... Obama's Original Sin, and also Eric Holder's, was to let the war criminals in the upper echelon of the Bush administration off scot-free. I fear that just as Trump takes his cues from Fox News, Biden will be taking his from what Obama did a dozen years ago. ..."
"... Back then, Obama said that he wanted "to look forward," to let bygones be bygone. Because that is precisely what he did, the Bush-Cheney perpetual war regime became his own. It is still with us too, and Biden is no doubt itching to take up where his Best Friend Forever left off. ..."
"... Were that to come to pass, the countless, legally actionable crimes that Trump and his kakistocratic minions have committed, now including the depraved indifference to human life and the menace to public health that Trump has been exhibiting daily since the corvid-19 crisis broke, would go unpunished, setting an even worse precedent than the one set by Obama. ..."
Donald Trump is
a paradoxical creature. On the one hand, he resembles nothing so much as a dumbass teenage boy,
and, on the other, a barfly, long in the tooth and good for nothing but mouthing off.
This from an obese septuagenarian who doesn't drink and who, unlike Richard Nixon, his only
near rival in political depravity, is as unconflicted and intellectually shallow as they
come.
Nixon was good at many things. In politics, Trump is good at only two.
One is using corporate media to his own advantage. To be sure, Trump has Fox News and talk
radio, propaganda assets Nixon could hardly have dreamed of, in his pocket, but they were in
place, dumbing down and otherwise doing harm, long before he came onto the scene. What Trump
has managed to do is to get the ostensibly respectable cable networks, CNN and MSNBC, to offer
him their platforms for free.
This, as much as Hillary Clinton's politics and her failures as a candidate, helped him get
elected in 2016. It is helping him stay afloat now, even as the utter incompetence of his
handling of the on-going covid-19 crisis that he did so much to exacerbate becomes stunningly
clear to anyone not hellbent on denying the obvious.
CNN's and MSNBC's hatred of the Donald is as palpable as it is justified, and yet he plays
them like a fiddle.
The other thing he is good at is turning the GOP into an instrument of his will.
The Republican Party was already unspeakably odious before Trump waddled into the scene,
but, by giving a large and growing segment of its base – its mainly male, mainly rural,
mainly geezerly, poorly educated, socially dislocated and economically stressed component --
permission to give their most noxious impulses free rein, Trump has turned the Republican Party
into a personality cult for him to manipulate as he sees fit.
Meanwhile, playing on their rank opportunism and mindless disregard of values and
principles, he has brought the God Squad, rightwing Christian evangelicals and their Jewish
counterparts, into the Trumpian fold, along with many of the most base and shamelessly venal
plutocrats and plutocrat wannabes in creation.
And what does the other duopoly party offer in response? Joe Biden. Seriously.
Biden is a doofus who, even in his prime, could actually make the Clintons look good. That was surely one of the reasons why Barack Obama picked him to be his running mate; the
future President Drone and Deporter-in-Chief, anticipating taking up where Bill Clinton left
off, wanted to look good too.
Another reason was to reassure Wall Street. They had already vetted him out the wazoo, but
with serious money involved, they were still a tad worried. Team Obama therefore felt it
expedient to set their minds at ease. Biden on the ticket would seal the deal.
In those bygone days of yesteryear, Democratic Party honchos still knew what they had to do
to win elections that weren't handed to them on a silver platter. Where, then, are they now, those savvy Party grandees? And why don't their paymasters
intervene? Why are they being so stupid?
Whatever the answer, it hasn't made them too stupid to hold onto their power.
Sad to say, though, that they were still clever enough to realize that Sanders, and maybe
Elizabeth Warren as well, were everything they didn't want Obama to be. And so, aided and
abetted by CNN and MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR and the whole motley
mess of "liberal" corporate media, they quashed their candidacies well.
Sadder still, after the powers that be pulled off the South Carolina and Super Tuesday
fiascos and then promptly got the other "moderates" to throw in the towel all at once, it
became clear that the old régime would win again.
All doubts about that ended when the pandemic made door to door canvassing, rallies and
nearly all the other usual forms of electoral politicking impossible. Almost overnight, the
only two candidates in the Democratic field worth taking seriously had no chance at all of
making the Democratic Party anything more than a lesser evil. The bad guys had won.
But still the question remains: why are the winners being so stupid?
Even if all they want is a colorless stooge whose only virtue is that he is not Trump, or
Pence or any of the other kakistocrats in the Trumpian fold, surely they could at least do
better than taking on the Trumpian juggernaut with a second-rate dodo leading the charge.
["Kakistocracy," for those who still don't know, is an old word that has lately become
timely. It means: rule of the worst, the most vile, corrupt, and incompetent.]
In a saner political environment, or even in the one we knew before Clinton, the Queen of
Ineptitude, blew a sure thing in 2016, Trump and his minions could be counted on to defeat
themselves.
In the actual world, the chances are good that this will still be the case. Corporate media
give Trump precious airtime, but they also display his and his administration's mind-boggling
awfulness day by day.
With the economy collapsing and the corpses piling high, and with rural America about to
feel the pain along with the urban centers, it is hard to imagine that at least some of the
lost souls in the Trump cult won't see the light and defect.
But Democrats these days are born to lose; it might as well be in their genes.
Therefore, like the Wall Street financiers in 2008 whose minds were set at ease when Obama
put Biden on the ticket, voters who get what Trump is about could still use some
reassurance.
Trump may advertise his awfulness with every breath he takes, but with our electoral
institutions being what they are, and with his base still standing by their man, the chances
that Democrats will blow it again can seem greater than trivial.
One would think that mainstream Democrats would have learned something from 2016 about the
wisdom of fielding a stalwart of the ancien régime , a "moderate" -- she called herself
a "progressive pragmatist" – against a buffoonish, sociopathic liar, a reality TV conman,
who promises "to drain the swamp."
But leave it to Democrats and Democratic voters to draw precisely the wrong lesson from that
debacle. Leave it to them to field a candidate who is even worse than Clinton this time
around.
Needless to say, better a President Biden than a President Trump; better by far. But even
befuddled moderates should be able to figure out that a Biden presidency will be a disaster in
its own right.
There is a certain irony in what Democrats are now saying about that prospect, now that,
barring a miracle, Biden is the presumptive nominee. They are saying just what people were
saying about Trump when his more thoughtful supporters were starting to anticipate and then to
experience voters' remorse – that, however awful he may be, however much out of his depth
in the Oval Office, "the adults in the room" will be there to keep him in line.
That by running Biden, they are squandering an historically unprecedent opportunity to make
basic, urgently needed, structural changes in the economy and society, and to transform the
Democratic Party, presently part of the problem, into a force for genuine progressive change,
at least to the extent that it was in the more radical phases of the New Deal and then later
before the Vietnam War undid the Great Society, doesn't seem to matter to a large segment of
the Democratic electorate – not yet, anyway.
If they have qualms, they comfort themselves by telling themselves that, unlike Trump, Biden
will appoint good people to run the show. And when that thought doesn't quite suffice, the
default position seems to be that at least he, like Obama, will be a No Drama president, which
is, they claim, just what the country now needs.
These wrong-headed but cheery bromides are not entirely without merit.
With Trump gone and Democrats eager to take over from the kakistocrats he empowered, the
national government probably will become not exactly "great again," it never was even close to
that, but at least not stunningly abominable.
And although Biden, unlike Sanders and Warren, has hardly comported himself in a way that
suggests competency or, for that matter, a fully functional mind, and although Andrew Cuomo and
other governors have far outshined him since the corvid-19 plague erupted, at least he is not a
narcissist, a sociopath, or a barely constrainable maniac.
But what's wrong with Democrats? Why don't they dump him while they still can?
Even Kirstin Gillibrand, scourge of womanizers who like Al Franken couldn't keep his hands
enough to himself, seems OK with Joe, notwithstanding the fact that he is credibly accused of
having done far worse than Franken ever did.
By almost any relevant standard, Franken was a far better Senator than Biden or, for that
matter, than nearly every other Democratic Senator, Gillibrand included. By almost any relevant
standard, Biden, even in his prime, was a dunce. But no matter. Anything for banality's sake;
anything not to field a candidate worth supporting.
And at a time when "the homeland," as we now call it, is facing a crisis the likes of which
has not been seen on these shores for more than a hundred years, how can it still be that, for
so many Democratic voters, it is practically axiomatic that only a paragon of banality can
defeat the most inept and villainous president that the United States has ever had to
endure?
The Democratic establishment is incapable of redemption. They have demonstrated time and
again that they will do anything to maintain their own power, and the power of the forces they
represent. That would be the obscenely rich; the beneficiaries of an increasingly inegalitarian
distribution of income and wealth that, regardless the intentions of a few kindly billionaires,
puts nearly everything on earth that is worth saving in mortal jeopardy.
But Trump is their enemy too. They could at least stop helping him out to the extent that
they are.
Lately, for whatever it's worth, Democratic Party honchos have been floating the idea of
running Warren for Vice President. I suspect that they are just blowing air, and I would be
surprised and more than a little disappointed in her if she would go along with that; I'd
expect her to have more integrity. But some good come of that possibility.
After all, while there is death and the twenty-fifth amendment there is hope. Not much,
though; not anyway in this "one nation under (Mike Pence's) God."
I, for one, have been waiting for nearly four years for cholesterol and a sedentary
lifestyle to relieve us of the clear and present danger we face. Now there is the corona virus
as well. But here we are. I would say, though, that were the Donald to follow the lead of his
British counterpart and soul-mate, Boris Johnson, and then go one step beyond, I might almost
start believing in that (alleged) divinity.
In ancient Greek dramas, a deus ex machina would sometimes be enacted; a god, wheeled in on
a mechanical contraption, would appear upon the stage and go on to set an otherwise intractable
situation right.
It is too late now for Sanders and probably for Warren as well, even if she does become
Biden's running mate. It probably always was; the fix was in too deep. What those two wanted to
do was obviously better than any of the moderates' nostrums. But the dodos calling the shots
would not abide Democrats doing the right thing or even some pale semblance of it. Those
bastardly dodos won.
But, even if only out of self-interest, and also in order to make the demise of Trump and
Trumpism more likely than it already is, they surely ought to be able to bring themselves to
pull off something like a deus ex machina trick -- by dumping the doofus for another
"moderate," one less retrograde, less risible, and less likely to inspire potential anti-Trump
voters to stay home.
They could put Biden back out to pasture where he so plainly belongs. As Trump might say
"what have they got to lose?" Of course, when Trump says it, the answer is always "everything."
In this case, it would be "nothing at all."
But I wouldn't hold my breath. It is more likely by many orders of magnitude that we will
have a Clintonesque, Obama-inflected, déja vu all over again in our future.
But even with the Forces of Darkness running the Democratic show, the forty or fifty percent
of Democratic voters who favored Sanders or Warren still have leverage over where the
Democratic Party goes.
They could and should use it to push Biden and the Democratic Party establishment as far to
the left as they can.
They should also insist on at least two things.
The first is obviously in the interest of all Democrats, the ones who are, for whatever
reason, still wedded to the status quo. as well as those who understand the need to transform
the lesser evil party fundamentally.
That would be to defeat Republican efforts at voter suppression. It is plain as can be
– so plain that even Trump has said as much – that if the black, brown, and youth
votes are not suppressed, Republicans would have hardly any chance of electing anybody, much
less Trump himself.
Anyone paying attention to the April 7 primary election in Wisconsin, conducted at great
peril to voters in the midst of the covid-19 pandemic, could hardly fail to understand how
important this is.
Republican lawmakers in the heavily gerrymandered and therefore Republican led Wisconsin
state legislature, and so-called "conservative" but actually radical rightwing Republican
judges in the Wisconsin and then the U.S. Supreme Courts put peoples', mainly black and brown
peoples', lives at risk in order to secure the electoral victory of one Dan Kelly, a retrograde
state Supreme Court Justice whom they can count on to ease their way.
In light of that, who knows what mischief Trump and the cult around him have in store for
November. The problem is especially acute now that, thanks to the machinations of Mitch
McConnell, arguably the most malign figure in the entire Trumpian firmament, the judicial
system is so profoundly compromised.
Congressional Democrats must therefore, first and foremost, guarantee the right to vote for
everybody eligible to vote. This means, among other things, making voting by mail an option
that even troglodyte Republican judges cannot refuse to honor.
Surely, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and the other party leaders can do that much.
If they have the sense they were born with, they will do everything in their power to make
the November election a referendum on Trump. If it is, Trump will surely lose.
On the other hand, if it devolves into a choice between him and Biden, Trump will only just
probably lose, the probability depending on how the corovid-19 virus is doing by then, the
state of the economy, and the extent to which the good citizens of the United States of Amnesia
keep in mind even just a tiny fraction of all the harm that the Trump presidency has done.
In any event, the less Biden is exposed to the public, the more he stays bunkered down in
Wilmington or wherever he has been hiding out, the better. The more voters see him as the only
feasible alternative to Trump, the more electable he will be. The more they reflect on his
merits, the more reason there is for concern.
The other "non-negotiable demand" should be to insist on holding Trump and his factotums
accountable. That will require riding herd over the doofus because, having attached himself to
Obama's "legacy," letting it all go has become his default position.
Obama's Original Sin, and also Eric Holder's, was to let the war criminals in the upper
echelon of the Bush administration off scot-free. I fear that just as Trump takes his cues from
Fox News, Biden will be taking his from what Obama did a dozen years ago.
Back then, Obama said that he wanted "to look forward," to let bygones be bygone. Because
that is precisely what he did, the Bush-Cheney perpetual war regime became his own. It is still
with us too, and Biden is no doubt itching to take up where his Best Friend Forever left
off.
Does anyone doubt that, left to his own devices, a President Biden would repeat Obama's and
Holden's mistake? Banality and the absence of drama are his trump card, after all; letting
bygones be bygone is his thing.
Were that to come to pass, the countless, legally actionable crimes that Trump and his
kakistocratic minions have committed, now including the depraved indifference to human life and
the menace to public health that Trump has been exhibiting daily since the corvid-19 crisis
broke, would go unpunished, setting an even worse precedent than the one set by Obama.
When that comes back to haunt us, as it surely will with Biden continuing the political line
that made Trumpism all but inevitable, it won't be pretty. With the bar now set so low, the
next demagogue in the Trumpian role is likely to be a lot smarter and more capable than Trump,
and therefore a lot more dangerous.
Surely, even the "moderates" in the House and Senate Democratic caucuses could at least
force the dodo they are inflicting upon us to pre-commit, as it were, not to stoop so low as to
give get-out-of-jail-free cards to the likes of Trump, his family and inner circle, and the
most criminal of the base and servile sycophants he has inflicted upon us.
The judgment of history is sure, but it is inevitably slow in coming, and the time for
guarantees that Trump et. al . will be held to account, just as soon as Trump vacates the
premises at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is now.
If a Democratic president isn't good even for that, then, when the judgment of history comes
down on the Democratic Party establishment too, as it surely will, they will have a lot more to
answer for than squandering a chance to make up for the neoliberal turn their party has been on
since the Jimmy Carter days, and for all the many other post-Watergate ways that it has been
making life better for the rich and heinous and worse for the working class.
Rabid militarism is the result of "Full Spectrum Dominance Doctrine". It can't be changed
without changing the doctrine. Which requires elimination of neocons from foreign policy
establishment. But the there is not countervailing force to MIC to push for this.
Oona Hathaway makes
the case for radically reorienting U.S. national security policy to address the real
significant threats to the country. Among other things, that means winding down the endless war
and our preoccupation with militarized counter-terrorism:
If one believes, as I do, that the fundamental goal of a national security program should
be to protect American lives, then we clearly have our priorities out of place. Just as the
9/11 attacks led to a reorientation of national security policy around a counterterrorism
mission, the COVID-19 crisis can and should lead to a reorientation of national security
policy. There should be a commission styled on the 9/11 Commission to assess the failures of
the U.S. government, both federal and local, to respond to the pandemic and to chart a better
course forward. Until then, a few key steps that we should take are already clear:
First, we should spend less time and resources on counterterrorism efforts abroad. The
"endless wars" that began after 9/11 should finally come to a close.
The U.S. should be ending the "war on terror" in any case because the threat does not merit
the enormous resources devoted to fighting it, and the militarized overkill over the last two
decades has helped to create far more terrorist groups than there were before it began. On top
of that, the U.S. has much bigger concerns that pose far greater and more immediate threats to
the lives of our people and to our way of life than terrorism ever could. A pandemic is a
threat that is now obvious to all of us, but for the last two decades it was not taken nearly
as seriously as imaginary Iraqi WMDs and potential Iranian nukes. We have been straining at
gnats for at least half of my lifetime, and when the real danger appeared many of us were
oblivious to it. Not only have other threats been blown out of proportion, but the more serious
threat that is now upon us received virtually no attention until it was already upon us. Like
Justinian wasting decades waging useless wars, we have been caught unawares by a plague, but in
our case we have far less excuse because there were many warnings that something like this was
coming and could be brought under control. Nonetheless, we allowed our defenses against it to
grow weaker, and the current administration did as much as possible to dismantle what was
left.
Once the immediate crisis is over, the U.S. needs to shift its focus away from fruitless
military campaigns in Asia. We need to reallocate resources away from the bloated military
budget, which has had so little to do with actually protecting us, and plow most of those
resources into pandemic preparedness, scientific research, and building up a much more
resilient health care system. Pandemics aren't wars, but guarding against pandemics is an
important part of national security and it is arguably much more important than having the
ability to project power to the far corners of the world. Because pandemics are global
phenomena, guarding the U.S. against them will entail more intensive international cooperation
than before. Hathaway continues:
One clear lesson of this crisis is that when it comes to a pandemic, no nation can protect
itself on its own. International cooperation is essential. The World Health Organization has
played an important role in battling the virus. But it has been hobbled by limited funding,
and it's busy fundraising to support its work even as it's trying to undertake ambitious
programs. The United Nations Security Council, meanwhile, has been mostly absent from the
conversation. The pandemic is global and it requires a global approach. But these
international institutions have not had the funding or the international support to play the
role they should have in coordinating a quick global response to the spread of the virus.
When this crisis is over, it will be essential to evaluate how to coordinate a faster, more
effective global response when the next pandemic arises.
All nations have a shared interest in pooling resources and sharing information to bring
outbreaks like the current one under control. As tempting as it may be for some hard-liners to
engage in great power rivalry in the midst of such a disaster, the responsible course of action
is to pause these contests for the sake of resolving the crisis sooner. The U.N. response has
been hobbled by mutual recriminations between some of the permanent members of the Security
Council, specifically the U.S. and China, and if there is to be an effective and coordinated
global response that sort of demagoguery and point-scoring will have to end.
Scaling back the size of the military budget will necessarily involve reducing the U.S.
military footprint around the world. It is not reasonable or safe to expect a smaller military
to support a strategy of primacy. Primacy was always unsustainable, and it was just a matter of
time before the time came when it would have to be abandoned. It turns out that the time for
abandoning the pursuit of primacy came earlier than expected. The U.S. should have started
making this transition many years ago, but recent events make it imperative that we begin
now.
There is not, and has not been since the Cold War, any daylight between the Republican and
Democratic parties on foreign policy. Both have been consistently in the thrall of the
neocons. While a few Democratic contenders took anti-war stances this year (Sanders,
Warren, Gabbard), the rest did not, and Biden, specifically has been on the wrong side of
all of these issues in the past. There is no reason to think he will not continue the
endless wars and, probably, start new ones if elected.
Since relatively few people vote for third parties, it is a sure thing that the vast
majority of Americans will vote for one of the two warmongers on offer from the major
parties. And so it was in 2016: whether you voted for Clinton or Trump, you were voting for
more endless war. Those who supported Clinton mostly knew that; many who voted for Trump
deluded themselves into thinking otherwise.
I am from the UK, but we are all at risk if a war were to start and get out of control. I
noticed that in 2016 it was Hillary who explicitly stated her wish to revitalise the war in
Syria (which was ignited by US meddling in the first place) and Donald Trump who wanted out.
We toasted his victory with a bottle of wine on the Wednesday evening after the election was
over.
As President, Trump has avoided starting any wars, which is one hell of a lot better than
Obama, who started the war against Gaddafi, and the war in Syria. Obama also authorised (I
assume) the meddling which led to the ousting of a democratically elected president in
Ukraine, and ignited the civil war there – a potentially very dangerous act.
I followed the science of Global Warming/Climate Change, for a while, and it always seemed
politicised to me. The official rise of 1 degree C in 140 years (since 1880) hardly seems
significant, so I tend to support President Trump in pulling out of the Paris accords
etc.
That does not mean I would not welcome other Green projects, such as getting rid of
plastic pollution, but each goal must be judged on a case by case basis.
I am probably a case in point for this article. When Trump was elected, I got a "sharing
my grief" letter from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). This was my response to his letter, posted
November 18, 2016:
Thank you, Sen. Merkley, for the reassurance and encouragement.
Although I voted a straight Democratic ticket, I had no enthusiasm for Hillary
Clinton.
I was angry that the Democratic Party has allowed itself to fall into the neo-con,
neo-liberal, globalist approach/understanding of our most important issues and gave up the
nationalism and populism that was so important to the Progressive movement. This morphing
of the Party is something I've watched with considerable dismay for many years. The powers
and influences that have taken over the Party are bringing it to ruin, and are ultimately
responsible for this mind-boggling defeat.
We are all going to have to pay a lot more attention to politics in the coming years. We
no longer have the luxury of tending to our own families and affairs, trusting that our
government is in good hands, led by people who will do the right thing and not let anything
catastrophic happen. I did not have such confidence in Hillary Clinton, by the way. From
the outset I was in favor of a Biden/Warren ticket, and hoped that Elizabeth would be our
first female President, not Hillary. But then, I grew up in Oklahoma, and believe she's a
progressive, Oklahoma populist down deep.
The news coverage of the election by NPR was abysmal, in my view. This defeat was not a
revolt of the "losers," of the declining White middle class males, and the rise of
misogyny, racism and isolationism. (Those words were not used, of course, but that
understanding appeared to me to be embedded in the analysis.)
Isn't it possible that liberal, progressive, educated Americans might be unhappy with
the way American power, prestige, money and "soft" power has been squandered, and towards
what ends? Do you think educated
Americans are in favor of paring down the Constitution, beginning with the First and
Second Amendments? Do you believe that ordinary American citizens are to be feared, are the
enemy? Do you think they are all on board with spending trillions of dollars on Middle East
wars, creating destabilized states and the refugee crisis, and letting our own
infrastructure deteriorate and
Social Security go bankrupt? Will the SS funds borrowed to fund these and other wars,
and to balance budgets, ever be repaid? Do you think Americans are so dumbed down and
cynical that they would look to the Clintons as "wholesome" examples of what is best in
America and for uncorrupted leadership? Do you think no one either heard or remembered "We
came, we saw, he died! Ha, ha, ha"? Or have not heard Hillary's intent to establish a
no-fly zone in Syria, knowing full well that such an action could lead to war with Russia?
Do you think educated Americans really bought the "killing of Osama bin Laden" theater? Did
you? I admit that the tired "Osama" specter had to be laid to rest, but why not do it in an
upright and out front manner? Why all the deceit? It is this kind of deeply embedded
dishonesty and resulting corruption of justice, integrity and open political process that
has brought the Democratic Party into disrepute. Do you think people remain ignorant of the
Clinton Foundation's pay-for-play method of enriching themselves, or that the Foundation
transferred $1.8 billion to Doha? Where did all that loot come from? We are not talking
here of Bill Gates, or the CEO of Google. Where did the money come from?
I do not put you in the same camp. My first encounter with you was when you gave the
keynote speech at the first graduating class of the MET in Tigard. You have never tainted
yourself with lies and falseness. Maybe it is easier to retain your integrity being from
Oregon, since I have the same high regard for Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio. You
are the exemplars of liberal, progressive values and grassroots democracy, not Hillary
Clinton.
As much as I have grown to dislike Hillary Clinton, listening to her concession speech,
I had a sense of tragedy. She seems such an intelligent, lovely woman.
It could and probably should have ended differently. Was it ambition that destroyed her,
or hubris and lack of humility? What happened to her respect for the intelligence and basic
decency of the American people? Where has simple honesty gone?
She appears to me to have taken the "left-hand path," and perhaps it is better that she
be personally ruined than allowed to take the country to ruin along with her, since that
path always ends in ruin.
I hope for the best. We will, I trust, survive a Donald Trump administration. There will
be damage, of course. Trump has to repay supporters who put their own political careers at
risk to back him. This is frightening all by itself–imagine a Sarah Palin in charge
of the Department of Energy! I fear the dismantling of all the federal regulatory agencies
that five generations of Americans have worked so hard to put in place–one of the
great achievements of the Progressive movement. Imagine BPA sold off to the highest bidder,
or our public lands bartered off to pay for the ruinous wars we have been visiting on the
Middle East!
By writing you in this frank way, I do not mean to be disrespectful. As I said, I hold
you, Rep. Blumenauer and Rep. DeFazio in high regard, and believe Oregon has the best
congressional delegation in the nation, bar none. More tThan ever, we all depend upon you
to be honest, vigilant and courageous, and prevent the worst possible outcomes from this
disaster from being realized.
Steve Bannon is an American Exceptionalist. He argues that USA-style capitalism and Chinese
communism are incompatible systems which cannot "compete" for influence because, to his
thinking, the Chinese model will always "win" (i.e. seem a better system, particularly in
Global south). He advocates first, strict de-coupling; and second, a WW2 level total war with
goal of destroying CCP.
I know people who have taken to Bannon's populist message, but seem to miss the "total
war" part. This is the danger of a USA lurch towards fascism, should such occur as the
coronavirus lockdown proceeds, as a messianic crusade against the Chinese would be a
centrepiece.
Posted by b on April 8, 2020 at 7:43 UTC | Permalink
The Jpost article that b links to says that a million masks from China (donated by the US
Department of Defense) arrived in Tel Aviv on Tuesday night. But Israel should have already
had two million masks if this report from last weekend is correct: The shipment will include two million masks, landing in Israel on Monday morning, https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-april-4-2020/
So that appears to be three million masks from China, plus those seized from American
hospitals. Or are they fiddling the figures and pretending that those seized masks were
legally purchased in China?
It appears that Mossad and others have recently acquired about two surgical masks per
Israeli:
"5 April 2020,
(...)Last week, the Health Ministry said that security services and government ministries had
managed to obtain 27 ventilators and a hoard of other medical equipment from abroad.
Hebrew media reported that the Mossad intelligence service, which has been tasked with
securing medical equipment from abroad from unspecified countries amid worldwide shortages,
helped obtain 25,000 N95 respiratory masks , 20,000 virus test kits, 10 million
surgical masks , and 700 overalls for ambulance workers who usually carry out the initial
testing for the virus.
One million masks for the IDF.
Eat your heart out US Theodore Roosevelt and Guam.
US sailors right at the bottom of the Pentagon's priorities, thats for sure.
American military?.
Have one duty - die as required for Israel.
Including death by coronavirus by looks of things.....
More fool them.
Bloody hell. The Pentagon procures a million masks from China, then gives them to Israel -
when US doctors are running low in almost every city - not to mention that the military
itself has soaring coronavirus cases it can't handle.
You gotta know some rich Jewish corporate billionaire was behind that crap and Kushner was
just the conduit to get Trump to agree to it - probably in exchange for a big donation to
Trump's campaign.
If there was ever a country that deserved to be on the end of a US bombing campaign - it's
Israel - a racist, fanatical. colonialist, fascist, illegal terrorist state. Zionists - the
biggest scumbags on the planet. But instead the US bombs everyone else Israel doesn't
like.
But cheer up. Israel is a doomed nation. There is no way they can continue their path
forever, historically speaking. I suspect they won't exist within another fifty years.
They'll either be annihilated by their own nuclear weapons, or transformed into a bi-national
state that is no longer primarily Jewish. And I don't particularly care which.
The U.S. government's efforts to clean up Cold War-era waste from nuclear research and bomb
making at federal sites around the country has lumbered along for decades, often at a pace
that watchdogs and other critics say threatens public health and the environment.
Now, fallout from the global coronavirus pandemic is resulting in more challenges as the
nation's only underground repository for nuclear waste finished ramping down operations
Wednesday to keep workers safe.
Over more than 20 years, tons of waste have been stashed deep in the salt caverns that
make up the southern New Mexico site. Until recently, several shipments a week of special
boxes and barrels packed with lab coats, rubber gloves, tools and debris contaminated with
plutonium and other radioactive elements were being trucked to the remote facility from South
Carolina, Idaho and other spots.
That's all but grinding to a halt.
Shipments to the desert outpost will be limited for the foreseeable future while work at
the country's national laboratories and defense sites shift to only those operations
considered "mission critical."
Officials at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant warned state regulators in a letter Tuesday
that more time would be needed for inspections and audits and that work would be curtailed or
shifts would be staggered to ensure workers keep their distance from one another.
BTW, the Al Quds Post (aka Jerusalem Post to Zionists) has changed the headline on that
article to "Israel brings 1 million masks from China for IDF soldiers" Looks like the "New
York Purchasing and Logistics Division" is part of the Israeli Ministry Of War All The Time.
So the original was a nice story but fake news. Since there was no correction attached to the
new version, it could be that Washington/Tel Aviv reckoned that this was a step to far even
for Trump and the new version is the fake news.
- This news simply confirms again that the US, under Trump, has become more corrupt. But this
is a development that already started years, decades ago before Trump became president.
I think the possibility should be considered that Trump just made preexisting corruption
more visible rather than adding significantly to it. There are elaborate protocols and
circuitous speech that professional politicians learn to use to obfuscate the corruption and
make their own participation in that corruption seem not only acceptable but necessary or
even in the public interest. Trump is either ignorant of these protocols or he just doesn't
care.
Even with all this help (of which most go to the military sector), the Isreali economy can
barely keep itself afloat:
[...] inequality of income and wealth is huge in Israel, the second worst in the 36 nation
OECD group. The relative poverty rate for Haredim and Arabs (25% of the population) is near
50%, and even for other Israelis, it is higher than the OECD average. The gap in median
wage levels from skilled to unskilled; from Haredim/Arabs to others is huge - and yet the
former will constitute 50% of the population by 2060.
And this mask fiasco is the lesser problem for the American working class right now. A
significant portion of its people
is going hungry . That magic USD 1,200 check is not coming soon:
"the checks are not in the mail."
And the problem isn't just in the USA. The periphery of Western Civilization is also going
to suffer:
Germany's economy will shrink almost 10 per cent in the three months to June, according to
the country's top economic research institutes, the sharpest decline since quarterly
national accounts began in 1970 and double the size of the biggest drop in the 2008
financial crisis.
The shutdown of vast swaths of economic activity to contain the spread of the pandemic
is knocking 1.5 percentage points off French growth for every two weeks that it continues,
the Banque de France warned on Wednesday.
After more than three weeks in lockdown, French economic output is expected to have
fallen by the sharpest rate since the second world war, the central bank said, forecasting
that gross domestic product contracted 6 per cent in the first three months of the
year.
Get everyone you know to read "Against Our Better Judgment" by Alison Weir. Absolutely the
best short, supereasy read to open eyes of those who are unaware that they are unaware, I
promise. If you can afford to, buy copies to give away.
Very brief, "b", but one of your best posts. This is an unmitigated outrage. The arrogance of
the ruling class knows no bounds, and they are acting with impunity. Seems the ruling class
doesn't even care anymore how widely known it is that the US has little sovereignty.
There will be no corona backlash for Trump. He now holds daily rallies on live TV and will
continue to do so for months. His job approval has
risen and if the situation gets worse, which might happen when the second wave hits this
fall, it will only rise further.
Biden has practically vanished from the media. There will be no celebratory convention and
Trump will hit him left and right over his son in Ukraine, his sniffing of girl's hair and
his obvious dementia.
Trump will also launch a large infrastructure effort with another trillion $$$ or so to up
the economy. He will use that to buy votes.
Absent some catastrophic Trump mistake I see no chance for the Democrats to win in
November.
"... There is a video on the Status Coup YouTube channel, that shows how misinformation can lead low information voters to the wrong candidate decision. ..."
"... technically, he wasn't lying about "cutting Social Security, Medicare and Veterans' benefits" as Bernie suggested in the debate. The video clips cited show Biden talking about "freezing" those programs, i.e., leaving them at the same level as part of a "balanced budget" proposal. ..."
"... Additionally, I'm afraid this coronavirus scare helps Biden's electability to the following extent: if an unacceptable level of fatalities occur, Trump (the administration in power) gets blamed, helping the Democratic challenger. Also, if there's an economic downturn because of all the business closures, Trump (the administration in power) gets blamed, again helping the Democratic challenger. ..."
"... In other words, the Coronavirus may do for the Dems what Russia-gate and Ukraine-gate couldn't -- knock Trump out of office and elect a Dem. ..."
"... Joe went on meet the press back when Tim did it and admitted that he wanted to cut it. But more importantly he wanted to gut Medicare. It's in the Ricci tweet if you can watch it. ..."
"... Social security has been on the chopping block during D admins since Clinton. He was ready to do it when the Monica scandal hit. Biden was involved with it then. ..."
"... We needed a fighter not a party loyalist. ..."
"... With Provigil, Methylphenidate and/or Adderall. My wife takes Provigil and Methylphenidate to help her concentrate due to the brain injury she suffered from her chemo. In the short term, 4-6 hours max, it can be very helpful to people suffering with cognitive issues. ..."
"... What I saw last night from Biden, though full of lies, was like my wife when she's medicated. Very hyper, more talkative, less confused. Joe looked very, very sped up. He even spoke much faster than I've seen him at other times. It looked nothing like what we've seen on his regular campaign stops. ..."
@longtalldrink
, it's going to get worse, and if you step back it looks like their real target is the true left itself.
"I think that Bernie Sanders is riding a tiger. And that tiger has fangs, and teeth, and they come after anybody that gets
in their way," Simmons told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett in an interview for this week's episode of
"The Takeout" podcast. Sanders needs to wind down his campaign "in a way that tiger doesn't turn on him or on the rest of the
party and does do real damage," Simmons explained.
Simmons also said that Sanders supporters, who are often called "Bernie Bros," need to "process their grief" about the likelihood
that Sanders probably does not have a viable path to the Democratic nomination.
"You kind of have to let that energy burn off a little bit before you end this campaign," Simmons said.
Republican political consultant Terry Sullivan, who also appeared on this week's episode of the podcast, called Sanders'
continuing campaign "pointless" and a "fool's errand."
but technically, he wasn't lying about "cutting Social Security, Medicare and Veterans' benefits" as Bernie suggested in
the debate. The video clips cited show Biden talking about "freezing" those programs, i.e., leaving them at the same level as
part of a "balanced budget" proposal.
Additionally, I'm afraid this coronavirus scare helps Biden's electability to the following extent: if an unacceptable
level of fatalities occur, Trump (the administration in power) gets blamed, helping the Democratic challenger. Also, if there's
an economic downturn because of all the business closures, Trump (the administration in power) gets blamed, again helping the
Democratic challenger.
In other words, the Coronavirus may do for the Dems what Russia-gate and Ukraine-gate couldn't -- knock Trump out of office
and elect a Dem.
I can, however, think of one way this could possibly help Bernie. In the remaining primary states, some voters (of a more conservative
nature) may elect to stay home because of concern about being in a public place and getting exposed to the virus. This group is
likely to include older voters (known to prefer Biden) and voters whose commitment to the candidate is "soft" (certainly more
true for Biden than Bernie). So, the polls forecasting Biden landslides in upcoming states may be off -- and I'd note the lack
of MSM coverage of Bernie's trouncing Biden by 2-to-1 in the Northern Mariannas caucus - the only electoral contest over the weekend.
Having said all this, sorry for all you Bernie fans out there, much as I like the guy I can't see voting for any 70+ white
guy when Tulsi is still on the ballot and still in race. I firmly believe she's the leader we need for this country, and I'd cite
as just one example the fact that she was posting warnings about this Coronavirus about two weeks before any of the other candidates
(including Trump) began giving it serious attention.
Joe went on meet the press back when Tim did it and admitted that he wanted to cut it. But more importantly he wanted to
gut Medicare. It's in the Ricci tweet if you can watch it.
Ryan Grim from the internet has an article on how many time Biden wanted to do that. And most recently was during Obama's tenure
with the cat food commission. Social security has been on the chopping block during D admins since Clinton. He was ready to
do it when the Monica scandal hit. Biden was involved with it then.
No need to apologize for voting for Tulsi or whomever else floats your boat. But the Bernie bro was not needed. It is an insult
to woman who are not you know...'bros.
but technically, he wasn't lying about "cutting Social Security, Medicare and Veterans' benefits" as Bernie suggested in
the debate. The video clips cited show Biden talking about "freezing" those programs, i.e., leaving them at the same level
as part of a "balanced budget" proposal.
Freezing wages and benefits = reduced income because the buying power of a $1 today is less than $1 tomorrow. (Except in a
massive deflationary cycle, but that goes with a Great Depression.)
Joe's ignorance on that point is only exceeded by his "balanced budget" fetish. Joseph Stiglitz made this easily comprehensible
in his book "The Roaring Nineties."
Calling it "not a cut" is eliding important context. It's the same trick, in fact, that Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives
used to try when lauding RR's tax cuts. They used to point out how tax revenues doubled over the 80s, but conveniently left out
inflation because it didn't fit the narrative. Accounting for inflation revealed that revenues decreased sharply after the cuts
and then rose at about the same rate as prior to the cuts--it took a few years to just return to pre-cut revenues. The same principle
applies here: every year a freeze is in effect under inflation is effectively a cut.
if bernie had challenged him on the lies. biden seems to lose his shit when challenged. He didn't challenge on the majority
of lies and confirmed to me he's just too nice to be president. We needed a fighter not a party loyalist.
Trump will likely win regardless of the economy and virus. His followers will storm the voting booth while many dims say
"fuck it" and stay home or vote green.
I don't vote blech no matter who.
With Provigil, Methylphenidate and/or Adderall. My wife takes Provigil and Methylphenidate to help her concentrate due
to the brain injury she suffered from her chemo. In the short term, 4-6 hours max, it can be very helpful to people suffering
with cognitive issues.
What I saw last night from Biden, though full of lies, was like my wife when she's medicated. Very hyper, more talkative,
less confused. Joe looked very, very sped up. He even spoke much faster than I've seen him at other times. It looked nothing like
what we've seen on his regular campaign stops.
@WoodsDweller
If Bernie dropped dead tomorrow, what he was trying to do would still be alive, if we carried it on. If he sucks as a candidate,
his ideas didn't.
And Bernie's message has greatly
helped revitalize what was a dormant, barely existing Left. I think in that sense he's won, although he likely won't get the two-fer.
"Bernie Sanders is Ending his Campaign for 2020, making Joe Biden essentially the
presumptive Dem. Nominee to face Trump."
Good.
I'm still a Trumper and like the way he's moving from helping the self-worshipping
"Israelis" to ambush themselves, to helping the self-worshiping Swamp to ambush itself. I
mean, how unhinged does Darth Pompeo have to be to ramble on about war-mongering and
genocidal sanctions, in the middle of a catastrophic health crisis?
There's circumstantial evidence that every POTUS since J Carter, at least, with the
possible exception of Bush 1, has been the recipient of "The Chat" from the Permanent
Bureaucracy in AmeriKKKa and imo Trump was aware of how the system works before he nominated
himself.
When Trump has finished with Biden the Dems will probably have to apologise to US Citizens
for nominating a sleazy jackass.
Over the last week, there have, to my knowledge, been three big claims of 'Russian
disinformation' and 'Russian trolls/bots' on social media.
1. Last week, Russian equipment and support sent to Italy to help fight Covid-19. Nato
stenographers claim and spread the disinformation that '80% of the equipment was useless',
citing one anonymous source. Total lies.
2. Swedish minister claims social media campaign against a 5G network in Sweden is run by
russian trolls. Turns out it is a 64 year old grandmother living in Stockholm who is behind
the campaign.
3. Yesterday afternoon, russia media report, according to a National Health Service
source, Boris Johnson is on a ventilator in hospital. Utter nonsense say MSM, Russian
disinformation. Overnight headlines in British media – Boris in intensive care.
The western media are so totally venally corrupt in serving the 1% yet get found out in
their lies time after time and yet carry on. I try to read as many different media as
possible, but have no doubt, which are more credible, and it aint NATO stenographers
AnneR , April 7, 2020 at 14:33
Yes, John A. Truly there is something warped about the western ruling elites' mindset. But
I guess they have to have a bugaboo and Russia (then China, sometimes Iran and others) is the
primary, western created, go-to one. Even among those who did not grow up, or were only
young, during the cold war.
I am only thankful that, despite my father's Tory politics (all but regarding the land,
which he believed should be nationalized and 50 acres given to every male [well, he was
sexist]; an curious, decidedly not Tory viewpoint) the USSR as was then never was on either
his or my mother's agenda. Indeed, we used to watch with much pleasure the Red Army choir,
once we got a television (not till 1958, when I was 10), which toured the UK, I *think*
No ducking under school desks. Nor any other weird thing
Captain Crozier was in an untenable catch-22 situation. Would the USS Roosevelt have suffered a similar casualty if it's skipper
stayed within his chain of command in attempting to address the burgeoning virus aboard that very well may have impacted it's crews
ability to operate safely? Capt Crozier's naval career was damned if he did and damned if he didn't (ie catch-22). Capt
Crozier made the right decision in putting the health/lives of sailors aboard the Roosevelt ahead of 7th Fleets need to check boxes.
Notable quotes:
"... I am circling around to the view that Crozier's actions were correct, honorable, and laudable, and that they also created a situation that made it impossible for the Navy, notwithstanding the current occupant of the White House, to keep him in his position. ..."
"... The difference between a competent administration and the one we have is that Crozier would not have felt compelled to go outside the chain of command, the SecNav would not be "acting," and the Acting SecNav would not have been so terrified of his own President that he would have acted precipitously against the captain. ..."
"... There is a disheartening present trend on who is promoted (and what comprises their value set) within organizations in America at present. ..."
Robert Farley at LGM has an interesting post on Crozier,
I am circling around to the view that Crozier's actions were correct, honorable, and laudable, and that they also created a
situation that made it impossible for the Navy, notwithstanding the current occupant of the White House, to keep him in his
position.
The difference between a competent administration and the one we have is that Crozier would not have felt compelled
to go outside the chain of command, the SecNav would not be "acting," and the Acting SecNav would not have been so terrified
of his own President that he would have acted precipitously against the captain.
But decisions with strategic consequences
should lie firmly with the very senior leadership of the armed forces, and the civilians that the leadership serves.
Thank you for that link. I agree with that assessment, and I would extend that circumstance to other departments within our government,
and into other sectors like business, education, and non-profits. There is a disheartening present trend on who is promoted (and
what comprises their value set) within organizations in America at present.
I never mentioned or voiced any support for Trump or Pelosi, and speaking of straw, you
probably don't even realize that your response is a textbook example of a straw man argument
which involves refuting an argument that was not actually presented. Well done.
I live in Hawaii and know what my neighbors think. I'm glad Gabbard is back here and
making a difference instead of wasting more time on the pointless theatre of the DNC. I don't
like the Biden support but name one serious candidate who fought the MIC these primaries or
got 5% of the MSM hostility that Gabbard took. That would be no one. Your disappointment is
of no concern to the people of Hawaii.
Like I've said before. I'll wait to hear about the Biden issue from the candidate herself
before breaking out the tar and feathers. Right now she's got more important things to do
that satisfying random bloggers.
I am fine with Tulsi bailing out for her community and that is precisely the most sincere
thing to do. I applaud that move.
Endorsing Biden at any time? NO WAY> that man is a republican in drag, a scumbag in a
suit, a thief in in a cassock,a creep in the vestry, a carpetbagger backing fascist Ukraine
and stealing from their people. He and his decrepit son stole the USA and IMF loans and left
the Ukrainian people to pay them off. She endorsed that shit.
Silence would have been the appropriate action and tactically correct until after the
Convention if she was politically intent to await the process between the B and the B.
Re: Pompeo and his West Point clique and their associates, I have not spent much time on
it, didn't seem like a useful or entertaining thing to do, but my impression is they have
lots of plans and very little grasp of what is required to carry them out. (One thinks of
Modi here.) This has been ongoing since the Iranians shot our fancy drone down there last
year. The first shot across the bow. We are now withdrawing from Syria, Iraq &
Afghanistan, however haltingly, as it has dawned on the commanders on the ground there how
exposed they really are to Iranian fire, and that of their allies. Israel seems to be
struggling with the same problem, how to continue to bully when the bullied can very
effectively shoot back?
Many unseemly things being said about Crozier and the Teddy R. situation too. Lot's of
heat, very little light. Trump says there is light at the end of the tunnel, I seem to
remember that from somewhere in the past. I think that's about where we are again.
"... Modernizing our strategic nuclear forces is a top priority for the @DeptofDefense and the @POTUS to protect the American people and our allies. ..."
"... As a pandemic ravages the nation, a sad illustration of wildly misplaced priorities ..."
There is no conspiracy, they didn't make up false documents to start a Russian investigation,
oh wait they did.. I just read that Bloomberg spent north of $500,000,000.00 to become
president and you want me to believe the Russians spent 1% of that and got better results..
You have to be a special kind of stupid.
"... And now you are hoping the Bushites team up with Democrats. Let me tell you something. THEY ALREADY ARE AND HAVE BEEN. Most of the Bush family and their admins voted for Clinton. ..."
"... One of my far left Bernie buddies said something interesting ..."
"... . "The Democrats have embraced hypocrisy. They hated Nixon and loved Obama. Both did the exact same thing. One got busted. Democrats hated the Bush family, but love the Clintons and the Democrat establishment. THEY ARE THE SAME DAMN PEOPLE. There are 3 groups of people in the US. Trump supporters, Bernie supporters and the domestic enemy establishment." ..."
You just Freudianly said something interesting. As a former Democrat, I am proud of NEVER have
voted for anyone named "Bush". The entire family is as crooked as it gets. The entire
anti-Trump, never Trumping RINOs are led by the Bushes and their crooked apologists, like Bill
"I love me some Bush Oil Wars" Kristol.
How much did the Bush family throw at Jebby, in hopes he get the nomination in 2016? I think
it was $150m in Iowa alone?
And now you are hoping the Bushites team up with Democrats. Let me tell you something.
THEY ALREADY ARE AND HAVE BEEN. Most of the Bush family and their admins voted for
Clinton.
There is ZERO DIFFERENCE between the ENTIRE Democratic party and RUNOS - because they are
the same crooked, corrupt and terrible people. Same scam artists. Same criminals.
Thanks for pointing it out. One of my far left Bernie buddies said something
interesting. "The Democrats have embraced hypocrisy. They hated Nixon and loved
Obama. Both did the exact same thing. One got busted. Democrats hated the Bush family, but love
the Clintons and the Democrat establishment. THEY ARE THE SAME DAMN PEOPLE. There are 3 groups
of people in the US. Trump supporters, Bernie supporters and the domestic enemy
establishment."
I think you have the main danger (some nitwit using a "small nuke") to try to make a point
about right.
Other than that, the impression I get from Pompeo and his ilk is that the main thing is
having someone to threaten and abuse to show "leadership" and "manhood", at least one shitty
little country we can still throw up against the wall and slap around to show we mean
business. Dangerous times for Nicaragua.
Neither he nor his other West Point friends seems to have much clue about military affairs
either, which is strange. I mean we've always had our George Armstrong Custers, but they
didn't run things. Now they seem to have some sort of cult mentality. One is reminded of the
French before WWI: "De L'audace, Encore De L'audace, Et Toujours De L'audace ..." and we know
how that worked out.
With a disgusted look on his face, President Trump replied: "You should have let us
know."
Military Exercise meaning (from Wikipedia): "A military exercise or war game
is the employment of military resources in training for military operations, either exploring
the effects of warfare or testing strategies without actual combat. This also serves the
purpose of ensuring the combat readiness of garrisoned or deployable forces prior to deployment
from a home base."
What is actually going on here? Does the White House care to explain?
*Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The essence of Trump's psychology is that he likes to dominate people. He accomplishes this
by hiring incompetent psychopaths who make him legitimately look good by comparison. This is
why he's constantly overruling their worst plans. But once every so often, his incompetent
underlings convince him to do something exceptionally stupid. This is because occasionally
going along with them allows him to feel like a wise, discerning ruler who occasionally
follows his advisors' guidance and occasionally overrules them.
There are many previously existing problems with the Trump presidency and with Trump himself.
As a bioscientist with an advanced degree I'm particularly troubled with his seeming
purposeful deceit or perhaps even idiocy about how to address this pandemic. I have my doubts
about his suitability for this monumental task.
That said, I'll certainly be voting for Trump in the upcoming election if Biden is his
opponent. Biden's an obvious mental midget suffering from all those impairments that
accompany old age.
And, I believe that, if he's elected, the Democrats are quite capable of conducting what
may very well qualify as a coup in that they will allow him to decay to the point that he'll
resign and they can bring in from the Vice Presidency the candidate they'd really have
preferred, certainly to include HRC.
Again, that said, I'm wary of Trump's seemingly scientifically irrational approach to the
public health issues that will be essential to defeat this pandemic. I think that at least
hundreds of thousands and perhaps even millions of Americans will be at risk because of his
risky behavior.
No scientist like myself would favor or even consider the plight of the markets compared
to the plight of the people. I guess that's because I was trained to care for people, even
those with meager means, more so than to cow-tow to the rich.
@Longfisher Age is a factor in mental capacity for some, not all. Be careful
generalizing. I just taught myself a new computer language at 85. It was harder than
expected. Not impossible. We are not on rubbish tip of humanity yet.
Currently Biden is holding the front position with 1,217 delegates, while Senator Sanders has
914 delegates
The comedian argued that Biden "can barely remember what he's talking about while he's
talking".
"You have to be able call out shit that's wrong on your side. And this is one of the
problems that the Democratic Party is having right now with this Joe Biden guy. You guys got to be able to call it out. You can't let this slide, because everybody
else sees it and Trump is going to eat him alive. He's going to eat that guy alive".
Notable quotes:
"... "It's like they got the formaldehyde in him already" I literally laughed coffee out my nose ..."
PS to vk # 1. Please think again. Trump has been in a trade war with China for what? a couple
of years? AND, he specifically banned imports of medical supplies from China. Other posters
wave supplied links for this idiocy.
Trump's about as innocent as jack the ripper. You may just be seeing things relatively, as
ghouls like Elliot Abrahms and disgusting Pomposity make Trump seen like an amateur.
Will Sanders supporters vote for Biden? I think the answer is NO.
Notable quotes:
"... His campaign is awash in cash from the interests that Sanders is challenging as the very source of the blockage to progress. Are we going to get a re-treading of the policies that helped vault Trump to the White House in 2016? ..."
"... The Black vote saved his campaign in South Carolina and strengthened his Super Tuesday and subsequent performances. ..."
"... The new Democratic party that has over the past forty years or so become more like the Republican party has done little for Blacks. So how do we explain the apparent love affair they have for the Democratic party establishment? They went for Hilary at this same juncture in 2016, neutralizing Sanders' momentum and effectively ending his run. ..."
"... It's the power of the Black leaders to represent their constituents in ways that counter their core concerns ..."
"... Clyburn, who endorsed Biden in the recent primary, made his denouncement of Medicare for All and especially the Sanders progressive agenda quite clear in this support. This is no great surprise since between 2008 and 2018 he took more than $1 million from the pharmaceutical industry ("Mystique of the 'Black Vote'," Common Dreams ..."
"... Of course, the culture of these Southern states, mostly Republican, has been dominated by the Wall Street neoliberal consensus ever since the Democrats lost their hold on the region. ..."
"... Sanders' progressive restructuring has been rejected for policies that mesh with the neoliberal consensus, like the racial programs for the educated and upwardly mobile that stress entrepreneurship and business development. ..."
"... These brokers' support of the neoliberal consensus has been secured through framing the larger issue as the preservation of rights. Mara Gay explains James Clyburn's strong support of Biden as someone he knows personally who will fight for the basic rights that are eroding under a Trump administration that has brought back the "same hostility and zeal for authoritarianism that marked life under Jim Crow." ..."
"... For Chris Hedges the power elite is always eager to keep discussions within the confines of special discourses like race, gender, religion, immigration, gun control, freedom, etc., because these issues are "used to divide the public, to turn neighbor against neighbor, to fuel virulent hatreds and antagonisms," and they divert attention from class, the concept they fear the most ("Class: The Little Word the Elites Want You to Forget," Truthdig ..."
"... The opinion-shaping machine is strong enough to encourage Blacks to overwhelmingly support Biden who pushes virtually nothing related to class or structural change. ..."
"... It's about strategy and pragmatism. He believes Biden can win, and Sanders can't, and this is all important given the dire situation in the Black community. ..."
"... The rift would seem too wide to bridge. Trusting elites to change the system from the top down, persuading members of their power bloc to do the right thing, is a gamble given all the betrayals from the Democratic party over the past few generations. ..."
Wall Street broke out its checkbooks for
Joe Biden in the wake of Super Tuesday, no surprise since his campaign is already its major
recipient. Plus, he was the VP for an administration greatly indebted to it. Transparency.
His campaign is awash in cash from the interests that Sanders is challenging as the very
source of the blockage to progress. Are we going to get a re-treading of the policies that
helped vault Trump to the White House in 2016?
Biden is the last moderate standing, having positioned himself clearly against the Sanders
"revolution" in the debates, though it's difficult to conjure a theme or concept that shapes
his campaign besides beating Trump, the perception he can giving him an edge. We can thank the
Democratic party establishment for pressuring the other moderates out of the race to prop Biden
up (Matthew Stevenson, "The Super Tuesday Sting," 3/6/20, CounterPunch ).
But race played a curious role. The Black vote saved his campaign in South Carolina and
strengthened his Super Tuesday and subsequent performances. He trumpeted his record on
race in the debates which Kamala Harris -- who has now endorsed him -- exposed as checkered at
best. Though avoiding any direct discussion of Obama's policies, he has at least been
mentioning him more often. This surely gave him a bump as well since the former president is
still popular among Blacks. Though selective amnesia likely rules here since the Congressional
Black Caucus separated itself from him early in his administration. The new Democratic
party that has over the past forty years or so become more like the Republican party has done
little for Blacks. So how do we explain the apparent love affair they have for the Democratic
party establishment? They went for Hilary at this same juncture in 2016, neutralizing Sanders'
momentum and effectively ending his run.
Black voters make up 56% of the Democratic electorate in South Carolina and Biden got an
estimated 61-64% of it. Sanders received 17%. These proportions generally hold nationally
through the latest series of primaries. But Blacks have the largest support of any group for
the signature progressive issue endorsed by Sanders, single payer health insurance. The
national percentage is 74%. Since it's hard to believe such deep-seeded beliefs could be
countered, what intervened? The all-out media assault from sundry front groups doing the
bidding of the private insurance industry to dissuade voters from choosing any candidate
spouting Medicare For All was surely influential but hardly determining.
It's the power of the Black leaders to represent their constituents in ways that counter
their core concerns , like their decreasing standard of living and their increasing
economic insecurity, according to Adolph Reed Jr. and Willie Legette. In the run-up to the 2016
South Carolina primary, for example, Congressmen James Clyburn (D-SC), John Lewis (D-GA), and
Cedric Richmond (D-LA) denounced calls for free public higher education as "irresponsible"
because "there are no free lunches." Clyburn, who endorsed Biden in the recent primary,
made his denouncement of Medicare for All and especially the Sanders progressive agenda quite
clear in this support. This is no great surprise since between 2008 and 2018 he took more than
$1 million from the pharmaceutical industry ("Mystique of the 'Black Vote'," Common
Dreams , 3/7/20).
Of course, the culture of these Southern states, mostly Republican, has been dominated
by the Wall Street neoliberal consensus ever since the Democrats lost their hold on the
region. The expectation has been that the post-Civil Rights semblance of movements would
coalesce around a resistance to this bloc, but the Black brokers and opinion shapers have
mostly relished their roles in the dominant power structure. Since 2016, according to Reed and
Legette, it has converged around a narrative that Sanders has difficulty appealing to Black
voters, even as polls have shown repeatedly that his program is more popular among Black
Americans than any other group. It has graded Sanders down for his critique of Obama and
especially for mounting a primary challenge against him. Sanders' progressive restructuring
has been rejected for policies that mesh with the neoliberal consensus, like the racial
programs for the educated and upwardly mobile that stress entrepreneurship and business
development. Its main objective is to "undermine Black Americans' participation in a broad
movement for social transformation along economically egalitarian lines. "
These brokers' support of the neoliberal consensus has been secured through framing the
larger issue as the preservation of rights. Mara Gay explains James Clyburn's strong support of
Biden as someone he knows personally who will fight for the basic rights that are eroding under
a Trump administration that has brought back the "same hostility and zeal for authoritarianism
that marked life under Jim Crow." She finds that voters concur, believing that Biden will
fight for those rights since, as one representative interviewee claims, he was "with Obama all
those years." The clincher is that he is also the best bet to beat Trump. They're "deeply
skeptical that a democratic socialist like Mr. Sanders could unseat Mr. Trump" ("Why Southern
Democrats Saved Biden," New York Times , 3/6/20).
Is this an elite-fed discourse that stuck, or possibly some toxic populism like what
circulates among Trump supporters? An investment in the good ole days when the Civil Rights
Movement was ascendant is a worthy sentiment for sure. Where would racial relations be without
the historic transformation that produced the pivotal "rights" legislation in the 1960s? And
many who passed through those moments might have a romantic attraction to Biden's image even
though his support of Blacks before Obama hitched him was feeble.
But consider what's happened since. The turn to the right in the 1970s brought on a mild
"Reconstruction"-era backlash whose signal legal event was the Bakke case in 1977 which
weakened Affirmative Action and banned quotas that were now deemed proof of "reverse
discrimination." The down-turning economy during this decade was the start of a structural
change that revealed the widening wealth and income gap between the lower and upper classes,
and Blacks were hit disproportionately hard. The rights legislation that helped to narrow the
gap in the prior decade offered less protection.
The Reagan administration attempted to turn the clock back to the pre-Civil Rights era and
partially succeeded in wiping away the gains Blacks had made. Toward the end of the decade
protections, especially Affirmative Action, were further weakened legally, and culturally as
"reverse discrimination" claims from intellectuals like Charles Murray and others compounded,
supporting the rollback of social policy initiatives. These sympathies were also evident in
Black communities where leaders pondered how to do the right thing and reverse the loss of
ground. Many began to view Affirmative Action, for example, as a fetter, a burden that tainted
performance by suggesting it was undeserved. The 1990s went far in dismantling all regulatory
regimes, discrediting social policy initiatives, heeding the suggestions of Murray and passing
the burden of improvement onto responsible individuals. The 1996 welfare "reform" law
crystalized these changes, reversing AFDC and its underlying concept, no-fault entitlement, and
the impact on Blacks was devastating. The Clintons were staunch advocates but somehow this
association didn't erode Hilary's huge support in the Black community in 2016. Any gains for
those who got the point and took personal responsibility after this change and tried to work
the market to their advantage were wiped out by the effects of the 2008 Great Recession. As
recent studies show, this event severely impacted Blacks, deflating their capital assets --
mainly property values through the housing market crash -- to a level not seen for many since
the pre-Movement years, widening the wealth gap with whites.
Mara Gay claims that "despite enormous progress," referring to South Carolina, "poverty in
this still largely rural region, for Southerners of every race, remains crushing." Enormous
progress for what strata of society? Is every race being crushed equally? Progress and regress
exist here in a kind of murky relationship. Who are the winners? If there is only a
generalized, abstract poverty, then perhaps Blacks just see themselves as part of one big
unfortunate swatch of misery and there's no need for a special candidate to articulate their
issues. Biden will do just fine!
Do the Blacks who voted for Biden really believe that rights, and possibly a stronger
Affirmative Action, will get them better jobs and health care and education and housing, what
polls say they want? The Supreme Court certainly weakened provisions of the rights legislation,
ironically during the Obama years, and that needs to be redressed. But rights for individuals
or a group need to be expressed with the potential of producing results. They could be in the
1960s when the kind of liberal Democrats Sanders espouses controlled Congress and our society
was an ascendant, center-left one, mostly sympathetic with improving the plight of the
underprivileged. Now structural change needs to accompany the expression of rights and
compensate for this loss of sympathy in a society that is much more unequal generally, and
especially within racial and ethnic groups.
A romantic attachment to the legacy and concept of civil rights in a vacuum allows the
discourse of identity politics to capture the critical energy of race. The times demand the
opposite, the link between rights and social justice; the gathering of all identities,
affiliations, and dispositions together to discuss the common structure that can overcome
division and artificial barriers. Class is such a structure. The delink of rights and social
justice converts to the denial of the realities of class.
For Chris Hedges the power elite is always eager to keep discussions within the confines
of special discourses like race, gender, religion, immigration, gun control, freedom, etc.,
because these issues are "used to divide the public, to turn neighbor against neighbor, to fuel
virulent hatreds and antagonisms," and they divert attention from class, the concept they fear
the most ("Class: The Little Word the Elites Want You to Forget," Truthdig ,
3/3/20).
There's a striking inequality gap within the Black community that's been widening for some
time, as William Julius Wilson's research has amply documented for nearly half a century. The
failure of rights activism has left many in the lower and working classes behind as the
educated professional class has separated itself from them and achieved significant success.
It's interesting that nearly 9% of Blacks voted for Trump in 2016. Why have so few of the Black
masses been absorbed a half century after Martin Luther King's death? The inclusion of more
from the lower strata will need to break down the not-very-visible structural barriers to
mobility that divide and exclude. Something like the pro-active re-structuring pushed by the
Rainbow Coalition, Jesse Jackson's multi-racial, structural response to the widening of the
inequality gap in his 1980s run for the presidency, which was clearly the revival of MLK's late
expression of the link between race and class. The distance between King's social justice
vision and activism and the rights-rhetoric infused activity of today is remarkable. It's
interesting that Jackson recently endorsed Sanders.
The opinion-shaping machine is strong enough to encourage Blacks to overwhelmingly
support Biden who pushes virtually nothing related to class or structural change. Further
evidence of this strength came recently in an interchange between Michael Eric Dyson, a
persistent critic of the Obama legacy, and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, a staunch Sanders supporter
(DemocracyNow. 3/16/20). Dyson has endorsed Biden, a surprise to many progressives given his
critical history of mainstream liberalism. His reasoning is curious.
It's not that he feels Biden is or has become a progressive. It's about strategy and
pragmatism. He believes Biden can win, and Sanders can't, and this is all important given the
dire situation in the Black community. There's a hint it seems that Biden could be in the
early stages of conversion to progressive ideas, or at least perhaps is a latently aggressive
liberal and spirited supporter of the Black cause who can make change if elected because he --
and the Democratic Party? -- have been pushed to the left by the Sanders "revolution" begun in
2016. Biden has the best "methodology" and will be able to "deploy" it.
A staunch advocate of structural change, Dyson now seems to be saying that it can be
accomplished through Biden who will have the authority and desire to marshal the necessary
forces and interests together to build alliances, forge a consensus. It's true that Biden's
public relations gestures -- considered separate from his debate focus -- have passed the
desire test. He's come out liberal and even progressive-sounding on most issues, pushed there
perhaps by Sanders' momentum as Dyson suggests ("Joe Biden's Positions on the Issues,"
Politico , 3/5/20).
But what will he forge a consensus about? In the process of marshaling forces together will
he become a converted progressive, pumped up by his successes as an alliance builder? Will he
support Medicare for All from having witnessed the effects of our health care system straining
under pressure from the coronavirus? Will he be able to convince Sanders' supporters to come
along and bide their time as this -- utopian -- process evolves?
The rift would seem too wide to bridge. Trusting elites to change the system from the
top down, persuading members of their power bloc to do the right thing, is a gamble given all
the betrayals from the Democratic party over the past few generations.
... ... ...
John O'Kane teaches writing at Chapman University. His next book, From Hyperion to
Erebus, is due out this year from Wapshott Press.
@37
Yesterday I went to Home Depot to buy some water tubing for my ice-maker.
I noticed all doors were blocked with a tape, except one with at least 25 people waiting
to get in and a female employee holding a sign "the line starts here".
I ask the lady what was all about and she said because of the virus etc.
I said to her "You must be kidding" and I start going back to my car.
Some old lady from the line waiting to get in she scream to me something about "we protect
ourselves" and similar nonsense.
I turn around and I said to her: Quit watching TV you idiot. They rob your money on broad
daylight and send your kids to die fighting israels enemies.
The overreaction to the virus makes no sense. Is something being hidden from us? The freak
out over this virus – to the tune of $trillions – is all out of proportion.
2.8 million Americans die every year. Why the obsession with this one virus which may kill
in the thousands?
Something is off. But Trump should have known early if there was some other hidden danger.
If there is some hidden suspicion by the people obsessing over this, please share it!
"... The more I watch these moves by Pompeo the more sympathetic I become to the most sinister theories about COVID-19, its origins and its launch around the world. Read Pepe Escobar's latest to get an idea of how dark and twisted this tale could be . ..."
There are few things in this life that make me more sick to my stomach than watching
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talking. He truly is one of the evilest men I've ever had the
displeasure of covering.
Into the insanity of the over-reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak, Pompeo wasted no time
ramping up sanctions on firms doing any business with Iran, one of the countries worse-hit by
this virus to date.
It's a seemingly endless refrain, everyday,
more sanctions on Chinese, Swiss and South African firms for having the temerity in these
deflating times to buy oil from someone Pompeo and his gang of heartless psychopaths disapprove
of.
This goes far beyond just the oil industry. Even though I'm well aware that Russia's
crashing the price of oil was itself a hybrid war attack on US capital markets. One that has
had, to date, devastating effect.
While Pompeo mouths the words publicly that humanitarian aid is exempted from sanctions on
Iran, the US is pursuing immense
pressure on companies to not do so anyway while the State Dept. bureaucracy takes its sweet
time processing waiver applications.
Pompeo and his ilk only think in terms of civilizational warfare. They have become so
subsumed by their big war for the moral high ground to prove American exceptionalism that they
have lost any shred of humanity they may have ever had.
Because for Pompeo in times like these to stick to his talking points and for his office to
continue excising Iran from the global economy when we're supposed to be coming together to
fight a global pandemic is the height of soullessness.
And it speaks to the much bigger problem that infects all of our political thinking. There
comes a moment when politics and gaining political advantage have to take a back seat to doing
the right thing.
I've actually seen moments of that impulse from the Democratic leadership in the US Will
wonders never cease?!
Thinking only in Manichean terms of good vs. evil and dehumanizing your opponents is
actually costlier than reversing course right now. Because honey is always better at attracting
flies than vinegar.
But, unfortunately, that is not the character of the Trump administration.
It can only think in terms of direct leverage and opportunity to hold onto what they think
they've achieved. So, until President Trump is no longer consumed with coordinating efforts to
control COVID-19 Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper are in charge of foreign policy.
They will continue the playbook that has been well established.
Maximum pressure on Iran, hurt China any way they can, hold onto what they have in Syria,
stay in Iraq.
To that end Iraqi President Barham Salei nominated Pompeo's best choice to replace Prime
Minister Adil Abdel Mahdi to throw Iraq's future into complete turmoil. According to Elijah
Magnier,
Adnan al-Zarfi is a US asset through and through .
And this looks like Pompeo's Hail Mary to retain US legal presence in Iraq after the Iraqi
parliament adopted a measure to demand withdrawal of US troops from the country. Airstrikes
against US bases in Iraq continue on a near daily basis and there have been reports of US base
closures and redeployments at the same time.
This move looks like desperation by Pompeo et.al. to finally separate the Hashd al-Shaabi
from Iraq's official military. So that airstrikes against them can be carried out under the
definition of 'fighting Iranian terrorism.'
As Magnier points out in the article above if al-Zarfi puts a government together the war in
Iraq will expand just as the US is losing further control in Syria after Turkish President
Erdogan's disastrous attempt to remake the front in Idlib. That ended with his effective
surrender to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It is sad that, to me, I see no reason to doubt Pompeo and his ilk in the US government
wouldn't do something like that to spark political and social upheaval in those places most
targeted by US hybrid war tactics.
But, at the same time, I can see the other side of it, a vicious strike back by China
against its tormentors. And China's government does itself, in my mind, no favors threatening
to withhold drug precursors and having officials run their mouths giving Americans the excuse
they need to validate Trump and Pompeo's divisive rhetoric.
Remaining on the fence about this issue isn't my normal style. But everyone is dirty here
and the reality may well be this is a natural event terrible people on both sides are
exploiting.
And I can only go by what people do rather than what they say to assess the situation. Trump
tries to buy exclusive right to a potential COVID-19 vaccine from a German firm and his
administration slow-walks aid to Iran.
China sends aid to Iran and Italy by the container full. Is that to salve their conscience
over its initial suppression of information about the virus? Good question. But no one covers
themselves in glory by using the confusion and distraction to attempt further regime change and
step up war-footing during a public health crisis, manufactured or otherwise.
While Pompeo unctuously talks the talk of compassion and charity, he cannot bring himself to
actually walk the walk. Because he is a despicable, bile-filled man of uncommon depravity. His
prosecuting a hybrid war during a public health crisis speaks to no other conclusion about
him.
It's clear to me that nothing has changed at the top of Trump's administration. I expect
COVID-19 will not be a disaster for Trump and the US. It can handle this. But the lack of
humanity shown by its diplomatic corps ensures that in the long run the US will be left to fend
for itself when the next crisis hits.
Just heard the orange god deliver this line at the daily CODIV-19 task force briefing. For
this fool, the military is a pile of new "stuff," He bought it, he paid for the "stuff" so, he
has created a "brand new military." What about the people who served throughout the miserably
stupid war in Iraq and the equally stupid post 2009 attempt to pacify Afghanistan, a country
that never was and never will be. Think of the money and blood that we pissed away there. Even
the Pompous one sees the necessity to withdraw our support from the wretches who run the
government there or pretend to do that. Or perhaps Trump told him to stick it to them, at long
last. Trump's experience of "military service" was his corrective enrollment at a private
military high school, but he has stated that he knows "all about it.
Someone remarked to me once that it had been a miracle that the US could create an army for
WW2. I asked him in response what sort of occupation Marshall, Eisenhower, MacArthur and Patton
had been involved with before the war. Shoe sales? Gas station ownership" Insurance sales?
What?
It would be tempting to think that one might vote for the Democrat. Biden the demented?
Sanders the Marxist dreamer? Cuomo the massive NY City creep egotist?
If MSM were in the business of posting facts instead of partisan hyperbole, you would think
the Dems would have run something far better than a Sanders or a Biden at this particular
juncture of history.
So did we get are handed a choice among "deplorables"; or an echo of equal deplorables.
Right now, I will continue to dance with the gal who brung me. Trump is seasoning well and
growing into the job. I would like to see what his next four years will bring. He knows the
inside game now.
Who was it who said ask a government insider to do something and you get a string of
excuses why it can't be done. Demurr to a business person who asks to get something done, and
he/she will say fine, now go find me someone who can get it done. KAG 2020.
One thing I think played a role that is not mentioned is Trumps business that he owns. He
owns hotels and casinos which will be devastated. Trump wont rule out government assistance
for himself.
For Trump to shut down the economy and produce an effective containment, he would have had
to do this knowing that his own business would be devastated.
There is a saying the you fight the war with the army you have, not with the army you want.
Notable quotes:
"... Ok. Let me start by stating that I am not a "staunch" Trump supporter. However, I just really despise the constant visceral negative, hatred towards our Country's President. ..."
"... As I am sure you are aware, it is a tremendously difficult job, especially in today's crisis. I would think it would be better serve of your time and efforts to be constructive and optimistic, and hopeful. Rather than pinpointed every single steps and missteps he makes. He is certainly no perfect - but his goal is the same as all of ours: to defeat this virus in the best manner possible with the resources available. ..."
"... For the entire Trump Presidency it was all about the stock market. So, here we are. ..."
20 hours ago Here is a 1 minute 22 second video timeline of Trump's amazing handling of the coronavirus.
Please play this.
It will take less than two minutes of your time.
One missing key quote is a statement Trump made bragging about having natural talent coupled with a proclamation that he could
have been a scientist instead of president.
More Questions:
And where are the tests? The ventilators?
Who at the CDC or in the administration insisted the US needs to develop its own test instead of using an accurate test the rest
of the world was already using?
What about Trump increasing sanction pressure on Iran in the midst of the biggest global humanitarian crisis since world war II?
And what about Trump's rating his administration's handling of this as "excellent".
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
njbr 20 hrs
The dumb-asses in DC still don't get it. "Top" leaders crowding around a single microphone in a stage no larger than a public
restroom. Working toward a 1 time $1200 check that probably wont be issued/delivered for another couple weeks. What about the weeks
after that--are they going to spend the next couple weeks going around about the next check?? Has the production of ventilators actually
been accelerated-who could tell from what has been said? Why are nurses and doctors in my area asking the public for donations of
PPE at the very beginning of the serious phase? What happens when the doctors and nurses start tipping over? Two partially ready
hospital ships may help in one spot each on the coast, but what about everywhere else? Has anyone even checked on the production
capacity for the maybe helpful malaria medicine--has anyone been directed to begin proactive super-production of this product? On
and on.
DeeDee3
20 hrs
hard to prove deliberate neglect when you eliminate all of the evidence. No testing means "no virus" and sadly supported the hoax
theory.
Another doc died in the city today. ER's are unprotected. what conclusion can we draw from all of this?
Zardoz
20 hrs
Thousands will die because of his incompetence... and his followers will blame the Chinese
egilkinc
20 hrs
There should be a tracker of the number of cases [among medical personnle] in the US along with this
Sechel
20 hrs
Oh my g-d. This is excellent! I think Trump has learned some bad lessons from Goebbels. Repeat the lie and repeat it often and
people will take your version of events. This really serves to correct the record! Good work!
PecuniaNonOlet
20 hrs
And yet there will be an avalanche of Trump supporters defending the idiot. It is truly beyond me.
michiganmoon
20 hrs
Actually, Trump should resign and give the GOP a chance this November.
Had Trump not downplayed this and had tests ready, he could have played on a loop Biden on January 31st saying travel restrictions
from Wuhan were racist and xenophobic.
thesaint0013
20 hrs
Ok. Let me start by stating that I am not a "staunch" Trump supporter. However, I just really despise the constant visceral negative,
hatred towards our Country's President.
As I am sure you are aware, it is a tremendously difficult job, especially in today's crisis.
I would think it would be better serve of your time and efforts to be constructive and optimistic, and hopeful. Rather than pinpointed
every single steps and missteps he makes. He is certainly no perfect - but his goal is the same as all of ours: to defeat this virus
in the best manner possible with the resources available.
To criticize previous tweets, interviews, and depict his flaws and errors
does not help the common goal. The nature of some of the questions posed to him during the press conferences should be a bit more
respectful and again, it doesn't serve any positive outcome to try and "catch" him in a lie, and how he may have said something that
was not factual or false.
Again, he's not perfect and neither are anyone of us. However he is our President and we should support
his and all of our common goal to defeat this virus.
Russell
J 20 hrs
Not making excuses for Trump at all but he/we have people who are specialists and are responsible for being ready at all times
for something like this and are responsible for being on the look out for this. Somebody should have came forward, even as a whistleblower.
I've been aware for about 2 months now.
Thank you WWW.PEAKPROSPERITY.COM, MISH and WWW.ZEROHEDGE.COM
This was an epic failure of Trump, his administration and America in general.
ghoffa
20 hrs
Hi, @MishTalk @Mish
I wanted to sincerely thank you MISH from my whole extended family. I have been reading you since 2007 when Ron Paul removed the
scales from my eyes on the Fed and govt., Jekyll Island book, the "financial markets" (all modern day money changers). Every picture
I see of Fed chairpersons, their eyes look dead black sharks eyes (to quote a famous book which I subscribe, the eyes are the windows
to the soul).
In addition our mob style duolopoly govt and for the most part complicit MSM (all with significant influencing billionaire ownership
to control the news - easily searched). I've learned so much from this blog and the many commentors in this space ( a personal fav
is @Stuki ) . Nothing short of brilliant and reminds me of my fav news source Zerohedge and it's articles and commentors.
A special thanks for pointing us to Chris Martenson (peakprosperity.com) as my wife and I have watched every day his free daily
videos since JAN @24th and our extended family is as prepared as we can be. God help us all with what's coming.
For those who haven't watched it, Dr. Martenson has a great 3 min video on exponential growth on YTube. Search his name and exponential.
It will help you prepare for what our govt knows is coming in enourmous exponential growth in fatalities. Even knowing, it will be
an emotional thing to prepare for. Prepping home supplies is one thing, prepping emotionally is also important per Dr. Martenson.
HCWs be damned.
As this impacts people personally, I expect insider leaks to come from many fronts. We're working with neighbors to get prepared
as we're all on our own now as the money changers (evil) bail out the money changers (evil) amidst a system that is so debt leveraged
it can't likely be bailed out. "everything's a nail and the Fed has a hammer".
Lastly this brings a famous quote to mind as the people rise up against corrupt govt, corp bailouts after stock buy backs, etc.
Let alone the monsters upon monsters creating lab viruses (regardless of the source of this virus), and unregulated GMOs changing
the fabric of life.....
"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing". Margaret Mead
G
QE2Infinity
20 hrs
Come on! First off, anyone can be made to look bad by taking snippets out of context and stringing them together. That said, Trump
does tend towards braggadocio. If that is off putting to you, he can be annoying. I much prefer a transparent fool to the more sly
variety that plays the part well while sticking a knife in your back.
But let's be honest here. The president can do very little. The bureaucracy of the government is a jobs program for the less ambitious
and politically inclined. It's staffed with incompetent bureaucrats that show up, surf the web and may get around to an hour or two
of honest work. Public unions guarantee they can't be fired.
Obama converted the CDC into a PC jobs program for lefties, just like he converted NASA into a Muslim outreach program.
May one ask: why is a self proclaimed libertarian screaming for more government action? Wouldn't it be great if one of the outcomes
of this crisis is that local communities became more self reliant and more self sufficient!
Sechel
20 hrs
that's from a website called therecount.com looks interesting.
Greggg
20 hrs
For the entire Trump Presidency it was all about the stock market. So, here we are.
The graphic at the end of the video already looks out of date and shows how rapid the spread has been. For March 2020 it shows
5,002 cases in the US (and counting) but right now I'm seeing 24,137 cases.
So much for "in a couple of days the 15 is going to be down close to zero".
njbr
20 hrs
What can the President do?
Force and organize the production of necessary goods.
Act as impartial hub for the distribution of new and stocked items.
Force/fund the emergency super-production of even possibly helpful items such as the malarial drug.
Turn every possible research dollar onto the research into the disease, it's treatments and vaccines.
Fund and distribute tests. Make a way to track the progress of the disease, as opposed to waiting for regional medical systems
collapse under load.
Activate whatever resources are possible to pre-position and set-up field hospitals now.
Develop uniform best-practices for quarantine and treatment.
Prepare the population for the realistic probability of multiple months of the crisis.
Mish Editor
19 hrs
May one ask: why is a self proclaimed libertarian screaming for more government action? Wouldn't it be great if one of the outcomes
of this crisis is that local communities became more self reliant and more self sufficient!
I said what I would do
I would remove tariffs. I would not have had them in the first place.
I would expect our president to act to increase supplies not insist on Made in America.
I would expect our president to behave like an emphatic human being, not a total moron
Mish
Editor
19 hrs
Trump did not Drain the Swamp. He IS the swamp
Mish Editor
19 hrs
Anyone who still supports this President's actions is a TDS-inflicted fool.
Jim
Bob 19 hrs
I've followed Mish for ~ 12 years online and on the radio for brilliant economic analysis. Lately his work has been undermined
by irrational political opinion. Mish has turned into Krugman. I won't be back.
abend237-04
19 hrs
The Donald is obviously afflicted with the same narcissistic megalomania prerequisite for a successful run at any elective office
above County Coroner, anywhere in this country.
That said, he can apparently read a graph, and he's right: The two drug combination of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin are working
to treat this damn thing, BUT:
It is, indeed, not a Covid-19 preventative.
If you get it, and you dink around at home too long waiting for improvement, arriving at ICU needing ventilation leaves you with
roughly the odds of Russian roulette of surviving, especially if you're older.
Lacking testing, the only remaining means available to knock the transmission rate down quickly is social distancing/lockdown. But,
enough of that prevention can leave us wishing we were dead anyway.
Unfortunately, all the college kids jamming the bars and beaches is setting the stage for continued exponential growth by hordes
of asymptomatic spreaders.
The march of folly continues.
I like what I'm seeing of Cuomo. He'd be a good guy to have in the room in a serious fight; This qualifies.
DBG8489
19 hrs
As someone who hates all politicians, there is zero love lost between Trump and myself. I had hopes when he was elected that he
would make a difference but it was clear based on how he looked after his private meeting with Obama on inauguration day that he
was in over his head.
Having said that, I will say this:
From at least the "major" state level up, it would appear that not one single elected official or the top advisors and bureaucrats
who work for them have shown anything but complete and utter failure in their handling of this emergency.
You have senators selling off piles of stock while either saying nothing or telling the rest of us that it was bullshit. And trust
me - they were not the only ones. If anyone cares to investigate, they will likely find this problem rampant. Elected officials should
not even be allowed to trade stocks when they control the entire economy - not even through alleged "blind trusts" - it's bullshit.
But that's a conversation for another time.
You have congressional reps and senators blaming each other and/or the other party and passing laws and bailouts without even
reading the bills they are passing.
You have the Treasury and the Fed printing money and throwing it at every hole that opens up without the slightest regard for
what the unintended consequences of those actions may entail.
You have governments of the "major" states (CA, NY, NJ...etc) who know they can't simply print money being exposed using any extra
money they had (along with taxes based on tourism that have now disappeared) to fund God knows what now demanding that everyone else
pony up to pay for their failure to plan...
The lack of leadership in the major states and at the Federal level is abysmal ACROSS THE BOARD.
And that includes members of BOTH parties and nearly every single bureaucratic agency involved.
You can single Trump out if you want, but he's not alone. He's just an easy target because 49% of the population hated him before
this started.
njbr
18 hrs
....Top health officials first learned of the virus's spread in China on January 3, US Health and Human Services Secretary Alex
Azar said Friday. Throughout January and February, intelligence officials' warnings became more and more urgent, according to the
Post -- and by early February, much of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA's intelligence reports were
dedicated to warnings about Covid-19.
All the while, Trump downplayed the virus publicly, telling the public the coronavirus "is very well under control in our country,"
and suggesting warm weather would neutralize the threat the virus poses....
...The administration did begin taking some limited action about a month after Azar says the administration first began receiving
warnings, blocking non-citizens who had been to China in the last two weeks from entering the country on February 3 -- a move public
experts have argued at best bought the US time to ramp up its testing capabilities, which it did not use, and at worst had no beneficial
effects at all.
Trump finally assembled a task force to address the virus, putting Vice President Mike Pence in charge of the effort on February
26, and declared a national emergency on March 13. And, just this week -- nearly three months after first receiving warnings from
his intelligence officials -- the president's public tone about the crisis shifted: "I've always known this is a real -- this is
a pandemic," he said Tuesday as he admitted, "[the virus is] not under control for any place in the world."....
Realist
18 hrs
I have been watching political leaders in my own country get on television daily. They have all done a great job of informing
the public about the dangers of this virus. They have all relied on the experts to relay information to the public about what the
government is doing, and what individuals should be doing. This is true at the national, regional, and local levels.
In addition businesses have been sending out emails, radio announcements and tv messages explaining what they are doing in regard
to this pandemic.
In fact, I am amazed at what a good job everyone is doing.
I am also watching what is happening in the US. Every US state governor and city mayor I have seen on tv has done a wonderful
job of presenting the facts to the public and provided instructions as to what they are doing and what the public should be doing.
Then there is the gong show that is Trump. I could not imagine that anyone could be as bad as he is; months of lies, denials,
suppression of the truth, and a complete and utter lack of preparation for something he was warned about many times. Denying one
day that the virus was a pandemic; only to claim the very next day that he had known it was a pandemic for months; and then the very
next day say that no one could have seen this coming; and finally saying that his response to the virus rates a 10 out of 10.
Worst President ever. Sadly, many, many Americans are going to suffer and die because America had this moron in charge.
Mish keeps referring to worldometer to get stats from. Their numbers seem to match up with numbers I see in my own country and
in the US.
Disturbingly, today, the mortality rate for closed cases ticked up 1% to 12%. 12978 deaths and 94674 recovered. That is not the
direction I expected it to go.
daveyp
17 hrs
You get what you vote for. To have such a malignant narcissist of such profoundly limited intellectual honesty and capacity "leading"
your nation through this is truly tragic for your country. Even the hideously vile ultimate Washington insider Hilary would have
done a better job.
truthseeker
17 hrs
Mish I agree with much of the criticism of Trump, yet had he done everything you and others suggest, there is this implied assumption
that everything would have worked out perfectly. You know I am impressed the way the country seems to be uniting to such a great
degree, that I think there is at least some hope for our country's future though there are huge challenges that lay ahead absolutely!
abend237-04
17 hrs
I will now proceed, once again, to bitch about the root cause of our current pandemic, which is causing many to experience cosmic
scale frustration with The Donald, which I share:
Civilization has now been hit squarely in the head with three killer coronavirus outbreaks in 18 years, yet still has no unified
global new viral antigen detection system. We could have if our world "leaders" would make it happen.
Local supercomputers, however massive, will never crack this nut, but the billions of powerful, web-accessible smartphones could
if linked and used by a parallelized, intelligent scheduler to raise the alarm when a new antibody/pathogen is discovered in human
blood anywhere.
Such a system could have lifted the burden from a lonely doctor struggling to raise the alarm in Wuhan, before Covid-19 killed
him, and placed it squarely in front of disease control experts, worldwide. It can be done; We must do it.
Sars cov-3/4/5/6/7/8/9/n could kill us all if we don't.
"... It is widely believed that the abrupt withdrawal of candidates Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg on the eve of Super Tuesday that targeted Sanders was arranged through an intervention by ex-President Barack Obama who made a plea in support of "party unity," offering the two a significant quid pro quo down the road if they were willing to leave the race and throw their support to Biden, which they dutifully did ..."
"... Trump might be described as both paranoid and narcissistic, meaning that he sees himself as surrounded by enemies and that the enemies are out to get him personally. When he is criticized, he either ridicules the source or does something impulsive to deflect what is being said. He attacked Syria twice based on false claims about the use of chemical weapons when a consensus developed in the media and in congress that he was being "weak" in the Middle East. Those attacks were war crimes as Syria was not threatening the United States. ..."
"... Biden is on a different track in that he is an establishment hawk. As head of the Senate Foreign Affairs committee back in 2002-2003 he green lighted George W. Bush's plan to attack Iraq. Beyond that, he cheer-leaded the effort from the Democratic Party benches, helping to create a consensus both in Washington and in the media that Saddam Hussein was a threat that had to be dealt with. He should have known better as he was privy to intelligence that was suggesting that the Iraqis were no threat at all. He did not moderate his tune on Iraq until after 2005, when the expected slam-dunk quick victory got very messy. ..."
"... Biden was also certainly privy to the decision making by President Barack Obama, which include the destruction of Libya and the killing of American citizens by drone. Whether he actively supported those policies is unknown, but he has never been challenged on them. What is clear is that he did not object to them, another sign of his willingness to go along with the establishment, a tendency which will undoubtedly continue if he is elected president. ..."
Now that the
Democratic Party has apparently succeeded in getting rid of the only two voices among its
presidential candidates that actually deviated from the establishment consensus, it appears
that Joe Biden will be running against Donald Trump in November. To be sure, Bernie Sanders and
Tulsi Gabbard are still hanging on, but the fix was in and the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) made sure that Sanders would be given the death blow on Super Tuesday while Gabbard would
be blocked from participating in any of the late term debates.
It is widely believed that the abrupt withdrawal of candidates Amy Klobuchar and Pete
Buttigieg on the eve of Super Tuesday that targeted Sanders was arranged through an
intervention by ex-President Barack Obama who made a plea in support of "party unity," offering
the two a significant quid pro quo down the road if they were willing to leave the race and
throw their support to Biden, which they dutifully did. Rumor has it that Klobuchar might well
wind up as Biden's vice president. An alternative tale is that it was a much more threatening
"offer that couldn't be refused" coming from the Clintons.
... ... ...
Both Trump and Biden might reasonably described as Zionists, Trump by virtue of the
made-in-Israel foreign policy positions he has delivered on since his election, and Biden by
word and deed during his entire time in politics. When Biden encountered Sarah Palin in 2008 in
the vice-presidential debate, he and Palin sought to outdo each other in enthusing over how
much they love the Jewish state. Biden has said that "I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a
Jew to be a Zionist" and also, ridiculously, "Were there not an Israel, the U.S. would have to
invent one. We will never abandon Israel -- out of our own self-interest. [It] is the best $3
billion investment we make." Biden has been a regular feature speaker at the annual AIPAC
summit in Washington.
Trump might be described as both paranoid and narcissistic, meaning that he sees himself as
surrounded by enemies and that the enemies are out to get him personally. When he is
criticized, he either ridicules the source or does something impulsive to deflect what is being
said. He attacked Syria twice based on false claims about the use of chemical weapons when a
consensus developed in the media and in congress that he was being "weak" in the Middle East.
Those attacks were war crimes as Syria was not threatening the United States.
Trump similarly reversed himself on withdrawing from Syria when he ran into criticism of the
move and his plan to extricate the United States from Afghanistan, if it develops at all, could
easily be subjected to similar revision. Trump is not really the man who as a candidate
indicated that he was seriously looking for a way out of America's endless and pointless wars,
no matter what his supporters continue to assert.
Biden is on a different track in that he is an establishment hawk. As head of the Senate
Foreign Affairs committee back in 2002-2003 he green lighted George W. Bush's plan to attack
Iraq. Beyond that, he cheer-leaded the effort from the Democratic Party benches, helping to
create a consensus both in Washington and in the media that Saddam Hussein was a threat that
had to be dealt with. He should have known better as he was privy to intelligence that was
suggesting that the Iraqis were no threat at all. He did not moderate his tune on Iraq until
after 2005, when the expected slam-dunk quick victory got very messy.
Biden was also certainly privy to the decision making by President Barack Obama, which
include the destruction of Libya and the killing of American citizens by drone. Whether he
actively supported those policies is unknown, but he has never been challenged on them. What is
clear is that he did not object to them, another sign of his willingness to go along with the
establishment, a tendency which will undoubtedly continue if he is elected president.
And Biden's foreign policy reminiscences are is subject to what appear to be memory losses
or inability to articulate, illustrated by a whole series of faux pas during the campaign. He
has a number of times told a tale of his heroism in Afghanistan that is
complete fiction , similar to Hillary Clinton's lying claims of courage under fire in
Bosnia.
So, we have a president in place who takes foreign policy personally in that his first
thoughts are "how does it make me look?" and a prospective challenger who appears to be
suffering from initial stages of dementia and who has always been relied upon to support the
establishment line, whatever it might be. Though Trump is the more dangerous of the two as he
is both unpredictable and irrational, the likelihood is that Biden will be guided by the
Clintons and Obamas. To put it another way, no matter who is president the likelihood that the
United States will change direction to get away from its interventionism and bullying on a
global scale is virtually nonexistent. At least until the money runs out. Or to express it as a
friend of mine does, "No matter who is elected we Americans wind up getting John McCain."
Goodnight America!
Philip Giraldi Ph.D., Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. A former
CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer who spent twenty years overseas in Europe and
the Middle East working terrorism cases. He holds a BA with honors from the University of
Chicago and an MA and PhD in Modern History from the University of London. "
Source "
But she sees this China-bashing as mostly a political reaction:
In reality these people are rallying behind the campaign to blame China for the health
crisis they're now facing because they understand that otherwise the blame will land
squarely on the shoulders of their president, who's running for re-election this year.
instead of a deliberate Deep-State strategy (which is my view).
We can argue who created the virus (I'm still looking for any rebuttal to the Chinese
claim that USA must be the source because it has all five strains of the virus), but the
Empire's gaming of the virus outbreak seems very clear to me.
"The Obama-Biden Administration set up the White House National Security Council
Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense to prepare for future pandemics like
covid-19. Donald Trump eliminated it -- and now we're paying the price."
-- Former vice president Joe Biden, in a tweet, March 19
BUT!!! OBAMA DID, TOO!!! (As did Dubya)
After Barack Obama became president in 2009, he eliminated the White House Health and
Security Office, which worked on international health issues. But after grappling with the
2014 Ebola epidemic, Obama in 2016 established a Directorate for Global Health Security and
Biodefense at the NSC. A directorate has its own staff, and it is headed by someone who
generally reports to the national security adviser.
One can see the dueling narratives here, neither entirely incorrect. The office -- as set
up by Obama in 2016 -- was folded into another office. Thus, one could claim the office was
eliminated. But the staff slots did not disappear and at least initially the key mission of
team remained a priority. So one can also claim nothing changed and thus Biden's criticism is
overstated.
@edg
have against the large and presumably highly skilled public health agencies under HHS? If
they had flubbed, then they should have been ordered to fix the problem; reorganize and/or
replace the incompetents so that such flubs don't happen again. The Asst Secretary for Public
Health, a physician, oversees those agencies and reports to the HHS Secretary who in turn
reports to the POTUS.
Why set up a WH office overseen by a person with no public health expertise or experience
to report to the NSC director?
Not surprising. They only want the kickbacks not any actual work. Here's a good lesson for
that squad - now they can witness how the dimwits work for the people! Tlaib is stepping up.
Who will be next? Anyone? Anyone?
should just spend every minute of his time saying "where was Joe hiding during the pandemic?
How are you going to lead a country by hiding during an emergency, Joe?".
Trump should just spend every minute of his time saying "where was Joe hiding during the pandemic? How are you going to lead
a country by hiding during an emergency, Joe?"
When reading any article concerning current events (ie. Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, or Coronavirus) consider how the The
Seven Principles of Propaganda may apply. (repost):
Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions. When we think emotionally, we are more prone to be irrational and
less critical in our thinking. I can remember several instances where this has been employed by the US to prepare the public
with a justification of their actions. Here are four examples:
The Invasion of Grenada during the Reagan administration was said to be necessary to rescue American students being held
hostage by Grenadian coup authorities after a coup that overthrew the government. I had a friend in the 82nd airborne division
that participated in the rescue. He told me the students said they were hiding in the school to avoid the fighting by the US
military, and had never been threatened by any Grenadian authority and were only hiding in the school to avoid all the fighting.
Film of the actual rescue broadcast on the mainstream media was taken out of context; the students were never in danger.
The invasion of Panama in the late 80's was supposedly to capture the dictator Manual Noriega for international crimes related
to drugs and weapons. I remember a headline covered by all the media where a Navy lieutenant and his wife were detained by
the police. His wife was sexually assaulted while in custody, according to the story. Unfortunately, it never happened. It
was intended to get the public emotionally involved to support the action.
The invasion of Iraq in the early 90's was preceded by a speech by a girl describing the Iraqi army throwing babies out
of incubators so the equipment could be transferred to Iraq. It turns out the girl was the daughter of one of the Kuwait's
ruling sheiks and the event never occurred. However, it served its purpose by getting the American public involved emotionally
supporting the war.
During the build up to the bombing campaign by NATO against Libya, a woman entered a hotel where reporters were staying
claiming she was raped by several police officers of the Gaddafi security services. The report was carried by most media outlets
as representative of the brutality of the Gaddafi regime. I was not able to verify if this story was true or not, but it fits
the usual method employed to gain public support through propaganda for military interventions.
The greatest emotion in us is fear and fear is used extensively to make us think irrationally. I remember growing up during
the cold war having the fear of nuclear war or 'The Russians are coming!' After the cold war without an obvious enemy, it was
Al Qaeda even before 911, so we had 'Al Qaeda is coming!' Now we have 'ISIS is coming!' with media blasting us with terrorist
fears. Whenever I hear a government promoting an emotional issue or fear mongering, I ignore them knowing there is a hidden
Truth behind the issue.
Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases. This could be stated more plainly as 'Keep it simple,
stupid!' The most notorious use of this technique recently was the Bush administration. Everyone can remember 'We must fight
them over there rather than over here' or my favourite 'They hate us for our freedoms'. Neither of these phrases made any rational
sense despite 911. The last thing Muslims in the Middle East care about is American's freedoms, maybe it was all the bombs
the US was dropping on them.
Give only one side of the argument and obscure history. Watching mainstream media in the US,
you can see all the news is biased to the American view as an example. This is prevalent within Australian commercial media
and newspapers giving only a western view, but fortunately, we have the SBS and the ABC that are very good, certainly not perfect,
at providing both sides of a story. In addition, any historical perspective is ignored keeping the citizenry focused on the
here and now. Can any of you remember any news organisation giving an in depth history of Ukraine or Palestine? I cannot.
Demonize the enemy or pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification. This is obvious in politics where politicians
continuously criticise their opponents. Of course, demonization is more productively applied to international figures or nations
such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, the Taliban and just recently Vladimir Putin over
the Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. It establishes a negative emotional view of either a nation (i.e. Iran) or a known figure (i.e.
Putin) making us again think emotionally, rather than rationally, making it easier to promote evil acts upon a nation or a
known figure. Certainly some of these groups or individuals were less than benign, but not necessarily demons as depicted in
the west.
Appear humanitarian in work and motivations. The US has used this technique often to validate foreign interventions
or ongoing conflicts where the term 'Right to Protect' is used for justification. Everyone should remember the many stories
about the abuse of women in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's supposed brutality toward his people. The recent attack on Syria
by the US, UK, and France was depicted as an Humanitarian intervention by the UK Government, which was far from the truth.
One thing that always amazes me is when the US sends humanitarian aid to a country it is accompanied by the US military. In
Haiti some years back, the US sent troops with no other country doing so. The recent Ebola outbreak in Africa saw US troops
sent to the area. How are troops going to fight a medical outbreak? No doubt, they are there for other reasons.
Obscure one's economic interests. Who believes the invasion of Iraq was for weapons of mass destruction? Or the
constant threats against Iran are for their nuclear program? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no one has presented
firm evidence Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons. The West has been interfering in the Middle East since the British in
the late 19th century. It is all about oil and the control over the resources. In fact, if one researches the cause of wars
over the last hundred years, you will always find economics was a major component driving the rush to war for most of them.
Monopolize the flow of information. This is the most important principle and mainly entails setting the narrative
by which all subsequent events can be based upon or interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the narrative. The narrative
does not need to be true; in fact, it can be anything that suits the monopoliser as long as it is based loosely on some event.
It is critical to have at least majority control of media and the ability to control the message so the flow of information
is consistent with the narrative. This has been played out on mainstream media concerning the Ukrainian conflict, Syrian conflict,
and the Skirpal affair. Just over the last couple of years, we have all been subjected to propaganda in one form or another.
Remember the US wanting to bomb Syria because of the sarin gas attack, it was later determined to be false (see Seymour Hersh
'Whose Sarin'). The shoot down of MH17 was immediately blamed on Russia by the west without any convincing proof (setting the
narrative). It amazes me just how fast the story died after the initial saturation in the media. When I awoke that morning
in July, I heard on the news PM Tony Abbot blaming Russia for the incident only hours afterward. How could he know Russia shot
down the plane? The investigation into the incident had not even begun, so I suspect he was singing from the West's hymnbook
in a standard setting the narrative scenario.
@SBaker "It's beyond dispute that the novel coronavirus officially known as
COVID-19originated in Wuhan, China."
No, it's being disputed every day. That "beyond dispute" phrase is what retards like Mike
Pompeo use to try to shut down a discussion in which he's getting his fat ass kicked.
A group of economists and policy experts on Wednesday called on President Donald Trump to
immediately lift the United States' crippling sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and
other countries, warning that the economic warfare -- in addition to being cruel in itself --
is "feeding the coronavirus epidemic" by hampering nations' capacity to respond.
"This policy is unconscionable and flagrantly against international law. It is imperative
that the U.S. lift these immoral and illegal sanctions to enable Iran and Venezuela to
confront the epidemic as effectively and rapidly as possible," Columbia University professor
Jeffrey Sachs said in a statement just hours after the Trump administration intensified
sanctions against Iran, which has been devastated by COVID-19.
Promising to "smash" Venezuela's government during a "maximum pressure March," Trump has
imposed crushing sanctions that force Venezuela to spend three times as much as
non-sanctioned countries on coronavirus testing kits.
... that USA and the West were unprepared because China withheld information about the
virus.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 19 2020 18:20 utc | 106
The "Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on COVID-19" states that China transparently
reported the identification of virus to the WHO and the international community on January
3rd, and a WHO investigative team was invited to Wuhan a week after that.
From January 3rd, 2020, information on COVID-19 cases has been reported to WHO daily.
On January 7th, full genome sequences of the new virus were shared with WHO and the
international community immediately after the pathogen was identified.
On January 10th, an expert group involving Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwanese technical
experts and a World Health Organization team was invited to visit Wuhan.
As the US teeters on the edge of abyss amid a Covid-19 pandemic, the crisis has revealed
systemic flaws brought by years of two-party plutocracy that go far beyond a single president,
says Lee Camp, host of RT's Redacted Tonight. While President Donald Trump bears a good portion
of the blame for the sluggish US response to Covid-19, he is only one piece of a larger puzzle.
America's structural defects long predate Trump's time in office, the comedian argued.
"The fact that so many millions of Americans don't have paid sick leave, or hardly make
minimum wage and therefore can't afford an emergency – that kind of system was set up
under a two-party apparatus that basically agreed: 'Let's create an America where people are
completely exploited,'" Camp said.
@Poco
Globalism is not harmed at all. The machine didn't blow up, it simply shut off.
Unfortunately, it supplies life-giving goods and services to billions, regardless of
Globohomo using it to spread FOURTH-worlders everywhere in the West (US Southern order
remains wide open.)
Trump has reached peak incompetence with this one. All the gains of his 'legacy' have been
wiped out, but he always has his (((trusted advisers))) ready to steer him into the rocks.
Time to reminisce about record low black unemployment numbers.
Priority #1 – Make sure everyone is aware that this virus indisputably originated in
China. China, China, China. Call it the China virus or the Wuhan virus so everyone knows. China
is very, very bad and we must say so over and over and over again.
You should know by now that repeating the actual words of administration officials, including the President, is clear evidence
of irrational partisan bias. The surgeon general chided the press on Saturday for writing stories about the past.
Here's a link to a video of the President saying he is not responsible for the closing of the pandemic office, linked to a
video of the press conference in which he explained why he closed the pandemic office:
Obviously a deep fake. Dear Leader would never say such a thing, and even if he did, if he says he didn't, he didn't. If you bout
this, please report to Room 101.
As near as I can interpret the article you reference, the leading experts on global pandemics were fired. The remaining staff
responsible for building the response to global pandemics were assigned new duties. The function of dealing with global pandemics
was assigned to an existing department that was also assigned other new responsibilities at the same time. In that sense, there
is still an office that is responsible for dealing with global pandemics. But that office no longer has the same resources for
doing that, and has many other responsibilities.
When I joined the National Security Council staff in 2018, I inherited a
strong and skilled staff in the counterproliferation and biodefense
directorate. This team of national experts together drafted the National Biodefense Strategy of 2018 and an accompanying national
security presidential memorandum to implement it; an executive order to modernize influenza vaccines; and coordinated the United
States' response to the Ebola epidemic in Congo, which was ultimately defeated in 2020.
Seems pretty open to obvious interpretation. This was post the so-called firing that is being blamed on the president. And
if you have evidence that the administration medical team is not today staffed at a level even higher than before 2017, let's
see it.
So the bureaucrat who picked up the extra responsibilities writes an editorial saying that he had the whole thing handled all
along. He doesn't have much credibility; he's got no future as a Republican apparatchik if he doesn't say something here. He ran
the office with the responsibility, but there's still no evidence of having kept anyone with expertise in pandemics. Expertise
still matters.
You could start by not trafficking in falsehoods such as your "pandemic team" claim. And then you should stop whining about division
while sowing division.
I don't understand what "claim" you're referring to. Have you got your lines crossed, managing all the Trump apologetics? I know
it's a full-time job.
But actually, Trump, via his surrogate Bolton (you know, the guy Trump appointed as part of "draining the swamp") *did* gut
that office. Senior staff left, other staff got reassigned, and the whole shop was reduced to something like two people.
You are objecting to a video in which Trump admits to the very thing that you claim didn't happen. Truly you're living up to your
messiah's words: I take no responsibility .
The problem is that the President tries to have it both ways. When he thought he was just getting rid of excess staff, he was
proud to take responsibility for his choice. When it later became clear that there were bad consequences for that same choice,
the President denied responsibility for that specific action.
Trump routinely makes statements that contradict each other, leaving it to his supporters to decide which ones they want to
hear. Maybe you're comfortable with the changes in direction, but many of us have memories that go back more than a few hours.
Whatever happened at the NSC was planned long ago. Even Obama knew that it was an overbloated bureaucracy. And your assertion
that the reorganization resulted in "bad consequences is just that..a claim. You have not established it as a fact or common knowledge.
Based on those conclusions your narrative is uncompelling.
My God you are beyond parody. Your big score, the point that you believe is going to show me what's what, is -- My Messiah
walked back one of his lies, and you don't want to give him credit . Most people hold toddlers to a higher standard -- do
you understand that?
If he's anyone's messiah it's yours. You expect him to walk on water, or save you from coronavirus. I don't expect that of him
at all. There's your parody.
Miss Lacy and Arby both draw our attention to the obscenity of the US using this crisis in
order to put pressure on governments that it dislikes by cutting off medicine and other
resources.
Among the places where people are currently dying in large numbers because Washington
chooses that they should are Cuba-under an oil embargo-, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Iran.
Those who cannot bring themselves to believe that government could be so evil as to deploy
a virus as a weapon to weaken another state, only have to look at what is happening today:
Venezuela desperately needs funds, much of its foreign exchange having been seized illegally
by the US and its satellites, in order to weather the pandemic.
Anyone supporting such a policy, condoning the killing of vulnerable people to embarrass
another state, is an accessory to murder.
Posted by: arby | Mar 18 2020 14:32 utc | 11
Posted by: Miss Lacy | Mar 18 2020 18:15 utc | 50
Posted by: bevin | Mar 18 2020 18:33 utc | 55
Anyone supporting such a policy, condoning the killing of vulnerable people to
embarrass another state, is an accessory to murder.
Although many argue that the foreign policies of the US government don't really reflect
the views and desires of ordinary citizens, the comments in the Fox News report on this story
suggest otherwise (caveat - be prepared to be appalled).
I'm reminded that fiction at times is more powerful than truth. Most here are old enough to
remember when They Shoot Horses,
Don't They hit the movie theaters in December 1969, although they may not recall the
tale told. Quite a lot of what's current reminds me of that film.
I can't recall who made the comment equivocating US citizens to salespeople on these
threads, but it did spark the thought that it has quite a lot of truth evoked from memories
of Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman . And now
with movie and stage theatres, concert halls and music dives of all types closed, the
public's options for entertainment and education via that realm while more diverse than ever
are also poorer than ever before, with little enlightened guidance offered by adults. But
then how many families have a copy of The Naked and the Dead
where they can gather around dad as narrator to experience a great literary work. I see
families as too atomized nowadays, incapable of even coming together during a crisis, mired
in their phones.
Is that enough to explain Biden's ascendency over Sanders--the utter ignorance of the
forces behind the current crisis and their ongoing inhumanity. I read today that Biden
represents the Status Quo, and asked myself: Who in their right mind wants a continuation of
what's clearly deplorable and disgusting, debilitating and mind-numbing? IMO, the US
polity has a Death Wish. I'm reminded of accounts of how the Brits felt at WW2's
end--relieved that the war was over but having great trepidation over the future as most were
aware their days as an Imperial Master were at an end. Perhaps that's why Biden and Trump are
being subconsciously chosen for the role of Robert in Horses so they can be put out of
their misery.
The fundamental question IMO is why did Biden garner any support to begin with given he
abetted all of Obama's crimes and Bush's before him. And Status Quo candidate?! Did you get
the tie-in I attempted between the politics and the movie? Actually, the aim of the comment
was to show that truths often appear in fiction and become better teachers than reality. I
expanded it some prior to publishing it at my VK space. It took most of my life to discover
why my mom preferred literary works to the reality surrounding her. IMO, that would likely be
true for millions if they actually took the time to read.
R ussia and Saudi Arabia are engaged in an oil price war that has sent shockwaves around
the world, causing the price of oil to tumble and threatening the financial stability, and even
viability, of major international oil companies.
On the surface, this conflict appears to be a fight between two of the world's largest
producers of oil over market share. This may, in fact, be the motive driving Saudi Arabia,
which reacted to Russia's refusal to reduce its level of oil production by slashing the price
it charged per barrel of oil and threatening to increase its oil production, thereby flooding
the global market with cheap oil in an effort to attract customers away from competitors.
Russia's motives appear to be far different -- its target isn't Saudi Arabia, but rather
American shale oil. After absorbing American sanctions that targeted the Russian energy sector,
and working with global partners (including Saudi Arabia) to keep oil prices stable by reducing
oil production even as the United States increased the amount of shale oil it sold on the world
market, Russia had had enough. The advent of the Coronavirus global pandemic had significantly
reduced the demand for oil around the world, stressing the American shale producers.
Russia had been preparing for the eventuality of oil-based economic warfare with the United
States. With U.S. shale producers knocked back on their heels, Russia viewed the time as being
ripe to strike back. Russia's goal is simple: to make American shale oil producers "
share the pain ".
The United States has been slapping sanctions on Russia for more
than six years, ever since Russia took control (and later annexed) the Crimean Peninsula and
threw its weight behind Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. The first sanctions were issued
on March 6, 2014, through Executive
Order 13660 , targeting "persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean
region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine that undermine democratic
processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty,
and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets."
The most
recent round of sanctions was announced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on February 18,
2020, by sanctioning Rosneft Trading S.A., a Swiss-incorporated, Russian-owned oil brokerage
firm, for operating in Venezuela's oil sector. The U.S. also recently targeted the Russian
Nord Stream 2
and
Turk Stream gas pipeline projects.
Russia had been signaling its displeasure over U.S. sanctions from the very beginning. In
July 2014, Russian President Vladimir
Putin warned that U.S. sanctions were "driving into a corner" relations between the two
countries, threatening the "the long-term national interests of the U.S. government and
people." Russia opted to ride out U.S. sanctions, in hopes that there might be a change of
administrations following the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections. Russian President Vladimir
Putin made it clear that he hoped the U.S. might elect someone whose policies would be more
friendly toward Russia, and that once the field of candidates narrowed down to a choice between
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Putin favored
Trump .
"Yes, I did," Putin remarked after the election, during a joint press conference with
President Trump following a summit in Helsinki in July 2018. "Yes, I did. Because he talked
about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal."
Putin's comments only reinforced the opinions of those who embraced allegations of Russian
interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election as fact and concluded that Putin had some
sort of hold over Trump. Trump's continuous praise of Putin's leadership style only reinforced
these concerns.
Even before he was inaugurated, Trump singled out Putin's refusal to respond in kind to
President Obama's levying of sanctions based upon the assessment of the U.S. intelligence
community that Russia had interfered in the election. "Great move on delay (by V. Putin)
– I always knew he was very smart!"
Trump Tweeted . Trump viewed the Obama sanctions as an effort
to sabotage any chance of a Trump administration repairing relations with Russia, and
interpreted Putin's refusal to engage, despite being pressured to do so by the Russian
Parliament and Foreign Ministry, as a recognition of the same.
This sense of providing political space in the face of domestic pressure worked both ways.
In January 2018, Putin tried to shield his relationship with President Trump by calling the
release of a list containing some 200 names of persons close to the Russian government by the
U.S. Treasury Department as a hostile and "stupid"
move .
"Ordinary Russian citizens, employees and entire industries are behind each of those people
and companies," Putin remarked. "So all 146 million people have essentially been put on this
list. What is the point of this? I don't understand."
From the Russian perspective, the list highlighted the reality that the U.S. viewed the
entire Russian government as an enemy and is a byproduct of the "political paranoia" on the
part of U.S. lawmakers. The consequences of this, senior Russian officials warned, "will be
toxic and undermine prospects for cooperation for years ahead."
While President Trump entered office fully intending to "
get along with Russia ," including the possibility of
relaxing the Obama-era sanctions , the reality of U.S.-Russian relations, especially as
viewed from Congress, has been the strengthening of the Obama sanctions regime. These
sanctions, strengthened over time by new measures signed off by Trump, have had a negative
impact on the Russian economy,
slowing growth and
driving away foreign investment .
While Putin continued to show constraint in the face of these mounting sanctions, the recent
targeting of Russia's energy sector represented a bridge too far. When Saudi pressure to cut
oil production rates coincided with a global reduction in the demand for oil brought on by the
Coronavirus crisis, Russia struck.
The timing of the Russian action is curious, especially given the amount of speculation that
there was some sort of personal relationship between Trump and Putin that the Russian leader
sought to preserve and carry over into a potential second term. But Putin had, for some
time now, been signaling that his patience with Trump had run its course. When speaking to
the press in June 2019 about the state of U.S.-Russian relations, Putin noted that "They
(our relations) are going downhill, they are getting worse and worse," adding that "The current
[i.e., Trump] administration has approved, in my opinion, several dozen decisions on sanctions
against Russia in recent years."
By launching an oil price war on the eve of the American Presidential campaign season, Putin
has sent as strong a signal as possible that he no longer views Trump as an asset, if in fact
he ever did. Putin had hoped Trump could usher in positive change in the trajectory of
relations between the two nations; this clearly had not happened. Instead, in the words of
close Putin ally Igor Sechin , the chief executive of Russian oil giant Rosneft, the U.S.
was using its considerable energy resources as a political weapon, ushering in an era of "power
colonialism" that sought to expand U.S. oil production and market share at the expense of other
nations.
From Russia's perspective, the growth in U.S. oil production -- which doubled in output from
2011 until 2019 -- and the emergence of the U.S. as a net exporter of oil, was directly linked
to the suppression of oil export capability in nations such as Venezuela and Iran through the
imposition of sanctions. While this could be tolerated when the target was a third party, once
the U.S. set its sanctioning practices on Russian energy, the die was cast.
If the goal of the Russian-driven price war is to make U.S. shale companies "share the
pain," they have already succeeded. A similar price war, initiated by Saudi Arabia in 2014 for
the express purpose of suppressing U.S. shale oil production, failed, but only because
investors were willing to prop up the stricken shale producers with massive loans and infusion
of capital. For shale oil producers, who use an expensive methodology of extraction known as
"fracking," to be economically viable, the breakeven price of oil
per barrel needs to be between $40 and $60 dollars. This was the price range the Saudi's
were hoping to sustain when they proposed the cuts in oil production that Russia rejected.
The U.S. shale oil producers, saddled by massive debt and high operational expenses, will
suffer greatly in any sustained oil price war. Already, with the price of oil down to below $35
per barrel,
there is talk of bankruptcy and massive job layoffs -- none of which bode well for Trump in
the coming election.
It's clear that Russia has no intention of backing off anytime soon. According to
the Russian Finance Ministry , said on Russia could weather oil prices of $25-30 per barrel
for between six and ten years. One thing is for certain -- U.S. shale oil companies cannot.
In a sign that the Trump administration might be waking up to the reality of the predicament
it faces, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin quietly met with Russia's Ambassador to the U.S.,
Anatoly Antonov. According to a read out from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
the two discussed economic sanctions, the Venezuelan economy, and the potential for "trade
and investment." Mnuchin, the Russians noted, emphasized the "importance of orderly energy
markets."
Russia is unlikely to fold anytime soon. As Admiral Josh Painter, a character in Tom
Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October," famously said , "Russians don't take a dump without
a plan."
Russia didn't enter its current course of action on a whim. Its goals are clearly stated --
to defeat U.S. shale oil -- and the costs of this effort, both economically and politically (up
to and including having Trump lose the 2020 Presidential election) have all been calculated and
considered in advance. The Russian Bear can only be toyed with for so long without generating a
response. We now know what that response is; when the Empire strikes back, it hits hard.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books,
including his forthcoming, Scorpion King:
America's Embrace of Nuclear Weapons From FDR to Trump (2020).
"... "promotes neither the interests of justice nor the nation's security," ..."
"... "recent events and a change in the balance of the government's proof due to a classification determination, ..."
"... "information warfare against the United States of America ..."
"... The DOJ rationalizes the motion to dismiss by arguing that Concord is "a Russian company with no presence in the United States and no exposure to meaningful punishment in the event of a conviction." That has always been the case, however. What really changed since the indictment was filed is the complete implosion of Mueller's case, helped in part by Concord fighting the case in court. ..."
"... The motion inadvertently reveals that Mueller's prosecutors never intended the case against Concord, two other entities and 13 individuals to actually go to trial, otherwise they would have anticipated what ended up happening: Concord's lawyers demanding discovery documents from the DOJ, which the US authorities say risks "exposure of law enforcement's tools and techniques." ..."
"... Mueller's team tried to fight the discovery proceedings by arguing in January 2019 that Concord was leaking them to "discredit " the investigation. Within two months, however, the investigation discredited itself, by having to admit there was no "collusion " between US President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election. ..."
The US is dropping the much-hyped indictment for 'election
meddling' against a company supposedly behind the so-called Russian troll farm, closing the opening chapter of special counsel Robert
Mueller's Russiagate investigation. Further pursuing the case against Concord Management & Consulting LLC, "promotes neither
the interests of justice nor the nation's security," the Department of Justice wrote to the federal judge overseeing the case
on Monday, in a
motion to drop the charges.
DOJ lawyers cited "recent events and a change in the balance of the government's proof due to a classification determination,
" saying only that they submitted further details in a classified addendum.
Wow.The DOJ moves to dismiss the charges against the Russian Company (Concord) who conducted the alleged "information warfare
against the US"The troll case will be dismissed w/ prejudice.How embarrassing for Team Mueller.
pic.twitter.com/wfZ78EWgKc
Concord was one of the three companies – the Internet Research Agency is another – and 13 individuals charged in February 2018
with waging "information warfare against the United States of America " using social media.
The DOJ rationalizes the motion to dismiss by arguing that Concord is "a Russian company with no presence in the United States
and no exposure to meaningful punishment in the event of a conviction." That has always been the case, however. What really
changed since the indictment was filed is the complete implosion of Mueller's case, helped in part by Concord fighting the case in
court.
The motion inadvertently reveals that Mueller's prosecutors never intended the case against Concord, two other entities and 13
individuals to actually go to trial, otherwise they would have anticipated what ended up happening: Concord's lawyers demanding discovery
documents from the DOJ, which the US authorities say risks "exposure of law enforcement's tools and techniques."
But the Russians *did* show up, got to claim they were innocent until proven guilty, availed themselves of discovery, tied
up the court in time, cost hundreds of thousands of $ in legal bills for DOJ, and gave Mueller a few black eyes in the process,
and ended up victorious
Mueller's team tried to fight the discovery proceedings by arguing
in January 2019 that Concord was leaking
them to "discredit " the investigation. Within two months, however, the investigation discredited itself, by having to admit
there was no "collusion " between US President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election.
They still insisted that Russia had "meddled " in the election, but there too the case proved a problem. Concord successfully
petitioned Judge Dabney L. Friedrich in May last year to rebuke the prosecutors for presenting their allegations as facts.
This is not to say that the DOJ is ready to disavow 'Russiagate' as a debunked conspiracy theory, however. Though the Concord
case was dropped, the charges against the Internet Research Agency and the 13 Russian individuals were not. Given that none of them
have a presence in the US, and have not dignified the indictment with a response, it is unclear how – if at all – the DOJ intends
to proceed with the case.
Keeping it on the books may keep the flames of 'Russiagate' alive, though, which is very convenient for the media and others heavily
invested in the narrative of Moscow somehow menacing US elections, despite not a shred of actual evidence being presented to back
it up.
For a snapshot in time, this was the NYT homepage after the Russian troll farm indictment back in February 2018. Russia, we
were told, "is engaged in a virtual war against the United States." pic.twitter.com/Z0xXCZoT9P
It was a somber Donald Trump who spoke at the White House today to declare a "national emergency" and that "we're doing a great
job." Gone was his language about exaggerated fears and a "hoax" surrounding the coronavirus. His own daughter, Ivanka, stayed home
rather than visit the White House because of her exposure to an Australian official who has the coronavirus.
Not only was the shift in tone marked, but Trump also referred constantly to the numerous public health experts and corporate
CEOs flanking him as he faced the biggest crisis of his presidency. Dr. Anthony Fauci indicated that the coronavirus may remain virulent
for another eight to nine weeks: "I can't give you a number. It depends how successful we are." Trump himself sought to convey confidence
by emphasizing that his administration had moved quickly to impede the spread of the coronavirus, including quickly ordering travel
bans. How effective will his emergency declaration prove?
The most important thing that the administration can do is work to remove the uncertainty surrounding the extent of the spread
of the virus. Until there is more clarity, economic activity will be hobbled as investors and businesses retreat from incurring any
additional risk. In this regard, Trump's decision to announce an emergency was a case of better late than never. Failure is not an
option. Left unchecked, the worst-case estimates are that the coronavirus could kill up to 1.5 million people and turn America into
Italy writ large. Writing in the Washington Post today, the Italian journalist Monica Maggioni underscores just how grim that prospect
would be: "I find myself confined in a place where time is suspended. All the shops are closed, except for groceries and pharmacies.
All the bars and restaurants are shuttered. Every tiny sign of life has disappeared. The streets are totally empty; it is forbidden
even to take a walk unless you carry a document that explains to authorities why you have left your house. The lockdown that began
here in Lombardy now extends to the entire country."
Some of the most important pledges Trump made were that he would offer up to $50 billion in federal funding to states to battle
the coronavirus. He indicated that hospitals can now "do as they want. They could do as they have to." He added, "I'm urging every
state to set up emergency operations centers effective immediately." He indicated, in response to a question after his opening statement,
that he himself would undergo a coronavirus test, something that he had previously resisted. Trump also said that up to five million
tests would be available by the end of the month-a lofty goal. The danger for Trump is that, as is his wont, he is overpromising.
Still, the move to establish drive-thru testing at places like Walgreens and Walmart parking lots makes good sense. Trump's weakest
moment by far came when he responded to a question about the lack of testing that until now has badly hampered efforts to stop the
virus-"No, I don't take responsibility at all."
To help prop up the economy, he indicated that government purchases for the strategic reserve would be increased. Wall Street
responded positively to Trump's remarks as the stock market rose, ending up almost two thousand points on Friday. But Trump also
pooh-poohed a multi-billion dollar bill backed by House Democrats to address the coronavirus crisis, remarking that they "are not
doing what's right for the country." Among other things, it does not include the payroll tax relief that Trump is supporting. House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is vowing to vote on the bill.
For now, the measures that Trump announced today will mark a significant shift in his administration's approach to the pandemic.
Former Food and Drug Administration head Scott Gottlieb tweeted, "Actions by White House today to sharply increase testing capacity
and access, declare a national emergency, implement new steps to protect vulnerable Americans, support assistance for those hardest
hit by mitigation steps, all very important. Will meaningfully improve readiness."
"... This is a transformational moment in history that will allow American politics to socialize and turn away resolutely from the anti-government stupidity represented by Trump and all the anti-New Deal elements among the elite predators that have dominated politically since Reagan. It is a mistake to chose Biden, chief author of the Patriot Act, business-as-usual candidate, corporate lackey, weasel. ..."
This is a transformational moment in history that will allow American politics to socialize
and turn away resolutely from the anti-government stupidity represented by Trump and all the
anti-New Deal elements among the elite predators that have dominated politically since
Reagan. It is a mistake to chose Biden, chief author of the Patriot Act, business-as-usual
candidate, corporate lackey, weasel.
Bernie is the only rational choice, but the American
people are not rational, and do not yet understand the urgency of a radical left turn. Much
suffering will be the result and a radical right turn could occur, although disenchantment
with the blithering idiocy of Donald Trump has already deprived him of any chance of
re-election. The virus is going to take him down before profound political embarrassment.
He's a dead man walking.This may be true of Bernie & Biden as well, but I say this
without prejudice.
The Chinese clearly knew the character of this virus before it became apparent to the
world. They did not react so swiftly or dramatically to earlier outbreaks like SARS, swine
flu, avian flu and etc. They had prior knowledge of the potential of nCov2019. The US did
not.
Why do we have a National Security Council or a Department of Homeland Security if they
cannot read the writing on the wall? It was an accidental release of a weaponized virus. The
US should have taken a cue and reacted with similar conviction shown by the CCP. But we have
no leadership worth a shit.
Our representative republic has suffered an embarrassment in this failure to protect the
people while a so-called national enemy, a communist dictatorship, has demonstrated more
effective leadership and greater capability to protect its people. This is more than an
embarrassment. It is an indictment of our political system.
It is time to turn sharply left to social democracy.
| | Interviews Scott
interviews Branko Marcetic about his new book, Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe
Biden , which explores the arc of Biden's decades-long political career. Marcetic explains
that Biden has never really had serious ideological commitments, and instead has simply wanted
power and prestige since he was a kid. This has led to a life of switching positions on major
issues when he perceived that it would be to his benefit, as he has done on the wars in the
Middle East, the drug wars at home, welfare-state economic policies, and "humanitarian"
interventions abroad. All of this, Marcetic asserts, makes Biden the wrong candidate for
today's Democratic party. He has already faced some scrutiny from his more progressive
colleagues, but Scott and Marcetic know this will only intensify if he has to face President
Trump in the general election.
Discussed on the show:
Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe Biden (
Amazon )
You end up with Joe Biden, running on three things: 1) he's not Trump; 2) maybe he'll die in
office and his VP will take over early in his term; and 3) Joe's cognitive decline appears
slightly less severe than Trump's. Not exactly "Hope and Change."
Biden candidacy also means sweeping three years of Democratic messaging under the bed. The
list of once-familiar subjects Joe won't be able to talk about is a long one. Russiagate
imploded on its own.
Impeachment centered on Hunter Biden and ain't nobody on the Democratic side gonna bring
that up.
President Bone Spurs? Biden received
five student draft deferments during the Vietnam War, same as Trump. In 1968, when his
student status was wrapping up, Biden was medically reclassified as "not available" due to
asthma. Yet in his autobiography , he
describes an active youth
as a lifeguard and high school football player. He also lied about being on
the University of Delaware football team.
Trump's naughty finances? After leaving the Obama White House, Joe and his wife made more
than $15 million ,
mostly via sweetheart
book deals. They made nearly
twice as much in 2017 as they did in the previous 19 years combined. The University of
Pennsylvania gave Joe
$775,000 to teach, and then was nice enough to grant him indefinite leave of absence from
actually teaching. Biden charged the Secret Service
$2,200 a month in rent for a cottage on his property so they could protect him. Since
leaving office, he's made
$2.4 million on speaking engagements, including
$10,000 for travel expenses to the University of Buffalo. A speech at Southwestern Michigan
in October 2018 included
$50,000 in travel expenses.
Taxes? After failing to close the loophole with Obama, Joe left office to create his own S
Corporation. As a result, he receives money for things like book advances and speaking fees not
directly, which would cause him to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes as with salaries, but
laundered as divestitures from a corporation he owns. As corporate money, nasty personal
taxes are fully avoided, and the corporation can claim nearly unlimited "business expenses" to
be deducted against those profits. Joe's S Corp also donated his own money
back to his PAC. Legal laundering.
... Biden represents to many Democratic voters that they will never see health care reform
again in their lifetime (his comeback drove a
$48 billion gain for health insurance stock; they know.) They also won't see a woman
president for who knows how many years. Income inequality will remain the salient
characteristic of our society. To win, the 77-year-old Biden will have to break the record for
oldest man sworn in as president (Trump holds the title now).
In 2016, Democrats nominated Hillary who was under criminal investigation. Now they're
looking to nominate Joe Biden, who's under criminal investigation in Ukraine. I guess
they're making a tradition of it.
In 2016, the DNC* nominated Hillary who was under criminal investigation by rigging their
own primaries so rank-and-file Democratic primary voters never really had a choice (which
DNC successfully argued in court is entirely their right to do as a private organization,
defrauding their own voters with rigged primaries is their legal prerogative, a right which
they proudly reserve). Amazing Democrats did not learn even after their shocking loss with
Hillary to Trump in 2016, they want the "safe" establishment choice who is "electable", the
same logic that led Republicans to nominate Presidents Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt
Romney...
Yesterday's Man exposes the forgotten history of Joe Biden, one of the United
States's longest-serving politicians, and one of its least scrutinized.
Over nearly fifty years in politics, the man called "Middle-Class Joe" served as a key
architect of the Democratic Party's rightward turn, ushering in the end of the liberal New Deal
order and enabling the political takeover of the radical right.
Far from being a liberal stalwart, Biden often outdid even Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush,
assisting the right-wing war against the working class, and ultimately paving the way for
Trump.
The most comprehensive political biography of someone who has tried for decades to be
president, Yesterday's Man is an essential read for anyone interested in knowing the
real Joe Biden and what he might do in office.
Essentially Dems "royalty" (few regular voters vote in primaries; mostly those are party
activists) voted for the Obama-style neoliberal status quo.
Sanders was hampered by his support of open borders policies and his cozy attitude to the
establishment democrats to the extent that he really sounded again like a sheep dog (Biden is my
friend; which such friends who needs an enemy)
As we approach the middle of March 2020 with Super Tuesday behind
us, the moderate candidacy of Joe Biden has gained momentum, notching ten victories. The recent
spat of moderate candidates dropping out (Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, Steyer) alongside
Elizabeth Warren's decision to stay in for Super Tuesday (and dropping out right after) boosted
Biden into the lead in delegate count, but it is unclear going forward whether he will be able
to gain ground or maintain his advantage.
His campaign is essentially a redux of Hillary Clinton's in 2016, a dystopian offering of
neoliberal establishment ideas: essentially the most harmful, bland, out-of-touch, uninspiring,
and ignorant set of centrist policies. Biden offers nothing new, substantial, or exciting; and
he himself stated to donors last year that "nothing would fundamentally change" under his
presidency. By continuing to go with "moderate", centrist agendas, the Democratic Party
establishment, corporate America, and mainstream media reveal they would rather lose to Trump
than get behind the progressive choice, Bernie Sanders.
Support for Bernie Sanders is strong across all national polling, yet in past debates, his
moderate rivals continued to shoot themselves in the foot by offering up the most ridiculous
arguments against progressive causes. Regardless of his success, Biden has learned nothing and
absorbed no lessons from his fellow moderates' failures or the excitement and promise offered
by the progressive wing of his party. He is a living fossil. Like his corporate-backed
counterpart moderates, his whole shtick is based on presenting himself as the lesser of two
evils, offering the most milquetoast set of policies, and attempting to make voters fearful of
Sanders' incremental reforms by casting them as socialist and authoritarian.
By representing Sanders' social democratic policies as "dangerous" as well as his supporters
as being rude on social media because they actually care and are passionate about changing the
direction of this country, the centrist hydra of campaign rhetoric and establishment media
devolved into offering an infantile, McCarthyite debating style.
Much like the centrist triad of Biden, Buttigieg (who suspended his campaign March 1st), and
Klobuchar (also suspended March 2nd), who are equal parts sell-outs, windbags, and sycophantic
brown-nosers to the ruling class, the professional class choice, technocrat, pseudo-progressive
Elizabeth Warren as well as what I'd call the "Silicon Valley candidate" Andrew Yang also
represent the epitome of "big-brained centrist" thought.
Basically, this term represents the attitude of mainstream liberal as well as conservative
candidates, commentators, and their supporters who believe they truly understand the world
better than anyone else due to what they consider their meritocratic success, and use all sorts
of neoliberal fallacies, deliver paeans to pragmatism and bipartisanship, mock social
democratic reforms with calls to be "reasonable", and generally act as puppets of corporate and
imperial power. Of course, it should be obvious that those who harp on achieving "realistic
goals" are those that view anything involving a transformation of society involving
redistribution of wealth from the rich to the working classes as prima facie
unrealistic.
As for Steyer and Bloomberg, they too fall prey to neoliberal notions of rugged
individualism; i.e., that their economic success is due to their own "hard work", and were so
completely out of touch that they cannot realize the electorate is not prepared to substitute
one billionaire for another, no matter what party they represent, or what good they claim
they've been able to accomplish in their philanthropic endeavors.
All of the candidates, except for Bernie Sanders, completely debased themselves when asked
if the candidate with the most delegates should get the Democratic nomination. That's how
democracy is supposed to work, right? The person with the most votes should win, no? Not if you
want to suck up to the ruling class, who are deathly afraid of Sanders' redistributive
agenda.
Climbing corporate and political hierarchies as well as the fake meritocracy in this country
inflates politicians' egos and warped the ability to self-reflect on their own abilities and
intelligence. In psychology, this is known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect, defined as : "a
cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific
area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately
assessing their skills."
Terrifyingly, one of the consequences of this effect is that many of the afflicted exude
rare confidence due to their overestimation of their skills that can be mistaken for
dedication, passion, expertise, and conviction. While truly intelligent people constantly
question and doubt their own ideas and preconceived notions, lesser intellects rigidly cling to
dogmas in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This was summed up best by Yeats,
when he wrote: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate
intensity."
In politics and social relations, this effect is compounded because the awareness of the
suffering of others is blunted the higher you go on the socio-economic scale. The effect of
ascending political hierarchies is not much different in a capitalist economy, because the
higher you go the more beholden you are to elite interests. As studies have shown, Emotional
Intelligence (EQ) declines significantly the higher you look on the corporate ladder. CEOs and
business owners tend to have more sociopathic, narcissistic, and psychopathic traits.
This is why it is so hard to change the minds of the privileged and affluent: it is not
simply a matter of intellect and rational argumentation to help bring change to another's
belief system. If only logical persuasion worked that effectively! One must also help cultivate
awareness, a sense of interconnectedness with the less fortunate, the environment and the
universe, and a way to empathize with poor, vulnerable, and minority communities. One can prove
empirically over and over how a socialist economy, universal healthcare, and a society of free
association of producers would significantly improve the lives of people around the world.
Those in denial still won't believe you, because their self-awareness and sense of empathy for
the poor, dispossessed, and vulnerable has atrophied.
It is at this stage in history that the nihilism of rich liberals and conservatives as well
as the professional-managerial class reaches truly epic proportions, threatening the survival
of humanity and most species on the planet. The real material conditions and problems of
working people are abstracted as inequality rises. The obvious cause of the immiseration of the
population and the devastation of the environment, capitalism, is obscured. Conservatives and
republicans are even more delusional due to their slavish devotion to the status quo and
political and economic hierarchies, as well as their mythical belief that the capitalist "free
market" can solve all manner of problems. Further, conservatives view any government
intervention to regulate corporate monopoly power and lessen environmental degradation as an
infringement on their rights, or inane arguments that sensible environmental regulation will
hurt the economy are used.
The only option left for moderate liberals is to succumb to the dystopian vision of
neoliberal thought which dominates center-left and center-right thinking, because it is
all-pervasive. Even mild progressives who stray even a bit to the left (such as Warren) are
instantly and predictably vilified by the press, by billionaires who literally cry in public in
protestation of her wealth tax. This leads the opportunistic and ambitious (Warren, just like
Obama before her) to tack to the center in order to secure donors to stay in politics and keep
their jobs.
The moderate candidates know their ideas are viewed as trash by a significant amount of
voters, so identity politics, as well as rhetoric and euphemisms about "structural change" are
predictably trotted out. Neoliberal is now a dirty word, so liberal politicians deflect as much
as possible and claim their policies are "pragmatic" and are willing to work across the aisle
and compromise, in contrast to the "uncompromising" style of Sanders. These are the big-brained
centrists, who let their ruling class donors do all their thinking for them as to what
constitutes an acceptable and "realistic" policy.
Big-brain centrism is also a term to describe a type of neoliberal wonkery which emphasizes
that only technocratic policy, which echoes the Third Way of Blair and Clinton, a centrism in
which the patina of "progressivism", economic "pragmatism", and the appearance of caring for
marginalized groups dominates. Increased political representation of minorities is a wonderful
thing, but the moderate democrats will never grow a spine and ask for economic redistribution
from billionaires to poor people of color. Only "moderates" can deliver the best model for
liberal democracy, and everyone to their left, even the mild-mannered reformism of Bernie
Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is an "extremist" or a "populist". Of course, this
hodge-podge of power-hungry politicians, clueless think-tank sycophants, and conniving
corporate vampires are totally beholden to elite interests, as they represent a class of smug
affluent liberals and republicans who pray to the Almighty Dollar.
The big-brained liberals are hypnotized by the concept of bipartisanship, which is what
Obama tried and failed to do for eight years. For the centrists, the idea that the two-party
system is become more polarized is an unmitigated disaster, leaving only "far-left" politics in
fashion (we wish!) alongside far-right politics (accurate). True progress can only be made "in
the middle", what some like to call "radical centrism" and politicians should not pander to
their constituents with "empty promises" and "populist rhetoric." What this radical centrism
misses is the rightward shift in economics and federal policy which has been underway for 40+
years, and the consequent shift in the Overton Window: the range of ideas that are considered
acceptable in US politics. In the 1960s, for instance, Sanders' reformism would have been seen
as standard, middle-of-the-road liberal set of policies, rather than today, where social
democratic agendas induce shrieking from rich know-nothings and talking heads who insist that
Bernie is an authoritarian communist.
In this Beltway bubble-world, Sanders is simply the converse of Trump, a dangerous left-wing
populist, who, in words of Buttigieg, "wants to burn this party down." What Sanders simply
wants is to bring the US into the 21st century by adopting the social democratic policies of
Scandinavia and most European nations. Yet, this is unacceptable to the "realistic" and
"electability" thought-police. Big brain centrism is what it would look like to put Thomas
Friedman and David Brooks in a room together and let them try to come up with federal policies.
Their policies and worldview probably would not look very different from some of the ideas and
concepts of each of the recent candidates, presented below.
The main thing to recognize is that all the moderate candidates, Warren included, are
careerists. It's not about helping others, it's about them. If and when politics no longer is a
viable career path for them, they will be happy to sell themselves as consultants, lobbyists,
mainstream media propagandists, sit on corporate boards, and rack up speaking fees to parrot
back to the ruling classes what acceptable discourse and policy is, within a capitalist and
imperialist framework.
To see more examples of what I mean by Big-Brained Centrism, we will look at a statement,
tweet, or policy idea from many of the moderate candidates, even the ones who have dropped out.
We'll start with a statement from Andrew Yang, because it might be one of the best examples of
big-brained idiocy.
Yangonomics: "Beware the Technocracy", The Accelerationist Candidate
Andrew Yang's entire campaign and many of his tech/start-up supporters represent exquisite
examples of the big-brain mindset. In his final debate, he stated:
The entire capitalism/socialism dichotomy is completely out of date. The fact is when
people were talking about these economic models they did not foresee the technology getting
stronger, more powerful, and capable of doing the work of thousands of humans what we have to
do is get the markets working to improve our way of life instead of following GDP and
corporate profits off a cliff, we should be measuring our own health and wellness the way
forward is a new human-centered version of capitalism that actually uses the markets to
improve our families lives.
This is absolute garbage, cloaked within the progressive notion of redefining national
well-being and taking easy shots at corporate greed. Capitalism is utterly and inexorably based
on over-consumption and chasing profits over everything else; there is no way to make it
"human-centered"
If we were to take him at his word of meeting in the middle, a fair response would be that
the closest version of a compromise solution for the "outdated dichotomy" is the social
democratic and redistributive agenda of Bernie Sanders. More importantly, Yang is attempting to
erase two hundred years of public debate as to the distinctions between two radically different
economic models and the invaluable contributions of generations of activists, scholars, and
citizens. Perhaps he believes that by virtue of being a "successful entrepreneur" and business
owner, he can see things the rest of us can't.
As for the "no one could have foreseen technology getting stronger " give me a fucking
break. You have to be drop-dead naïve or just plain ignorant to think this. You don't
think people who built the first trains, light bulbs, cars, worked in the first mills and
factories, etc., couldn't see how these inventions and new methods of production would reshape
the world? Indigenous peoples, radical artists, environmentalists, communists, and anarchists
have been warning about the negative impacts of industrial-scale technology for generations. In
Western literature, towering figures like William Blake and Henry David Thoreau as well as many
others prophetically warned of the dangers posed by the Industrial Revolution.
What happened, of course, is that the monopoly power of capital never allowed for the more
efficient distribution of resources to make lives better for the working classes, because there
is little money to be made by helping and caring for people and the environment. Capitalism
relies on parasitical master-servant relationships, exploiting nature and the working classes
for as many resources and as much labor as possible in order to produce the most profit in the
shortest amount of time.
Contrary to Yang's ahistorical word salad and his implicit assumption that people in the
past were stupid, those who lived hundreds of years ago were just as intelligent as today (if
not more so) and realized exactly where this was leading. In a very good
piece for The Guardian, Yanis Varoufakis explains how Marx and Engels predicted our
crisis over 150 years ago:
Anyone reading the [Communist] manifesto today will be surprised to discover a picture of
a world much like our own, teetering fearfully on the edge of technological innovation. In
the manifesto's time, it was the steam engine that posed the greatest challenge to the
rhythms and routines of feudal life. The peasantry was swept into the cogs and wheels of this
machinery and a new class of masters, the factory owners and the merchants usurped the landed
gentry's control over society. Now, it is artificial intelligence and automation that loom as
disruptive threats, promising to sweep away 'all fixed, fast-frozen relations'. 'Constantly
revolutionising instruments of production,' the manifesto proclaims, transform 'the whole
relations of society', bringing about 'constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted
disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation'.
Like the rest of the moderate candidates, Yang is a product of his insular milieu, his
ideology molded by anti-communist/Cold War/red scare propaganda and the fevered dreams of
Tech-mogul capitalists. Being an entrepreneur apparently means one does not have to read or
understand political economy, or basic history; one is a political expert simply based on the
ability to "create jobs." He is the Silicon Valley candidate, those true believers in
unrestrained automation who believe they understand the economy better than everyone else
because they've spent the most time sitting through meetings about "corporate synergy."
"Sensible" policy must be in the center, as one of his slogans suggests: "Not Left, Not
Right, Forward." Yang, Warren, and Mayor Pete were considered "the smart candidates" by the
media and many liberals. Primarily because they mirror back upper-middle class narcissism and
promise not to disturb the security and comfort of the affluent. This just goes to show how
simpleminded and anti-intellectual mainstream political commentary has become. Capitalism has
had over 200 years to develop the chance to become "human centered." It cannot because it is
fundamentally set up to serve the profit motive over basic needs of people. Capitalist markets
have always skewed the vast majority of benefits to the upper classes, with pipe dreams of
wealth "trickling down" to the masses.
Yang could have made much more progress had he tacked harder to the left, but instead he
falls prey to his belief in "human-centered capitalism." His UBI proposal was popular; yet as
an affluent business owner and stand-in for the entrepreneur class, he could not manage to go
against his donors as well as his own interests by creating a framework for price controls to
fight against inflation and parasitical price-gouging. Despite his concern over AI and
automation leading to massive job loss, he does not fundamentally address the exploitative
relationship between employer and employees, or understand how increased digital and robot-led
production will lead to new levels of coercive labor monopolization of the means of
production.
One Mike Weinstein explains Yang's worldview quite well
here , in a piece titled "Beware the Technocracy":
Yang speaks the language of the ruling class, one of inscrutable economics to uphold the
narrative of technology as savior. His aim is cloak this in popular socialist ideas such as
universal healthcare and income. Yang promotes this package as a self-proclaimed
'human-centered economy'. It's worth noting that the robot antagonists in The Matrix had a
human-centered economy, too.
Andrew Yang is a privileged tech-bro, but he had one thing going for him, he was earnest,
somewhat open-minded, and willing to listen to others. In this
piece , his interviewer sketches out the basics of
accelerationism to Yang, implying that this is the first time Yang has heard of the idea,
and Yang responds with interest, wanting to know more. Yang, unlike the rest of the moderates,
might be a know-nothing; but at least he can have a human conversation, and is at least open to
learning about new ideas.
His refusal to include a social safety net for the needy, disabled, and elderly that could
stand to lose under his UBI, as well as his refusal to endorse Medicare for All, is further
proof of his myopia, however. See this summary of his
thought, published in Big Think , or
this one , at Ted.com , both of which specialize in big-brain centrism. Yang also
proposed to raise revenue for the UBI via a value-added tax, which is a tax on consumption and
disproportionately hurts low-income workers, rather than a more sensible wealth tax.
Warren: Feel-good candidate for the Professional-Managerial Class
Elizabeth Warren also tacked to the center, repeatedly describing herself as "capitalist to
her bones". While the act of adopting progressive liberal values and rhetoric mixed with
pro-capitalist corporate-speak worked in the past, for instance, for Obama and even for Jimmy
Carter before him, there is no popular "middle ground" to occupy now in the Democratic Party.
The 2008 economic crisis advanced political consciousness in such a way that mainstream
liberals now see the ground shifting underneath them. Either you are a firm Democratic
establishment centrist, or you're in the progressive/social democratic/democratic socialist
camp.
Warren, straddling both sides of this fault line, could not seem to pick a lane. Her attacks
on the banks and her wealth tax proposal would seem to mark her as a progressive, but her
professional-managerial class (PMC) background pulls her to support the Clinton/Obama
technocratic way of governing. Politics is about having big ideas and pointing out the systemic
problems in society (which Bernie Sanders has, and does) and finding ways to implement them;
not about having a series of band-aid solutions and incoherent plans for "structural change"
without examining the root cause of our maladies: capitalism. No one wants to hear
flip-flopping about a "transition plan" to shift to Medicare for All in three years. People
want to know that you will fight for them on day one, because every day that you hesitate poor
and homeless people literally die in the streets because of lack of access to health care; also
men, women, and children are killed each day due to our imperial and frankly genocidal foreign
policy, which she demonstrated hardly any basic knowledge of, or real interest towards.
Both Warren's wealth tax and her climate plan were considerable tamer than Sanders' plans.
If you're going to challenge corporate power, even within the confines of US electoral
politics, you can't excite the "populist" liberal-left with halfway measures. Voters were canny
enough to see through her fence-sitting, hence her relative lack of support, even within her
home state of Massachusetts.
One of Warren's most glaringly dystopian plans was for "fighting digital disinformation".
There is a glimmer of a good idea hidden in the concept, in that she proposed penalties for
those who engage in voter suppression. The real doozy is that she plans to criminalize
"disinformation" and wants the corporate social media behemoths like Facebook and Twitter to
censor and moderate political speech, as well as leaving the door open for government
censorship of news. In this she parrots the desires of the Democratic establishment who, of
course, are deeply entwined with the Military-Industrial-Intelligence complex. Liberal
establishment figures have become emboldened since 2016: for instance Hillary Clinton views
anyone who disturbs her as being aided by Russia; such as Trump, but also Jill Stein and Tulsi
Gabbard, absurdly. Liberals such as Warren aim to increase paranoia in the populace,
consciously or not, surrounding the idea of "foreign meddling" and seek to weaponize the
election interference narrative against any politicians who do not support the ruling class.
This is why Bernie Sanders was told his campaign was being aided by Russia, in effect to smear
his entire campaign. The real targets in the "interference" narrative are leftists who want to
redistribute wealth.
Agent Pete
Pete Buttigieg represents a special type of stupid. First, Buttigieg's policies (or lack
thereof) show just how worthless a Rhodes scholar-level education truly is, just like it showed
for Cory Booker. Just like Kamala Harris, Buttigieg is the offspring of a worldly and erudite
Marxist professor who didn't learn a thing; in Mayor Pete's case, he decided to rebel against
his father and work for the machine in the killing fields of Afghanistan and the corrupt
scandal-ridden firm McKinsey.
There is much more to the Mayor Pete back-story regarding his intelligence and national
security connections. He worked in Naval Intelligence in Afghanistan alongside the CIA. He
penned an op-ed in The New York Times with a friend about visiting Somaliland and
meeting with "local leaders." He keeps a map of Afghanistan displaying its mineral resources in
his study (the alarm bells should be going off). He wrote in his book about visiting a
"safehouse" in Iraq. Many foreign policy and national security figures backed his candidacy.
And yes, thanks to Left Twitter, #CIAPete was blowing up on social media.
Whether or not Mayor Pete is a spy asset or not does not really matter. What matters is he
thinks like them, and shares their worldview of supporting US imperial and economic
domination at all costs.
How do we know this is true? Buttigieg had a line in a recent debate about "being inclusive"
by taking donations from billionaires. Who honestly thinks taking money from billionaires is to
make society more inclusive? Only a little slug willing to completely debase himself to his
ruling-class overlords would admit this publicly; even Biden at his most incoherent would never
blurt this out.
Listening to Pete talk in general was just bewildering. He imitates Obama's style at every
turn, yet cannot match his soaring oratory and simply does not answer questions or deliver any
tangible idea of what he will offer. He is the platitude candidate; every time he speaks it's
like opening a fortune cookie, as he's full of vague truisms.
One of the most dystopian plans of Pete was a "National Service Program". Predictably, it is
framed with patriotic, nationalistic rhetoric. The goal would be to increase the service
program with the end goal being a "universal, national expectation of service" (from his
website ) while also claiming
it will be "strictly optional". High school and college students are already exploited enough
in the classroom and at their jobs, and funding a plan so that young people can put a gold star
on their resume pretty much sums up Pete in a nutshell. Here's his justification:
In the great unwinding of American civic society underway, and at a time when Americans
are experiencing record-low trust in fellow citizens and American institutions, few -- if any
-- single policy solutions carry the promise of democratic renewal more than national
service.
A simple rebuttal would be to ask what is causing the "unwinding" and "record-low trust".
It's obviously inequality, corruption in government, corporations which are legally bound to
choose profits over people, little to no regulation of technology and fossil fuel corporations,
monopolization in virtually every sector of the economy, lack of health care and a living wage.
There is no indication that this plan would solve any of these issues, because the
Oxford-educated Mayor cannot be bothered to think critically. Or, rather, an Oxford education
blinds one to the fact that capitalism is the root cause of our systemic crises. Typical of
elites, he confuses class conflict with national frailty and disunity, much like Trump. He is a
true believer in the system, and projects his privileged fake-meritocratic upbringing onto
everyone around him with a call to service. Any national service plan with Pete at the helm
feels like a plan for assimilating youth into our Death Star corporate-driven empire; for
creating a "McKinsey Youth" for America.
Steyer and Bloomberg: Upholding a Nation Run for Plutocrats, by Plutocrats
Today one must be for the poor and working classes to gain mass political popularity, like
Sanders; or conversely offer a proto-fascist program of a return to national greatness, like
the racist, money-worshipping, chauvinist Twitter troll, like Trump. That is why the elites are
even more afraid of Sanders, because he and more crucially his base offer a clean break and a
qualitatively better and more egalitarian organization of society.
The super-rich must be excluded from the political process because they will always put the
interests of capital above the common good, and refuse to see how their actions directly
contribute to the impoverishment of workers and the degradation of the environment. Any
intervention by them, in the name of philanthropy or donations to politicians, proves that
their money buys political power, social control, and makes a mockery of any notion of
"democracy" in this nation. This is called an oligarchy. Which reminds me, Mike Bloomberg
should no longer be addressed as "Mayor Bloomberg"; "Plutocrat Bloomberg" or "Oligarch
Bloomberg" would be more appropriate.
Amy's Rage
Amy Klobuchar is a lot of things. She is undoubtedly driven, hard-working, and passionate
about her work. The problem is the work she does is inherently bad for most people and she did
not have any good policy ideas that differentiated her from the other centrists. Her other
problem is that she has extreme anger issues.
Klobuchar is an abusive boss and her employees described her offices in Minnesota and D.C.
as a "hostile work environment." The most she's addressed this is by stating she's "tough" and
has "high expectations" for her staff. The clues to her barely-bottled rage are under the
surface, as this
article in The Atlantic opines: her childhood spent with a neglectful, alcoholic
father severely messed her up.
This is not an uncommon situation, with a subset of leaders put into positions of power that
were traumatized in childhood. Many become highly-driven over-achievers in the corporate and
political worlds: it's easier to run from the ghosts when you're showered with accolades and
money. Many also burn with rage, are vengeful and prone to irrational outbursts, consider any
slight or unavoidable accident a personal affront, and crave domination and control over
others. Much like management in large corporations, her former staff describes a brutal
hierarchical and tyrannical environment where the smallest mistake could set her off into
tantrums or the throwing of office supplies, forcing staff to do demeaning work involving her
personal effects, and would regularly condescend and shame her employees openly in person and
through email. We already have an authoritarian in the White House who needs psychological
counseling. Klobuchar should not be attempting to seek power: like the rest of the corporate
and political ruling classes, she should be seeking professional help.
Biden: Senior Moments
Let's just get it out of the way: Joe Biden is seriously slipping upstairs. I suppose that's
not an anomaly anymore for presidential politics, as we have dealt with cognitive decline
before with Reagan in his second term. We've dealt with not-so-bright presidents too: the
entire George W. Bush presidency, and now Trump. If Biden becomes the nominee and president it
will be a national, collective senior moment. I don't really have the words to describe a
head-to-head Biden-Trump debate, other than it being extremely depressing, and that I would
predict an increase in sales of alcohol. It would break the country on some visceral level.
Nominating Biden could end the Democratic Party for good, so maybe there would be a silver
lining.
Interestingly, Biden spoke to donors in 2019 and stated that "no one's standard of living
would change" and "nothing would fundamentally change" if he became elected. It would make for
an honest slogan, at least. Vote Biden in 2020: Nothing will change.
When moderate democrats say "be realistic", say it back to them: be realistic, Biden would
surely lose to Trump. Only Sanders has a shot at defeating him, as Trump would absolutely
eviscerate Biden and run circles around him. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and
Trump is as broken a person as they come; but he is smart enough to harp on Biden's mental
decline and his son's shady job as a board member of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, a
position he had absolutely no expertise in.
Oh Canada!?: Trudeau Marches for Climate
The most ridiculous and absurd example of big-brain centrism comes from our neighbor to the
North, however. In September of 2019, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took part in a
climate protest in Montreal. He tweeted: "Today we marched for our planet, our kids, and for
their future." It did not seem to dawn on him that his fellow citizens were marching to protest
the lack of action his government was taking to battle global warming. You're their
leader, Justin. If you want to take action, use every available mechanism in your own
government to make a change. The people put you in power to do exactly that. Was he
protesting himself? Was he admitting that even as PM he is as powerless as the average citizen
to fight the fossil fuel industries? Under his administration, Albertan oil sands continue to
be extracted, and new pipeline expansion is in place against the will of the Wet'suwet'en First
Nations tribe who are currently protesting.
The Moderates Serve the Ruling Class
Just to stick with Trudeau's nastiness for a moment, everyone should read
this article on the First Nation protestors in Canada fighting the Coastal GasLink Pipeline
expansion. If you feel called, watch the embedded video. The RMCP point their rifles at
nonviolent protestors- police who operate under the orders of Justin Trudeau. Make no mistake,
Biden would be no different in the US. He serves at the behest of the ruling classes. It
doesn't matter if it's Obama with Occupy Wall Street and the Dakota Access Pipeline, Trump,
Trudeau, or a possible Biden regime: they all will intimidate and if necessary kill their own
citizens who use direct action to resist fossil fuel expansion and corporate rule. It's all a
sick twisted game to protect the property of the rich for the "sensible", "highly-esteemed",
blue-check mark politicians and media flunkies.
Even if the moderate liberals gave one single solitary fuck about average working people,
the environment, future generations, and the citizenry they pander to, they are too weak-minded
because they insist everything be done at the glacial pace (as glaciers are now in rapid
retreat in many parts of the world this metaphor may no longer be useful, thanks to them) of
bipartisan electoral politics, and will compromise with conservatives at every turn to
water-down absolutely any and every possible progressive or radical legislative reforms.
Like Trudeau, they all want to have it both ways: to be seen as a progressive, "woke"
politician; a radical climate protestor in his case, while at the same time being central
figures of the establishment, upholding an inhumane system, walking corpses who prop up the
status quo, absolute tools of corporate and imperial rule. Which in the end means that they
really only care about themselves: their fame, power, glory, and their money.
Bernie Sanders has his own serious flaws, most especially in regards to foreign policy. Yet
he is the only candidate who speaks to the need to create a better, kinder, more reasonable and
egalitarian nation; and the best chance to popularize socialism right now, however ill-suited
he may be to the task.
Even Hillary Clinton weighed in on Sanders recently and said "nobody likes him, no one wants
to work with him." It might be worthwhile for citizens and neoliberal imperialists like
Clinton, Biden, Trudeau, and the rest to question what it means to be "popular" and what
positive "work" has actually been accomplished in a Congress which hasn't cracked a 30%
approval rating in over
10 years .
There are a couple of references from pop culture which sum up the sad but true nature of
the centrist liberal and conservative politicians. Their commitment to strengthening capitalism
at all costs leads to a hollow shell of a life. The first quote is from the movie Casino
Jack, a fictionalized version of the corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff's life. When the walls
are closing in on him, his wife reminds him there will be no one to help: "We have no friends,
Jack, none. All we have are people we do business with."
The second set of quotes, which I'll end with, are from rap legend Tupac Shakur. In the song
"Holler If You Hear Me", 2pac warns of the perils of compromising one's beliefs for material
gain:
To the sellouts livin' it up/
One way or another you'll be givin' it up.
In the last verse, 2pac has a prophetic line, alluding to black militancy, manufacturing
consent and the return of the repressed in American society. His words remain eerily prescient,
and remind me of the way moderate liberals and conservatives view the rise of Bernie Sanders
and socialism in the US today as dangerous:
And now I'm like a major threat/
'Cause I remind you of the things you were made to forget
Several good points on Biden foreign policy record. The author missed his dismal record, the record of rabid neocon, in
Ukraine and Georgia. As well as his role in unleashing the Iraq war.
When former Vice President Joe Biden presented
his vision for "rescuing" U.S. foreign policy in Foreign Affairs, his grim performance in
the early election contests suggested he would never get the chance to put his ideas into
practice. But now that Super Tuesday has propelled his candidacy to frontrunner status, it's
time to take a second look at what Biden is proposing.
Biden offers a proudly restorationist foreign policy. His main pitch is to bring back U.S.
global "leadership" after its supposed Trumpian aberration, rather than to deliver what the
American people need and increasingly demand: a clean break from decades of policy failure, to
which Biden himself has contributed.
Ignoring Obama's failures
One would expect Biden to defend the overall foreign policy record of the administration in
which he served as vice president. Yet one might also expect him to tell voters a few ways in
which he intends to do things differently. Biden declines to do so. His essay ignores the
debacles of the Obama administration, if he recognizes them as such.
Biden does not reference the chaos in Libya to which the administration contributed by
bombing the country and prolonging its civil war, still raging to this day. He says nothing
about how the administration armed unaccountable, allegedly moderate Syrian fighters for years,
compounding the country's humanitarian nightmare. He does not acknowledge U.S. complicity in
the 2009 military coup in Honduras that destabilized the country and sent thousands fleeing as
refugees. To the contrary, Biden boasts of his success in helping to secure "a $750 million aid
program to back up commitments from the leaders of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to take
on the corruption, violence, and endemic poverty driving people to leave their homes
there."
Biden deserves credit for stating flatly that he would end U.S. support for the Saudi-led
war in Yemen. But he does not acknowledge how such support began -- under what he now likes to
call the "Obama-Biden" administration. Nor does he grapple with the basic reason for U.S.
involvement in a place like Yemen: Washington's desire to dominate the region by force,
including by closely aligning with one set of repressive states in the region and making
enemies of the rest.
Biden does more than miss an opportunity to acknowledge the mistakes of the Obama
administration and explain how he would do better. He extends his nostalgia even further, and
to less defensible terrain. "For 70 years," he writes, "the United States, under Democratic and
Republican presidents, played a leading role in writing the rules, forging the agreements, and
animating the institutions that guide relations among nations and advance collective security
and prosperity -- until Trump." Does Biden really believe that President George W. Bush
conducted a responsible, constructive, rule-abiding foreign policy?
Forever war, forevermore?
Almost all the contenders in the Democratic primary have pledged to bring America's endless
wars to a close. Biden is no exception: he vows in his Foreign Affairs essay to "end the
forever wars." Yet in the very next sentence, Biden pledges to bring home only "the vast
majority" of troops from the wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East. That is, he signals that
he will leave thousands of ground troops in Afghanistan and beyond. Nor does he convey any
sense of how he might try to win the nearly two-decades-long war in Afghanistan that he intends
to continue. The dying will go on, even in the pursuit of defeat.
In addition to failing to promise the full withdrawal of ground troops from Afghanistan,
Iraq, or Syria, Biden staunchly defends forms of warfare that carry smaller domestic political
costs but kill people and create blowback. Few foreign policy experts would reject Biden's
advocacy of "using a few hundred Special Forces soldiers and intelligence assets to support
local partners against a common enemy." But rather than lay out a vision to reduce the United
States' proliferating counterterrorism operations, Biden makes a blanket endorsement of them.
"Those smaller-scale missions are sustainable militarily, economically, and politically, and
they advance the national interest," he writes. The word "drone" does not appear in the essay.
One is left with the impression that a Biden administration would bring continued if
smaller-scale ground wars and unlimited drone strikes and special operations raids.
On the whole, Biden threatens to repeat the pattern of the Trump administration of promising
to end endless wars while waging them all the same.
Status quo in the Middle East
When it comes to the Middle East, Biden extends fewer rhetorical concessions to his left
than some centrists would. He says nothing about America's intimate partnership with Saudi
Arabia, even though this is the one area of Mideast policy most ripe for change given support
across party lines for reducing arms sales to the kingdom and demanding accountability for
Saudi human rights abuses. Biden's one line on Israel -- "We need to sustain our ironclad
commitment to Israel's security " -- shows that he will maintain the status quo of aiding the
country's annexationist march. He makes no mention of Palestine or Palestinians.
On Iran, Biden renders an ambiguous verdict on the assassination of Qassem Soleimani that
nearly plunged the United States into a new war. He praises the U.S. strike for removing a
"dangerous actor" while expressing concern about an "ever-escalating cycle of violence" in the
region.
Importantly, Biden supports the nuclear deal with Iran, the signature foreign policy
achievement of the Obama administration. Still, his rhetoric arguably seems designed to appeal
to hawks more than those who support moving toward a normal diplomatic relationship with Iran.
"Tehran must return to strict compliance with the deal," Biden writes. "If it does so, I would
rejoin the agreement and use our renewed commitment to diplomacy to work with our allies to
strengthen and extend it, while more effectively pushing back against Iran's other
destabilizing activities."
This formulation allows Biden to claim he cleanly supports the nuclear deal but would also
get tougher on Iran by "more effectively" countering its influence. Biden might instead have
acknowledged a willingness to make concessions to Iran given that it was the United States that
breached the agreement and continues to impose strangling sanctions on a country that was
living up to its end of the bargain.
A missed opportunity
A bright spot is Biden's treatment of China. As my Quincy Institute colleague Rachel Esplin
Odell argues , Biden avoids Cold War-style inflation of the China threat, which politicians
and pundits from both parties have hyped over the past three years. At the same time, neither
does Biden entertain ways to deescalate militarily over issues like disputes in the South China
Sea that mean little to U.S. interests and risk antagonizing major powers.
Indeed, Biden does not wish to demilitarize U.S. foreign policy in any structural sense. He
expresses no desire to cut the Pentagon's trillion-dollar-a-year budget, even though surveys
have found that the single most popular foreign policy stance among the American public is to
spend less money fighting wars in order make more investments at home.
The United States is currently obligated to defend approximately one-third of the world's
countries, and informally dozens more. As long as the United States divides the entire world
into protectorates and, implicitly or explicitly, enemies, it will struggle to cut its military
spending significantly. That is apparently the way Biden wants it. His stance toward military
alliances is nothing short of reverential: NATO, Biden writes, is "sacred."
For all the investment in war and weapons that Biden proposes, he is disappointingly shallow
about the biggest global threat of all: climate change. Biden seems stuck in a Paris-style
framework that has struggled to create positive-sum cooperation among nations. If the United
States wants to lead, it ought to provide solutions to the rest of the world, whether by
offering green technology at low or no cost, investing in the Green Climate Fund, or creating a
Green World Trade Organization. By contrast, Biden's outlook is punitive and short-sighted:
make sure other countries don't undercut America economically, and pressure China to stop
promoting fossil fuels abroad. While the United States should pressure China in this regard
(and, more importantly, to replace coal-fired plants within China), Biden disregards the
greater need for bilateral cooperation in order to develop and utilize clean technology and
limit the intensity of a security competition that could thwart the green transition.
***
As a candidate for president, Biden has an opportunity to put forward plans that confront
the failures of decades of foreign policy made by Democrats and Republicans alike. Hopefully he
will do so as the campaign proceeds. So far, however, it looks like he will not only prolong
the endless wars but also restore and revive the ideas that generated them in the first
place.
The author of this article is an informal, volunteer adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders'
presidential campaign.
Fun fact: the European Union actually has no authority over health issues whatsoever. This
is a strict Member State prerogative. The countries can coordinate voluntarily (which is what
is currently arranged by the European Commission, but since there is no precedence it takes
time) - but there was no way to make any decision about that in Brussels.
Greetings from Europe. In these hard times I'd like to thank Trump for providing such gold
comedy material from just being a moron and reminding us all that it could always be
worse.
Recently, I was watching the old Looney Tunes Cartoons with my Grandchild and we were
watching, "Duck Dodges in the 21st and a Half Century"
I don't know if you've watched this cartoon starring Daffy Duck. You can view it here https://vimeo.com/76668594
This cartoon was made in 1953 and like many Looney Tune cartoon's, they are an extreme
parody of life. But while watching this cartoon, it dawned on me that this cartoon is an
almost perfect description of US Military policy and action.
I could write an article on this but I think we'll leave it as a note with a snide laugh to
be had by all.
Oh, they have. This is from the email I got from the White House listserv:
"Some 150,000 illegal immigrants from 72 nations with cases of the coronavirus have been
apprehended or deemed inadmissible from entering the United States since November," according
to officials. These apprehensions underscore the need for border security and proper vetting.
Read more from Paul Bedard in the Washington Examiner.
WORTH REPEATING: In 2018, Trump fired the entire US pandemic response team.
These were the experts with decades of experience dealing with precisely the kind of
situation we are in today.
Michael Grunwald @MikeGrunwald
I had forgotten my own reporting that @SenatorCollins
stripped $870M for pandemic preparations out of the 2009 stimulus.
[page image from Grunwald's book, The New New Deal ]
There was some discussion here the other day about who's responsible for the sorry state
of the CDC
and pandemic preparation in particular. Now, the Dems controlled all the WH, Senate and House
in 2009,
so obviously they share some of the blame, but if Collins hadn't demanded this,
it probably wouldn't have happened.
Considering how pretty much all Western governments fucked up big time, I expect a
backlash against current governing parties, if not a serious questioning of the ways current
"liberal" democracies are working. And they won't be able to blame it on Putin's or Xi's
troll army; everyone can see they brought this upon themselves.
This is the time where the Four Stages system from Yes Minister - which is blatantly used
by our political leaders - is out in the open, because the consequences won't appear decades
in the future but will be obvious before this year is over.
Of couse, globalization of trade, free-trade, free movement of people will have to be
reconsidered. And last but not least, if people have to live for months under lockdown or
quarantine, it might have an impact on the economic and productive system -- and also on the
environment --, because our societies will have to focus on what's truly needed for them to
survive as societies, and not on the fanciful bullshit like marketing, spin doctors, traders
and countless bureaucratic jobs.
"... Myths help their audiences understand the causes of things. As narrative theorists like Mark Turner and specialists in memory like Charles Fernyhough emphasize, people learn how to behave from stories and concepts of cause and effect in childhood. The linear sequence of before, now and after communicates the relationships between things and how we, as human beings, understand our own responsibility in the world. ..."
Zeus,
the head Greek god, who lamented humans' tendency to bring suffering upon themselves. (Carole Raddato/Flickr,
CC BY-SA)
Zeus, the head Greek god, who lamented humans' tendency to bring suffering
upon themselves. (Carole Raddato/Flickr, CC BY-SA)
In the fifth century B.C., the playwright Sophocles begins "
Oedipus
Tyrannos
" with the title character struggling to identify the cause of a plague striking his city,
Thebes. (Spoiler alert: It's his own bad leadership.)
As someone who writes about early Greek poetry, I
spend a lot of time thinking about why its performance was so crucial to ancient life. One answer is that
epic and tragedy helped ancient storytellers and audiences try to make sense of human suffering.
From this perspective, plagues functioned as a setup for an even more crucial theme in ancient myth: a
leader's intelligence. At the beginning of the "Iliad," for instance, the prophet Calchas – who knows the
cause of a
nine-day plague
– is praised as someone "
who
knows what is, what will be and what happened before
."
This language anticipates a chief criticism of Homer's legendary King Agamemnon: He does not know "
the
before and the after
."
The epics remind their audiences that leaders need to be able to plan for the future based on what has
happened in the past. They need to understand cause and effect. What caused the plague? Could it have
been prevented?
People's recklessness
Myths help their audiences understand the causes of things. As narrative theorists like
Mark Turner
and specialists in memory like
Charles Fernyhough
emphasize,
people learn how to behave from stories and concepts of cause and effect in childhood. The linear
sequence of before, now and after communicates the relationships between things and how we, as human
beings, understand our own responsibility in the world.
Plague stories provide settings where fate pushes human organization to the limit. Human leaders are
almost always crucial to the causal sequence, as Zeus observes in Homer's "Odyssey," saying, as I've
translated it, "Humans are always blaming the gods for their suffering / but they experience pain beyond
their fate because of their own recklessness."
The problems humans create go beyond just plagues: The poet Hesiod writes that the top Greek god,
Zeus, showed his disapproval for bad leaders by burdening them with
military failures as well as pandemics
. The consequences of human failings are a refrain in the
ancient critique of leaders, with or without plagues: The "Iliad," for instance, describes rulers who "
ruin
their people through recklessness
." The "Odyssey" phrases it as "
bad
shepherds ruin their flocks
."
Devastating illness
Plagues were common in the ancient world, but not all of them were blamed on leaders. Like other
natural disasters, they were frequently blamed on the gods.
But historians, like Polybius in the second century B.C. and Livy in the first century B.C., also
frequently recount epidemics striking armies and people in swamps or cities with poor sanitation.
Philosophers and physicians also searched for rational approaches –
blaming the climate
, or
pollution
.
When the historian Thucydides recounts how a plague with alleged origins in Ethiopia hit Athens in 430
B.C., he
vividly describes patients suffering a sudden high fever
, shortness of breath and an array of sickly
discharges. Those who survived the sickness had endured such delirious fevers that they might have no
memory of it all.
Athens as a state was unprepared to meet the challenge of that plague. Thucydides describes the
futility of any human response: Appeals to the gods and the work of doctors – who died in droves –
were equally useless
. The disease wreaked havoc because the Athenians were massed within the city
walls to wait out the Spartan armies during the Peloponnesian War.
Yet despite the plague's terrible nature, Thucydides insists that the worst part was the despair
people felt from fear and the "
horror
of human beings dying like sheep
."
Sick people died of neglect, of the lack of proper shelter and of disease spreading from improper
burials in an unprepared and overcrowded city, followed by looting and lawlessness.
Athens, set up as a fortress against its enemies, brought ruin upon itself.
Making sense out of human flaws
Left out of plague accounts are the names of the multitudes who died in them. Homer, Sophocles and
Thucydides tell us that masses died. But plagues in ancient narratives are usually the beginning, not
the end of the story. A plague didn't stop the Trojan War, prevent Oedipus' sons from waging civil war
or give the Athenians enough reasons to make peace.
For years after the ravages of the plague, Athens still suffered from in-fighting, toxic politics
and selfish leaders. Popular politics led to the disastrous
Sicilian Expedition
of 415 B.C.,
killing thousands of Athenians – but still Athens survived.
A decade later, the Athenians again broke into civil factions and eventually prosecuted their own
generals after a naval victory in
406 B.C.
at Arginusae
. In 404 B.C., after a siege, Sparta defeated Athens. But, as we learn from Greek
myth, it was – again – really Athens' leaders and people who defeated themselves.
I have been a stutterer for my whole life. I consider myself an expert.
The person who wrote this article should research stuttering more.
Many of the things he is doing with his speech are things that stutters do: word
substitution accounts for many of his gaffes. For instance -- he didn't forget Obama's name,
he realized he couldn't say it so he quickly said "the president"
And word avoidance accounts for many other mistakes "you know the rest" was an avoidance of
having to recite part of the constitution.
Part of stuttering is also becoming consumed with avoiding stuttering and having to try extra
hard to keep on track. This gets much harder with age. It's mentally tiring.
All this is not to say that every gaffe is caused by his stutter or that he is a strong or
week candidate.
This post is not politically motivated.
I guess the thing that bothers me is that the author obviously didn't talk to a stutterer
or a speech therapist before writing the article. If she had she wouldn't have left out the
mitigating factors that I mentioned. She could have still written about gaffs that he made
that are clearly not related to his stuttering.
The fact that she didn't reach out to an expert and instead chose to merely list Mayo
Clinic's list of mayo clinics basic symptoms was remiss and actually despicable.
It is true that a large percentage of the clips are simple word substitutions, like
Senator for Supreme Court Justice. A smaller percentage is babbling, like the story about his
leg hairs, or vinyl records emerging from some deep recess of his mind. Then you have
thoughts that he says loudly, "you dog-faced pony soldiers", that resemble Turette
syndrome.
Vinyl records gaffe deserves a serious discussion. Said intelligently, children may be
provided with well designed educational aids to alleviate poor knowledge and vocabulary of
their family background. But I seriously doubt if listening to a random "four million words"
is beneficial. More likely, Biden remembered some simplistic explanation of the concept 40-50
years ago and in the meantime HE NEVER GAVE IT A THOUGHT. Biden never was a deep thinker (my
impressions of him go back a while), and now, with age, he pulls out those half-baked ideas
from the past out of context, and with some babbling.
To paraphrase probable candidates for this Fall, "Our nuclear was tired, but now it will
pat my hairy legs and it will be as good as new".
-- –
A random non-serious idea. [serious problem] The ratio of retired people over working
people is increasing, making it more and more difficult to provide the seniors with a decent
standard of living and health care. We may consider increasing the retirement age. But how
should we decided it? [non-serious solution] We can leave it to all voters. Any time they
elect someone older than the current retirement age plus 10, the retirement age will increase
by one year. Citizens can collectively decide when folks can still work, even at the position
of the highest responsibility.
rosemerry , March 9, 2020 at 14:29
Too much importance is given to the present contrived situation (by the DNC, which would
rather lose to Trump than have a "progressive" candidate for POTUS). Biden was only given the
VP job by Obama to ensure they got the votes of people otherwise unlikely to support Obama.
This also occurred with JFK choosing Lyndon Johnson for VP to help him in the South, as it
did. Biden has almost every fault possible except for being a "nice guy", like Dubya Bush
being someone you like to share a beer with!(even with a teetotaller!)
The US system is not designed to choose good candidates, and is not a system copied by other
nations ,perhaps for this reason. Biden is terrible, Trump and all his GOP competitors in
2016 were terrible, Hillary deserved to lose and Sanders did not fight to win. Sanders is
apparently now changing his emphasis away from what makes people want him!!! Biden cannot
win, would be no better than Trump and will we all survive till 2024???
Tony , March 10, 2020 at 10:59
JFK did not choose Lyndon Johnson as his running mate.
He chose Senator Stuart Symington. However, before the announcement could be made, he got
a visit from LBJ who was armed with a blackmail dossier provided by his friend J.Edgar
Hoover.
Inga Arvad was suspected of being a Nazi spy and JFK had had a relationship with her during
the war.
The fact that JFK changed his mind after a visit from LBJ is confirmed by Clark Clifford
in his memoirs 'Counsel to the President'. He describes how JFK called him up to his room and
told him he now felt he had a better chance with LBJ as his running mate. He was asked to
pass on the message to Symington.
Sadly, this later proved to be a fatal decision for Kennedy.
Chili Dogg , March 9, 2020 at 19:27
Did Biden sound like this his first few decades in politics? Did he stutter during that
timeframe? Not that I recall. The fact that he is doing this now, in his late seventies, and
that he did not sound like this when he was younger, strongly suggests cognitive issues.
P G , March 9, 2020 at 21:43
watch old videos of Biden, even 4 years ago. His speech is remarkably clearer and more
precise then. Stutterer or not, word substitution or not, he's clearly lost it and it's
getting worse weekly.
CB , March 9, 2020 at 13:07
Today, NPR has been playing clips from Biden's terrifyingly incoherent St. Louis speech.
He sounds like he's falling down drunk. Here's my transliteration of 31:10 on C-SPAN: "You're
all part ma movemen a moob men that has a backbone the backbone of the Democratic Party a
mooin's gun defeat Donald Trump." Hearing the clip this morning put tears in my eyes because
it so acutely reminded me of the final speech patterns of my grandfather, a brilliant nuclear
physicist who died of Alzheimers at age 78. I also cried at clip #33 because the pain in Jill
Biden's eyes projected me right back into the helplessness of witnessing Granddad's cognitive
decline. It's tragically time to take away Biden's car keys, and yet these endorsements are
trying to buy him a Maserati. How can this nightmare be happening. Thank you, Caitlin
Johnstone, for maintaining this much-needed reality check.
Chanel , March 10, 2020 at 22:08
Yes, please, Dear God, remove this man from the election theater. How? How is it possible
that he has come this far?? We are all doomed. From the earliest debates it was crystal clear
to me that he is in a state of decline and no match for Trump. It's true, the Democratic
establishment is corrupt, so afraid of a Sanders presidency that they have to prop up a man
in such a state of serious decline that we'll ensure another four years of Trump. Any of the
other candidates would have been great – any of them – Biden was my LAST choice,
not because I dislike the man, but my God, Trump, the narcissistic personality disordered
wunderkind will utterly destroy Biden in a debate. Just in the past 24 hours Biden was caught
in a disastrous nearly incomprehensible debate with an attendee in Michigan over gun control
– he was belligerent, incoherent, and unable to even have a simple exchange of ideas
with any clarity. Trump will annihilate him; all those with NPD are masters of winning
debates.
A 1-minute read about Biden's mental decline. "My Mom and Joe Biden", published at Medium
dot com. I wrote it.
My concluding words, on the result if the Dems nominate an addled Biden: "Come November,
there could be one of two terrible outcomes. The first is Biden could lose. The other is that
he could win."
?Before his dementia onset, Biden blazed a decades-long trail of destruction across
American life -- from Social Security and healthcare to disastrous wars and mass
incarceration (read: Jim Crow 2.0).
So with Wall Street Joe as the Dem nominee it would be heads we lose, tails we lose. ?
Q: Which would be worse: a mentally sharp President Biden or an addled one?
A: Let's not find out.
Linda Lewis , March 9, 2020 at 11:47
Thank you for your work, Ms. Johnstone. Dr. David Scheiner, who was Obama's doctor, lends
support to your hypothesis. About Biden, Scheiner told the Washington Examiner, "He's not a
healthy guy."
"Scheiner previously told the Examiner that Biden "looked frail" during the first
Democratic primary debate. "I sort of got the feeling he wasn't very strong. It was similar
to the feeling I got when Republicans started attacking Mueller so fiercely," he said." (New
York Post, Dec. 20) [That comparison suggests Scheiner is including cognitive ability in his
use of the word "frail."]
Scheiner had concerns, also, about Trump's mental health. "[H]e wants to see MRI results
for Trump to check for strokes, as well as a neurocognitive assessment. He raised concerns
about the president's speech pattern and behavior, saying it may be a sign of neurological
damage," reports the Examiner, and suggested "Something happened," with regard to Trump's
visit to Walter Reed.
In summary, there are questions about the cognitive ability of three people who have had
or could have extremely important government roles. That gives weight to Scheiner's
recommendation "that all candidates for the presidency should disclose far more medical
information than they do now and that it should be collected and disclosed by an independent
medical panel." (Examiner)
"The stakes are too high," Scheiner said. "If they make a mistake because their cognitive
skills are diminished, we pay the price." (Examiner)
see:
washingtonexaminer.com/news/lot-of-issues-former-obama-doctor-says-biden-is-not-a-healthy-guy
NY Post link: see:
nypost.com/2019/12/20/obamas-former-doctor-says-joe-biden-is-not-a-healthy-guy-report/
Anonymot , March 9, 2020 at 09:51
Thanks, that's a brilliant intensive lot of work.
However, you are looking a Very Important Point, the Democrats Establishment does not
care. Biden was put up to defeat Sanders, not Trump. Hillary, with Tom Perez as her vocal
cords, still controls the DNC. At all and any cost she wants Sanders out of the race. She
could have put up Mickey Mouse, makes no difference, because whoever she backs is guaranteed
to do exactly what she says once he is the party candidate. So he stutters. Her choice of
Biden's VP will also do exactly as she says.
But there is a more important question at the core of the Democrats. We understand clearly
that as the New York Times floundered its way to bankruptcy in 2014 it was saved by people
never really named. They were a threesome, Hillary brought in 2 billionaire friends: Diller
and Getty. Obviously there conditions required by the threesome – and it wasn't money,
they didn't need that, they needed print space. They had a cause. They got what they wanted
from the Sulzberger family, because there was no one else.
From 2015 the NYT was no longer what it had been, proud, objective, independant,
investigative in all the badness they could find. It was no longer one of the 5 best news
sources in the world. They changed their editorial and journalistic personnel to match the
required causes. They improved their financial position, because one of the 3 was a past
master at running big corporations that he pulled up out of the dust.
When the NYT dust settled, they often began agreeing with the Generals in Afghanistan and
Iraq. They not infrequently published articles that resembled State Dept. and CIA press
releases. And politically they began the fight to promote the 2016 Loser and defeat Senator
Sanders. Unexpectedly, they are at it again and Hillary, the 3, and the NYT are again willing
to promote a loser, win or not in the Presidency vote, they will maintain control of the
Democrats establishment!
And through all of that, I never see anyone, but me asking who are the backers of Hillary
Clinton? Who chose her? Who put her up? For whom is she really the voice?
JWalters , March 9, 2020 at 19:50
Thanks for that great info on the NYT. As for who is behind Hillary, she fits easily into
the story of war profiteers here
war * profiteerstory. * blogspot. * com
[Remove all 3 asterisks and their flanking spaces after copying to browser's URL address
field. Links to that website are routinely sabotaged.]
Eugenie Basile , March 9, 2020 at 09:39
A stutter or dementia ?
That will be trivial as soon as the Ukraine documentary of O.Berruyer ( promoted last month
by CN ) will go viral in the US. The DNC will be ashamed of their preferred presidential
candidate.
joe , March 9, 2020 at 09:02
What is an obvious sign that Biden has vascular dementia is his slurring of his speech. If
you listen to most of his speeches, rallies, or even debates he slurs his speech. It is not a
stutter, but it is an easily discernible slurring of his speech and one of the major signs of
vascular dementia.
John Drake , March 8, 2020 at 11:34
Aside from the evidence of dementia, word salads etc., cognitive lapses, I find his
aggressiveness toward members of the audience who confronted him very disturbing, especially
at the young woman whom he threw a John Wayne misquote at. Can you imagine how someone in
their early 20's felt when a powerful US Senator insulted her on national media. All she did
was ask a difficult question. Then there is the guy he called "fat".
He shows disrespect for his audience. In that respect he is almost as bad as Trump.
Excessive irritability and paranoia is also a symptom.
AnneR , March 8, 2020 at 10:25
Frankly, dementia or not (and Biden clearly has some brain functioning problem) Biden is
an abominable person and definitely no one who should even be considered presidential
material. As indeed he wasn't until Bernie looked to be stronger than ever, which really
bothers the DNC and all establishment (basically all DC Demrats). Heaven forfend the hoi
polloi should actually get a real say.
What amazed me on on Tuesday night was the fact that so many African Americans chose to
vote for him – given his racist track record: support for the anti-Bussing movement on
the east coast (anti desegregation of schools) in the 1970s; Anita Hill; the Clinton
anti-crime bill (and not unrelated severe cut backs in welfare assistance which impacted the
African American poor – and paleskin poor, numerically more but proportionally?). His
eagerness to support any and all US invasions, bombing, killing campaigns against peoples
far, far from these shores. His efforts on behalf of the bankruptcy business – making
it all but impossible for ordinary folks to declare bankruptcy (as a means to clear the debt
decks) while businesses can do continue to do so, no matter how many it hurts.
One of a couple of questions that dogged throughout Tuesday night also concerned: all of
these southern states – haven't they enacted, over the past few years, a variety
anti-electoral registration measures, aimed at African Americans? So I wondered: are those
African Americans, swayed apparently by Mr Cliburn, who voted so decidedly for Biden, of the
middling classes? Of the well-educated? Possibly well health insured. What might have been
the results had the poorer, unable to register for a whole host of Jim Crow reminiscent
reasons, been able to have their say? Would they have gone for the Obama VP? Or Bernie and
his M4A?
The other question hovering in the air: what part is Obama playing in this? He would
definitely *not* be a Bernie fan.
Hmmm , March 8, 2020 at 23:29
Black primary voters also preferred Hillary Clinton to Sanders in 2016, so this isn't too
surprising.
Re: Anita Hill and Biden's role in the Thomas hearings: Polls showed that blacks were more
favorable to Thomas, both before and after the hearings, than whites. They were also less
likely than whites to believe Anita Hill. So I don't think that on balance that history hurts
Biden among black voters.
I think some of the other things you mention tend similarly to be of greater concern to
left-liberal whites than to blacks.
Suspected dementia won't stop the Democratic Party establishment from backing Joe.
Kamala Harris just added her unimpressive voice.
I don't think there is any doubt that the fix is in.
But they are putting themselves in a ridiculous position.
Even without the apparent dementia, Joe Biden is simply not an attractive candidate.
He has a seriously shabby side, and he has some embarrassing quirks – all besides
standing for almost nothing.
I believe he would be Trump's own choice as an opponent.
Meanwhile brave Tulsi Gabbard is getting shut out yet again with rule changes.
Some democracy.
I wrote an interesting speculation about an alternate scenario.
You can find it here:
chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2020/03/06/john-chuckman-comment-we-know-the-democratic-establishment-has-plotted-against-bernie-but-it-does-no-good-to-run-a-candidate-like-biden-who-is-likely-to-lose-is-there-a-secret-plan-concerning-a-d/
Nomisnala , March 8, 2020 at 01:08
I would still vote for Biden over Trump as I also think that Trump also has signs of early
dementia. I do see symptoms of early onset dementia, and as his wife is a physician, I am
sure she sees this as well. I do think that it is a mistake to suddenly thrust Biden into the
nomination. If one watches Biden work back in the 1980's when he was questioning Baker in
Congress about South Africa, and Reagans position, you would see a Biden who did not stutter,
did not forget things, and every time he could not complete a sentence, he did not say "look"
and then change his thought. On a good day he may be okay. But on many days he does not
complete the sentences that he starts.
Starshot2045 , March 10, 2020 at 04:19
Biden's wife is not a physician. She has an Ed.D. – a doctorate in education which
she got from the University of Delaware when she was 55 – about 13 years ago. Why she
runs around and feels she has to be referred to as "doctor" is not clear but it certainly is
misleading.
JoAnn Henningsen , March 7, 2020 at 17:30
I read Ms. Johnstone's article and the variety of comments with much sadness and
compassion. Whether I support Joe Biden or not, I believe his family and the DNC are well
aware of this disaster waiting to happen.
Have the results of the 2016 election really brought the Dems to the brink that the Party
will sacrifice a long serving public figure like Biden. This article is a drop in the bucket
as to what is ahead of us in the next several months. And, there will be tit for tat. Imagine
stories on Trump will be resurrected and expanded upon. We have sunk to new lows in America
and the World is watching in disgust.
Joe Biden had brain surgery for an aneurysm in 1988. These gaffes are definitely not just
a stutter or stammer. Whatever is going on is neurological, a sign of cell death (called
apoptosis), and Dems for sure were going to cut Bernie out. Politics has degenerated to this
ludicrous level!
L H , March 7, 2020 at 00:16
I'm a speech pathologist with specialized training in working with patients who experience
mild cognitive decline and progressive dementia. I'm seeing signs of stuttered speech and of
paraphasic errors. Mr. Biden had two brain surgeries in 1988 due to aneurysms, which a
residual effect could result in speech or language disorders. I suspect that he is a high
risk candidate for progressive neurogenic communication disorders.
Mr. Biden still speaks with intention and passion. He is trying to compete in a fast paced
race that demands automatic expression regarding today's technological lexicon. It's obvious
that his automatic language is centered around his years in the Senate and his early years in
the White House. His brain is defaulting to his past and his memory of those details seem
greater. He most likely tires easily and doesn't appear to be able to automatically recall
his previous "go to" campaign speech rhetoric. The last few videos he reacted as if he is
aware of his faux pas, even surprised or embarrassed by them. I predict that he will be
sticking to a teleprompter and rehearsed, shorter passages with a slower rate. Trump has many
of the same symptoms. However, he is mastering the use of shorter statements and vague,
shallow repetitive vocabulary. That way, he doesn't stumble over what he is saying and
doesn't have to rely on his memory.
I'm glad you are bringing awareness to this. It's concerning and we need to take notice.
Vetting the cognitive competency of our elected officials is of paramount importance.
Allan Millard , March 6, 2020 at 23:59
Biden has no speech impediment. The difficulty in starting some sentences is obviously
that he has lost the thread. He has a cognitive "impediment" which goes beyond the occasional
nominal aphasia. The author notes some interesting examples of filling in memory gaps with
false recollections, which poses a dilemma for Biden's campaign managers. He makes false
statements and we are left with two logical alternatives: He is deliberately lying or he
simply can't remember and invents. Either way he does not sound like presidential
material.
DW Bartoo , March 6, 2020 at 23:45
I agree with Caitlin.
Joe Biden is displaying the symptoms of dementia which will continue to progress.
Were Biden anyone but the Democratic Establishment's chosen sacrifice to "pragmatic"
defeat, his family would be striving to come up with the most gentle
and compassionate method they could find of taking away his car keys and lessening the
obvious stress of his continued effort to avoid coming to grips with his failing mental
health.
Anyone who has witnessed a family member, or of friend's families, who has developed
Alzheimer's or another form of dementia will readily recognize, in Joe Biden, certain
patterns of disorientation, confusion, word loss, an inability to complete thoughts and
sentences, a quick readiness to anger in response to social frustration, and compensatory
behaviors used by the person suffering from the dementia to reassure themselves that they are
the "same" as ever, even as they increasingly worry and recognize that they are not.
Dementia is, most definitely, a very hard thing to come to grips with, as denial is
usually the first response of the person experiencing its onset and, as well, for family
members and acquaintances who are initially horrified when contemplating the implications
attendant.
As I mentioned earlier today, in the comment section of the article dealing with lying and
cheating, the graver and more disturbing aspect of what is happening to Joe Biden is the
apparent failure of his family, friends, and those urging him onto the field of political
battle to recognize his condition for what it is.
This failure of honest recognition is rapidly turning into nothing less than an exhibition
of unfeeling cruelty, taking careless and ruthless advantage of a human being whose
faculties, intellectually and emotionally, are likely to become more precariously diminished
the greater the stresses placed upon them.
It is a sorry spectacle.
The longer it continues, the worse and more appalling it will, very likely, become.
As Caitlin points out, it little matters what Biden's political behavior in the past has
been, what we now witness is a human being in decline and disintegration.
Even as we see the Democratic Party honchos opt, not for the systemic changes so very
desperately needed, at this time, in this place, for humanity and by the planet (not that
Sanders would or could actually deliver those things), but rather that the elite and party
"leaders", the selfish few, intend, using whatever means "necessary", to retain their
lucrative control and privilege, despite the massive destruction and great harm that
privilege and control have already wrought.
Biden's public humiliation and the continued betrayal of the many is a small price, easily
"worth it", in the eyes and calculations of oligarchic sycophants.
Marisol Marquez , March 6, 2020 at 23:05
It's not just the stuttering. it's also the memory loss, incoherent sentences and rambling
statements. The man should retire and enjoy the time he has left with his wife. He is not fit
to hold any office, never mind the Presidency.
Robinson and Scahill both pick apart Biden's track record, beginning with his push for a
"tough on crime" stance that targeted people of color, an approach that also in part explains
his friendship with one of the most notorious racist politicians in recent history, Strom
Thurmond. Biden was also an outspoken supporter of the Iraq War and was credited with providing
the legislative inspiration for the Patriot Act by George W. Bush's attorney general.
For those who are in "Anybody but Trump" camp in the current circumstances it does not
matter much who will be on Democratic ticket. Biden as the guy on Democratic ticket is a very
sad joke, but still Trump can lose the elections.
Right now Trump himself is his worst enemy. If comments to the article referenced below
reflect sentiments of moderate and anti-war Republicans, Trump has no chances in November.
Note that some even questioned their choice in 2016 elections
What over the last three years – and specifically in the last three weeks made you
think Trump was going to come out of this on top? That would require him to actually be on
top of things, which he never has been. Ever. And you thinking he's just doing 'poorly'
just highlights your delusion that he is capable of being even mildly competent.
failure • 10 hours ago
"The U.S. has the lowest per capita testing of any country."
Trump spent the first years of his presidency doing favors for Wall Street, Israel, and
Saudi Arabia instead of focusing on the America First promises that got him elected. The
trillions he wasted on advancing foreign interests was badly needed to rebuild American
infrastructure, including America's disease testing capacity.
Brasidas • 10 hours ago
This is the problem and it has always been the problem with an uncurious President who
doesn't read and who works off hunches and believes he's a "stable genius". He can't even
be bothered to understand the contours of his own policies. After all, it's just a game
show.
IanDakar John Achterhof • 7 hours ago • edited
A travel ban when the disease is here [makes no sense]. When infected citizens can
travel from and TO infected areas:
Where some countries are exempt so infected foreigners can just go to one of those
countries then come here:
Is not the right direction. It would be a half step forward in January.
Now it's [like] installing a faulty smoke detector in the middle of a roaring fire. We
screwed up. We are still screwing up. Acting like It's OK and we will be fine is not
helping.
I Am Sorry • 10 hours ago
I voted for him. I still don't know whether HRC would have been worse, but this is
really, really bad.
john • 9 hours ago
All the hallmarks of a Trump operation, offensive, ineffective, poorly thought out and
will be retracted in the end. The travel ban against China, did help when China was the
only source of the disease, so kudos to Trump. However now the monster is in the castle so
pulling up the drawbridge won't help anymore.
Trump does not have a party with the program that at least pretends to pursue "socialism for a given ethnic group". He is
more far right nationalist then national socialist. But to the extent neoliberalism can be viewed as neofascism Trump is
neo-fascist, he definitly can be called a "national neoliberal."
Notable quotes:
"... I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as Sanders -- to head its ticket. ..."
"... Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again" slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false state of mythical past national glory ..."
"... The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have before in this column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the term. ..."
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
"... An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups. ..."
"... Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth, however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles. ..."
"... Neoliberalism , by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of trade unions. ..."
"... Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age . ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
If comments reflect sentiments of moderate Republicans, Trump has no chances in November.
Notable quotes:
"... What over the last three years - and specifically in the last three weeks made you think Trump was going to come out of this on top? That would require him to actually be on top of things, which he never has been. Ever. And you thinking he's just doing 'poorly' just highlights your delusion that he is capable of being even mildly competent. ..."
"... Trump spent the first years of his presidency doing favors for Wall Street, Israel, and Saudi Arabia instead of focusing on the America First promises that got him elected. The trillions he wasted on advancing foreign interests was badly needed to rebuild American infrastructure, including America's disease testing capacity. ..."
"... Fair enough, we Americans may be stumbling along somewhat unsteadily into unchartered territory, but the important thing is we're now stumbling in the right general direction. We'll make it through this, people - most of us at least. All we can do as we enter into this miasma is our level best as responsible, compassionate humans, keeping a stiff upper lip and a stoic constitution. Amor fati : as precious as life is, death is always and evermore its close companion. ..."
"... All the hallmarks of a Trump operation, offensive, ineffective, poorly thought out and will be retracted in the end. The travel ban against China, did help when China was the only source of the disease, so kudos to Trump. However now the monster is in the castle so pulling up the drawbridge won't help anymore. ..."
Before the speech, I opined on Dreher's blog that Trump still had a chance of coming
out of this crisis on top politically--that he might demonstrably use the bully
pulpit of his office in a constructive manner, and be able to claim credit for a
successful outcome.
After the speech... well, it was widely panned in the more
liberal sectors of the media, and FOX News has this bit of tripe as its current
headline:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/...
The speech is mentioned in a sidebar, without
commentary. When the friendly media outlets ignore you, it's a good sign you've done
poorly.
What over the last three years - and specifically in the last three weeks made
you think Trump was going to come out of this on top? That would require him
to actually be on top of things, which he never has been. Ever. And you
thinking he's just doing 'poorly' just highlights your delusion that he is
capable of being even mildly competent.
When you base your team selection on political loyalty, you get fawning
toadies. Mr Redfield (CDC), a homophobe associated with a group that
regards HIV as God's judgement on gay people, was never going to be
competent at epidemic control. He doesn't even believe in it.
Note, I said "still had a chance". Such an observation should not be
interpreted as any sort of praise for Trump, but as an observation that
should he manage to string a couple coherent sentences together on the
teevee, more than a few talking heads in the newsmejia will offer unto
him hosannas about being "presidential".
Lots of people, still, grade
him on the curve. And that's including a fair number that aren't
die-hard partisans... but would rather have an exciting horse race to
write about this November.
But other than that, I agree with you. He's an imbecile, and isn't
going to stop being an imbecile over this. But lots of people will offer
up the tiniest shreds to argue otherwise.
Don't feel bad. That's where I was when he declared we were
leaving Syria the first time (when nothing happened). I thought
"Well if he carries this out he has a chance of doing something
good."
By the other time he said we were leaving Syria (when we
did....not and decided to let a wast start and steal oil fields) I
was done. Now I don't even trust the afgan deal to work out.
The raw mess up speech is a new low. He's normally good at
reading a script.
Correct me if I am wrong, but we can still travel to South Korea, etc. all we want?
Also, I know that Trump owns numerous properties in the UK, but how does that stack
up to Ireland (also, IIRC, not subject to the ban) and the rest of Europe? Does that
explain anything, or is it just a way of supporting his fellow imbecile BoJo?
Good thing that the UK doesn't get any foreign travelers.
Boris Johnson's government, to his credit, appears to be handling the crisis
well, or at least competently. While there is much that BoJo and Trump have in
common, there is also much they do not.
Neither leader is stupid. One is simply unprincipled and the other
suffers from a profound personality disorder. One can rise to the
crisis when it's in his interest to do so and the other thinks the
crisis is a plot to make him look bad.
i think you should recheck your sources on that topic and widen the
search to other sources too.
The brit bobs i have spoken with say the response there is a joke..
I will not bet my life on this tho, bc i am in Norway..
The response here have been slow but it seems to get better, no mass
testing yet so we dont know the real number of sick at all yet..
"The U.S. has the lowest per capita testing of any country."
Trump spent the first
years of his presidency doing favors for Wall Street, Israel, and Saudi Arabia
instead of focusing on the America First promises that got him elected. The
trillions he wasted on advancing foreign interests was badly needed to rebuild
American infrastructure, including America's disease testing capacity.
This is the problem and it has always been the problem with an uncurious President
who doesn't read and who works off hunches and believes he's a "stable genius". He
can't even be bothered to understand the contours of his own policies. After all,
it's just a game show.
Fair enough, we Americans may be stumbling along somewhat unsteadily into
unchartered territory, but the important thing is we're now stumbling in the right
general direction. We'll make it through this, people - most of us at least. All we
can do as we enter into this miasma is our level best as responsible, compassionate
humans, keeping a stiff upper lip and a stoic constitution.
Amor fati
: as
precious as life is, death is always and evermore its close companion.
A travel ban when the disease is here [makes no sense]. When infected citizens can travel
from and TO infected areas:
Where some countires are exempt so infected foreigners can just go to one of
those countries then come here:
Is not the right direction. It would be a half step forward in January. Now it's [like] installing a faulty smoke detector in
the middle of a roaring fire. We screwed up. We are still screwing up. Acting like It's ok and we will be
fine is not helping.
We don't need motivation posters. We don't need panic. We need the public
to realize this is NOT ok and to get these people at the top to realize this
is Not Ok behavior.
THEN, we can buckle down and hope for the best with that poster
All the hallmarks of a Trump operation, offensive, ineffective, poorly thought out
and will be retracted in the end.
The travel ban against China, did help when
China was the only source of the disease, so kudos to Trump. However now the monster
is in the castle so pulling up the drawbridge won't help anymore.
Oh, they have. This is from the email I got from the White House
listserv:
"Some 150,000 illegal immigrants from 72 nations with cases
of the coronavirus have been apprehended or deemed inadmissible from
entering the United States since November," according to officials.
These apprehensions underscore the need for border security and proper
vetting. Read more from Paul Bedard in the Washington Examiner.
It's one of those carefully-constructed sentences that can be
ambiguously parsed.
If you read it as "Some 150,000 illegal
immigrants from (72 nations with cases of the coronavirus) have
been apprehended", it's likely true but unremarkable. Many nations
now have coronovirus cases.
If you read it as "Some 150,000 (illegal immigrants from 72
nations) with cases of the coronavirus have been apprehended", it
would be remarkable if true, but is absolutely false based on what
we currently know.
And the November reference is particularly cheeky.
But the travel ban wasn't against China--meaning anyone there who could have
been exposed--it was against Chinese from anywhere in the country. Americans
and others potentially infected were free to enter the US from impacted areas
with no restrictions--quarantines, etc.
Just like the current ban against
Europe. US citizens/permanent residents are free to travel to/from without
restriction. We're only banning nationals from European countries. And there's
going to be a massive influx of those eligible returning from Europe in the
next couple of days--do you think any of them might, just might, be bring
Covid 19 back along with themselves?
Health care under uber-capitalism. We seem to have all the money in the world to
throw at military toys, but very little for the health of the nation. If Americans
keep voting for these priorities, the inevitable consequences will prevail. The US
may be just a bad social experiment.
As others have stated, no mention of paid sick leave which would go a long way
towards encouraging infected people to self-quarantine rather than go to work and
keep spreading the virus.
On an even more dire topic, a U.S. General is blaming
Iran for a rocket attack in Iraq that killed two U.S. serviceman. This is Trump's
'red line', if everyone does what they have publicly stated then Trump just gave
ISIS the golden key to force us into a war with Iran.
The US House has a bill to offer paid leave among other measures.
Republicans have said it goes beyond the scope of what's needed.
The Senate has said that they aren't reviewing anything until after the
week long break they are about to have.
True market insiders easily make just as much money in a downward
moving market as in an upward moving market. As long as it is
moving
, that is all that matters. That means that people are
buying and selling, and Wall Street is profiting from every
transaction. The people being hurt the most by the market losses
are the middle class folks whose 401k's are losing value.
Trump is much better at doing stuff for Israel and Saudi Arabia. He always has
plenty of time, money, and focus for doing what they want him to do. If he spent as
much time controlling our borders and defending the lives, health, and economic
well-being of Americans as he does on fighting wars for Israel and Saudi Arabia,
we'd be better prepared for this virus.
Looks like DNC run a pretty sophisticated smear campaign against Sanders ...
Notable quotes:
"... It really isn't about who the candidates are – hurtful as that may sound to some in our identity-saturated times. It is about what the candidate might try to do once in office. In truth, the very fact that nowadays we are allowed to focus on identity to our heart's content should be warning enough that the establishment is only too keen for us to exhaust our energies in promoting divisions based on those identities ..."
"... The Republican and Democratic leaderships are there to ensure that, before a candidate gets selected to compete in the parties' name, he or she has proven they are power-friendly. Two candidates, each vetted for obedience to power. ..."
The Democratic presidential nomination race is a fascinating case study in how power works
– not least, because the Democratic party leaders are visibly contriving to impose one
candidate, Joe Biden, as the party's nominee, even as it becomes clear that he is no longer
mentally equipped to run a local table tennis club let alone the world's most powerful
nation.
Biden's campaign is a reminder that power is indivisible. Donald Trump or Joe Biden for
president – it doesn't matter to the power-establishment. An egomaniacal man-child
(Trump), representing the billionaires, or an elder suffering rapid neurological degeneration
(Biden), representing the billionaires, are equally useful to power. A woman will do too, or a
person of colour. The establishment is no longer worried about who stands on stage
– so long as that person is not a Bernie Sanders in the US, or a Jeremy Corbyn in the
UK.
It really isn't about who the candidates are – hurtful as that may sound to some in
our identity-saturated times. It is about what the candidate might try to do once in office. In
truth, the very fact that nowadays we are allowed to focus on identity to our heart's content
should be warning enough that the establishment is only too keen for us to exhaust our energies
in promoting divisions based on those identities. What concerns it far more is that we might
overcome those divisions and unify against it, withdrawing our consent from an establishment
committed to endless asset-stripping of our societies and the planet.
Neither Biden nor Trump will obstruct the establishment, because they are at its very heart.
The Republican and Democratic leaderships are there to ensure that, before a candidate gets
selected to compete in the parties' name, he or she has proven they are power-friendly. Two
candidates, each vetted for obedience to power.
Although a pretty face or a way with words are desirable, incapacity and incompetence are no
barrier to qualifying, as the two white men groomed by their respective parties demonstrate.
Both have proved they will favour the establishment, both will pursue near-enough the
same policies , both are committed to the status quo, both have demonstrated their
indifference to the future of life on Earth. What separates the candidates is not real
substance, but presentation styles – the creation of the appearance of difference, of
choice.
Policing the debate
The subtle dynamics of how the Democratic nomination race is being rigged are interesting.
Especially revealing are the ways the Democratic leadership protects establishment power by
policing the terms of debate: what can be said, and what can be thought; who gets to speak and
whose voices are misrepresented or demonised. Manipulation of language is key.
As I pointed out in my previous post , the
establishment's power derives from its invisibility. Scrutiny is kryptonite to
power.
The only way we can interrogate power is through language, and the only way we can
communicate our conclusions to others is through words – as I am doing right now. And
therefore our strength – our ability to awaken ourselves from the trance of power –
must be subverted by the establishment, transformed into our Achilles' heel, a weakness.
The treatment of Bernie Sanders and his supporters by the Democratic establishment –
and those who eagerly repeat its talking points – neatly illustrates how this can be done
in manifold ways.
Remember this all started back in 2016, when Sanders committed the unforgivable sin of
challenging the Democratic leadership's right simply to anoint Hillary Clinton as the party's
presidential candidate. In those days, the fault line was obvious and neat: Bernie was a man,
Clinton a woman. She would be the first woman president. The only party members who might wish
to deny her that historic moment, and back Sanders instead, had to be misogynist men. They were
supposedly venting their anti-women grudge against Clinton, who in turn was presented to women
as a symbol of their oppression by men.
And so was born a meme: the "Bernie Bros". It rapidly became shorthand for suggesting
– contrary to all evidence
– that Sanders' candidacy appealed chiefly to angry, entitled white men. In fact, as
Sanders' 2020 run has amply demonstrated, support for him has been more diverse than for the
many other Democratic candidates who sought the nomination.
So important what @ewarren is saying to @maddow about the
dangerous, threatening, ugly faction among the Bernie supporters. Sanders either cannot or
will not control them. pic.twitter.com/LYDXlLJ7bi
How contrived the 2016 identity-fuelled contest was should have been clear, had anyone been
allowed to point that fact out. This wasn't really about the Democratic leadership respecting
Clinton's identity as a woman. It was about them paying lip service to her identity as a
woman, while actually promoting her because she was a reliable warmonger
and
Wall Street functionary . She was useful to power.
If the debate had really been driven by identity politics, Sanders had a winning card too:
he is Jewish. That meant he could be the United States' first Jewish president. In a fair
identity fight, it would have been a draw between the two. The decision about who should
represent the Democratic party would then have had to be decided based on policies, not
identity. But party leaders did not want Clinton's actual policies, or her political history,
being put under the microscope for very obvious reasons.
Weaponisation of identity
The weaponisation of identity politics is even more transparent in 2020. Sanders is still
Jewish, but his main opponent, Joe Biden, really is simply a privileged white man. Were the
Clinton format to be followed again by Democratic officials, Sanders would enjoy an identity
politics trump card. And yet Sanders is still being presented as just another white male
candidate , no different from Biden.
(We could take this argument even further and note that the other candidate who no one,
least of all the Democratic leadership, ever mentions as still in the race is Tulsi
Gabbard, a woman of colour. The Democratic party has worked hard to make her as
invisible as possible in the primaries because, of all the candidates, she is the most
vocal and articulate opponent of foreign wars. That has deprived her of the chance to raise
funds and win delegates.)
. @DanaPerino I'm not quite sure why
you're telling FOX viewers that Elizabeth Warren is the last female candidate in the Dem
primary. Is it because you believe a fake indigenous woman of color is "real" and the real
indigenous woman of color in this race is fake? pic.twitter.com/VKCxy2JzFe
Sanders' Jewish identity isn't celebrated because he isn't useful to the
power-establishment. What's far more important to them – and should be to us too –
are his policies, which might limit their power to wage war, exploit workers and trash the
planet.
But it is not just that Democratic Party leaders are ignoring Sanders' Jewish identity. They
are also again actively using identity politics against him, and in many different
ways.
The 'black' establishment?
Bernie Sanders' supporters have been complaining for some time – based on mounting
evidence – that the Democratic leadership is far from neutral between Sanders and Biden.
Because it has a vested interest in the outcome, and because it is the part of the
power-establishment, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is exercising its influence in
favour of Biden. And because power prefers darkness, the DNC is doing its best to exercise that
power behind the scenes, out of sight – at least, unseen by those who still rely on the
"mainstream" corporate media, which is also part of the power-establishment. As should be clear
to anyone watching, the nomination proceedings are being controlled to give Biden every
advantage and to obstruct Sanders.
But the Democratic leadership is not only dismissing out of hand these very justified
complaints from Bernie Sanders' supporters but also turning these complaints against them, as
further evidence of their – and his – illegitimacy. A new way of doing this emerged
in the immediate wake of Biden winning South Carolina on the back of strong support from older
black voters – Biden's first state win and a launchpad for his Super Tuesday bid a few
days later.
It was given perfect expression from Symone Sanders, who despite her surname is actually a
senior adviser to Biden's campaign. She is also black. This is what she wrote: "People who keep
referring to Black voters as 'the establishment' are tone deaf and have obviously learned
nothing."
People who keep referring to Black voters as "the establishment" are tone deaf and have
obviously learned nothing.
-- Symone D. Sanders (@SymoneDSanders) March 3,
2020
Her reference to generic "people" was understood precisely by both sides of the debate as
code for those "Bernie Bros". Now, it seems, Bernie Sanders' supporters are not simply
misogynists, they are potential recruits to the Ku Klux Klan.
The tweet went viral, even though in the fiercely contested back-and-forth below her tweet
no one could produce a single example of anyone actually saying anything like the sentiment
ascribed by Symone Sanders to "Bernie Bros". But then, tackling bigotry was not her real goal.
This wasn't meant to be a reflection on a real-world talking-point by Bernie supporters. It was
high-level gaslighting by a senior Democratic party official of the party's own voters.
Survival of the fittest smear
What Symone Sanders was really trying to do was conceal power – the fact that the DNC
is seeking to impose its chosen candidate on party members. As occurred during the confected
women-men, Clinton vs "Bernie Bros" confrontation, Symone Sanders was field-testing a similar
narrative management tool as part of the establishment's efforts to hone it for improved
effect. The establishment has learnt – through a kind of survival of the fittest smear
– that divide-and-rule identity politics is the perfect way to shield its influence as it
favours a status-quo candidate (Biden or Clinton) over a candidate seen as a threat to its
power (Sanders).
In her tweet, Symone Sanders showed exactly how the power elite seeks to obscure its toxic
role in our societies. She neatly conflated "the establishment" – of which she is a very
small, but well-paid component – with ordinary "black voters". Her message is this:
should you try to criticise the establishment (which has inordinate power to damage lives and
destroy the planet) we will demonise you, making it seem that you are really attacking black
people (who in the vast majority of cases – though Symone Sanders is a notable exception
– wield no power at all).
Symone Sanders has recruited her own blackness and South Carolina's "black voters" as a ring
of steel to protect the establishment. Cynically, she has turned poor black people, as well as
the tens of thousands of people (presumably black and white) who liked her tweet, into human
shields for the establishment.
It sounds a lot uglier put like that. But it has rapidly become a Biden talking-point, as we
can see here:
NEW: @JoeBiden responds to @berniesanders
saying the "establishment" is trying to defeat him.
"The establishment are all those hardworking, middle class people, those African Americans
they are the establishment!" @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/43Q2Nci5sS
The DNC's wider strategy is to confer on Biden exclusive rights to speak for black voters
(despite his
inglorious record on
civil rights issues) and, further, to strip Sanders and his senior black advisers of any
right to do so. When Sanders protests about this, or about racist behaviour from the Biden
camp, Biden's supporters come out in force and often abusively, though of course no one is
upbraiding them for their ugly, violent language. Here is the famous former tennis player
Martina Navratilova showing that maybe we should be talking about "Biden Bros":
Sanders is starting to really piss me off. Just shut this kind of crap down and debate the
issues. This is not it.
This kind of special pleading by the establishment for the establishment –
using those sections of it, such as Symone Sanders, that can tap into the identity politics
zeitgeist – is far more common than you might imagine. The approach is being
constantly refined, often using social media as the ultimate focus group. Symone Sanders'
successful conflation of the establishment with "black voters" follows earlier, clumsier
efforts by the establishment to protect its interests against Sanders that proved far less
effective.
Remember how last autumn the billionaire-owned corporate media tried to tell us that it was
unkind to
criticise billionaires – that they had feelings too and that speaking harshly about
them was "dehumanising". Again it was aimed at Sanders, who had just commented that in a
properly ordered world billionaires simply wouldn't exist. It was an obvious point: allowing a
handful of people to control almost all the planet's wealth was not only depriving the rest of
us of that wealth (and harming the planet) but it gave those few billionaires way too much
power. They could buy all the media, our channels of communication, and most of the politicians
to ringfence their financial interests, gradually eroding even the most minimal democratic
protections.
That campaign died a quick death because few of us are actually brainwashed enough to accept
the idea that a handful of billionaires share an identity that needs protecting – from
us! Most of us are still connected enough to the real world to understand that billionaires are
more than capable of looking out for their own interests, without our helping them by imposing
on ourselves a vow of silence.
But one cannot fault the power-establishment for being constantly inventive in the search
for new ways to stifle our criticisms of the way it unilaterally exercises its power. The
Democratic nomination race is testing such ingenuity to the limits. Here's a new rule against
"hateful conduct" on Twitter, where Biden's neurological deficit is being subjected to much
critical scrutiny through the sharing of dozens of
videos of embarrassing Biden "senior moments".
Twitter expanding its hateful conduct rules "to include language that dehumanizes on the
basis of age, disability or disease." https://t.co/KmWGaNAG9Z
Yes, disability and age are identities too. And so, on the pretext of protecting and
respecting those identities, social media can now be scrubbed of anything and anyone trying to
highlight the mental deficiencies of an old man who might soon be given the nuclear codes and
would be responsible for waging wars in the name of Americans. Twitter is full of comments
denouncing as "ableist" anyone who tries to highlight how the Democratic leadership is foisting
a cognitively challenged Biden on to the party.
Maybe the Dem insiders are all wrong, but it's true that they are saying it. Some are
saying it out loud, including Castro at the debate and Booker here: https://t.co/0lbi7RFRqG
None of this is to overlook the fact that another variation of identity politics has been
weaponised against Sanders: that of failing to be an "American" patriot. Again illustrating how
closely the Democratic and Republican leaderships' interests align, the question of who is a
patriot – and who is really working for the "Russians" – has been at the heart of
both parties' campaigns, though for different reasons.
Trump has been subjected to endless, evidence-free claims that he is a secret "Russian
agent" in a concerted effort to control his original isolationist foreign policy impulses that
might have stripped the establishment – and its military-industrial wing – of the
right to wage wars of aggression, and revive the Cold War, wherever it believes a profit can be
made under cover of "humanitarian intervention". Trump partly inoculated himself against these
criticisms, at least among supporters, with his "Make America Great Again" slogan, and partly
by learning – painfully for such an egotist – that his presidential role was to
rubber-stamp decisions made elsewhere about waging wars and projecting US power.
I'm just amazed by this tweet, which has been tweeted plenty. Did @_nalexander and all the people
liking this not know that Mueller laid out in the indictments of a number of Russians and in
his report their help on social media to Sanders and Trump. Help Sanders has acknowledged
https://t.co/vuc0lmvvKP
Bernie Sanders has faced similar smear
efforts by the establishment, including by the DNC's last failed presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton – in his case, painting him as a "Russian asset". ("Asset" is a way to
suggest collusion with the Kremlin based on even more flimsy evidence than is needed to accuse
someone of being an agent.) In fact, in a world where identity politics wasn't simply a tool to
be weaponised by the establishment, there would be real trepidation about engaging in this kind
of invective against a Jewish socialist.
One of the far-right's favourite antisemitic tropes – promoted ever since the
publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion more than 100 years ago – is that
Jewish "Bolsheviks" are involved in an
international conspiracy to subvert the countries they live in. We have reached the point
now that the corporate media are happy to recycle evidence-free claims,
cited by the Washington Post, from anonymous "US officials" and US intelligence agencies
reinventing a US version of the Protocols against Sanders. And these smears have elicited not a
word of criticism from the Democratic leadership nor from the usual antisemitism watchdogs that
are so ready to let rip over the slightest signs of what they claim to be antisemitism on the
left.
But the urgency of dealing with Sanders may be the reason normal conventions have been
discarded. Sanders isn't a loud-mouth egotist like Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for the
establishment, if for one of its number who pretends to be against the establishment. Trump has
been largely tamed in time for a second term. By contrast, Sanders, like Corbyn in the UK, is
more dangerous because he may resist the efforts to domesticate him, and because if he is
allowed any significant measure of political success – such as becoming a candidate for
president – it may inspire others to follow in his footsteps. The system might start to
throw up more anomalies, more AOCs and more Ilhan Omars.
So Sanders is now being cast, like Trump, as a puppet of the Kremlin, not a true American.
And because he made the serious mistake of indulging the "Russiagate" smears when they were
used against Trump, Sanders now has little defence against their redeployment against him. And
given that, by the impoverished standards of US political culture, he is considered an extreme
leftist, it has been easy to conflate his democratic socialism with Communism, and then
conflate his supposed Communism with acting on behalf of the Kremlin (which, of course, ignores
the fact that Russia long ago abandoned Communism).
Sen. Bernie Sanders: "Let me tell this to Putin -- the American people, whether
Republicans, Democrats, independents are sick and tired of seeing Russia and other countries
interfering in our elections." pic.twitter.com/ejcP7YVFlt
There is a final use of weaponised identity politics that the Democratic establishment would
dearly love to use against Sanders, if they need to and can get away with it. It is the most
toxic brand – and therefore the most effective – of the identity-based smears, and
it has been extensively field-tested in the
UK against Jeremy Corbyn to great success. The DNC would like to denounce Sanders as an
antisemite.
In fact, only one thing has held them back till now: the fact that Sanders is Jewish. That
may not prove an insuperable obstacle, but it does make it much harder to make the accusation
look credible. The other identity-based smears had been a second-best, a make-do until a way
could be found to unleash the antisemitism smear.
The establishment has been
testing the waters with implied accusations of antisemitism against Sanders for a while,
but their chances were given a fillip recently when Sanders refused to participate in the
annual jamboree of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent lobby group
whose primary mission is to ringfence Israel from criticism in the US. Both the Republican and
Democratic establishments turn out in force to the AIPAC conference, and in the past the event
has attracted keynote speeches from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
But Sanders has refused to attend for decades and maintained that stance this month, even
though he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination. In the last primaries debate, Sanders
justified his decision by rightly
calling Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "racist" and by describing AIPAC as
providing a platform "for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights".
Trump's Vice-President, Mike Pence,
responded that Sanders supported "Israel's enemies" and, if elected, would be the "most
anti-Israel president in the history of this nation" – all coded suggestions that Sanders
is antisemitic.
But that's Mike Pence. More useful criticism came from billionaire Mike Bloomberg, who is
himself Jewish and was until last week posing as a Democrat to try to win the party's
nomination. Bloomberg accused Sanders of using dehumanising language against a bunch of
inclusive identities that, he improbably suggested, AIPAC represents. He
claimed :
"This is a gathering of 20,000 Israel supporters of every religious denomination,
ethnicity, faith, color, sexual identity and political party. Calling it a racist platform is
an attempt to discredit those voices, intimidate people from coming here, and weaken the
US-Israel relationship."
Where might this head? At the AIPAC conference last week we were given a foretaste. Ephraim
Mirvis, the chief rabbi of the UK and a friend to
Conservative government leader Boris Johnson, was warmly greeted by delegates, including
leading members of the Democratic establishment. He boasted that he and other Jewish leaders in
the UK had managed to damage Jeremy Corbyn's electoral chances by suggesting that he was an
antisemite over his support, like Sanders, for Palestinian rights.
His own treatment of Corbyn, he argued, offered a model for US Jewish organisations to
replicate against any leadership contender who might pose similar trouble for Israel, leaving
it for his audience to pick up the not-so-subtle hint about who needed to be subjected to
character assassination.
WATCH: "Today I issue a call to the Jews of America, please take a leaf out of our book
and please speak with one voice."
The Chief Rabbi speaking to the 18,000 delegates gathered at the @AIPAC General Session at their Policy
Conference in Washington DC pic.twitter.com/BOkan9RA2O
For anyone who isn't wilfully blind, the last few months have exposed the establishment
playbook: it will use identity politics to divide those who might otherwise find a united voice
and a common cause.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating one's identity, especially if it is under threat,
maligned or marginalised. But having an attachment to an identity is no excuse for allowing it
to be coopted by billionaires, by the powerful, by nuclear-armed states oppressing other
people, by political parties or by the corporate media, so that they can weaponise it to
prevent the weak, the poor, the marginalised from being represented.
It is time for us to wake up to the tricks, the deceptions, the manipulations of the strong
that exploit our weaknesses – and make us yet weaker still. It's time to stop being a
patsy for the establishment. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jonathan Cook
The obvious point here is that a man who cannot be trusted to open his mouth in public
certainly cannot be trusted to win any debate, especially against the veritable rhetorical
cannon monster known as Donald Trump, who is every bit as formidable in person as he is over
Twitter.
Of course, the Democrats fully understand this, and this is where it seems absolutely safe
to wade waist-deep into the grass of speculation.
... ... ...
As things now stand with the Democratic Party, Joe Biden's victory on Super Tuesday II does
not translate into a Democratic victory in November. In fact, unless Biden can get a grip on
his tongue before then, it almost guarantees defeat. He will fall the wayside like so many
presidential pretenders before him – the Buttigiegs, Bloombergs and Klobuchars –
while some brand new contender will be unveiled, while inheriting all of those accumulated
voters.
"... Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. ..."
Now that the Michigan Democratic primary is over and Joe Biden has been
declared the
winner , it's time to read the handwriting on the political wall: Biden will be the
Democratic nominee for president, and Bernie Sanders will be the runner-up once again come the
party's convention in July. Sanders might influence the party's platform, but platforms are
never binding for the nominee. Sanders has lost, and so have his many progressive supporters,
myself included.
I am nothing if not a realist. The idea that Sanders might have become the Democratic
candidate was always a fantasy, not unlike my youthful dreams of one day becoming an NFL
quarterback. Even after Sanders' triumph in the Nevada caucuses, I never thought the party
establishment would ever allow a socialist -- even a mild social democratic one, such as
Sanders -- to head its ticket.
Funded by wealthy donors, run by Beltway insiders and aided and abetted by a corporate media
dedicated to promoting the notion that Sanders was "
unelectable ," the Democratic Party never welcomed Sanders as a legitimate contender. Not
in 2016 and not in 2020. In several instances, it even resorted to some good old-fashioned
red-baiting
to frighten voters; the party is, after all, a capitalist institution. Working and middle-class
families support the Democrats largely because they have no other place to go on Election Day
besides the completely corrupt and craven GOP.
Now we are left with Donald Trump and Biden to duke it out in the fall. Yes, it has come to
that.
In terms of campaign rhetoric and party policies, the general election campaign will be a
battle for America's past far more than it will be a contest for its future. The battle will be
fueled on both sides by narratives and visions that are illusory, regressive and, in important
respects, downright dangerous.
Of the two campaigns, Trump's will be decidedly more toxic. The "Make America Great Again"
slogan that propelled Trump to victory in 2016 and the "Keep America Great" slogan he will try
to sell this time around are neo-fascist in nature, designed to invoke an imaginary and false
state of mythical past national glory that ignores our deeply entrenched history of patriarchal
white supremacy and brutal class domination.
The fascist designation is not a label I apply to Trump cavalierly. I use it, as I have
before in this
column , because Trump meets many of the standard and widely respected definitions of the
term.
As the celebrated Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht wrote in 1935 , fascism
"is a historic phase of capitalism the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive and most
treacherous form of capitalism." Trumpism, along with its international analogs in Brazil,
India and Western Europe, neatly accords with Brecht's theory.
Trumpism similarly meets the definition of fascism offered by Robert Paxton in his classic
2004 study, "
The Anatomy of Fascism ":
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing
and external expansion.
Trump and Trumpism similarly embody the 14 common factors of fascism identified by the great
writer Umberto Eco in his 1995 essay, Ur Fascism :
A cult of traditionalism.
The rejection of modernism.
A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
The view that disagreement or opposition is treasonous.
A fear of difference. Fascism is racist by definition.
An appeal to a frustrated middle class that is suffering from an economic crisis of
humiliation and fear of the pressure exerted by lower social groups.
An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement's identified enemies.
A requirement that the movement's enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak,
conniving and cowardly.
A rejection of pacifism.
Contempt for weakness.
A cult of heroism.
Hypermasculinity and homophobia.
A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of "the people" that the movement
claims to represent.
Heavy usage of "newspeak" and an impoverished discourse of elementary syntax and
resistance to complex and critical reasoning.
Joe Biden is not a fascist. He is, instead, a standard-bearer of neoliberalism. As with
fascism, there are different definitions of neoliberalism, prompting some exceptionally smug
mainstream commentators like New York Magazine's
Jonathan Chait to claim that the concept is little more than a left-wing insult. In truth,
however, the concept describes an all-too-real set of governing principles.
To grasp what neoliberalism means, it's necessary to understand that it does not refer to a
revival of the liberalism of the New Deal and New Society programs of the 1930s and 1960s. That
brand of liberalism advocated the active intervention of the federal government in the economy
to mitigate the harshest effects of private enterprise through such programs as Social
Security, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Medicare, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. That brand of liberalism imposed high taxes on the wealthy and
significantly mitigated income inequality in America.
Neoliberalism
, by contrast, deemphasizes federal economic intervention in favor of initiatives calling for
deregulation, corporate tax cuts, private-public partnerships, and international trade
agreements that augment the free flow of capital while undermining the power and influence of
trade unions.
Until the arrival of Trump and his brand of neo-fascism, both major parties since Reagan had
embraced this ideology. And while neoliberals remain more benign on issues of race and gender
than Trump and Trumpism ever will be, neoliberalism offers little to challenge hierarchies
based on social class. Indeed, income inequality accelerated during the
Obama years and today rivals that of the Gilded Age .
As transformational a politician as Barack Obama was in terms of race, he too pursued a
predominantly neoliberal agenda. The Affordable Care Act, Obama's singular domestic legislative
achievement, is a perfect example of neoliberal private-public collaboration that left intact a
health industry dominated by for-profit drug manufacturers and rapacious insurance companies,
rather than setting the stage for Medicare for All, as championed by Sanders.
Biden never tires of reminding any audience willing to put up with his gaffes, verbal ticks
and miscues that he served as Obama's vice president. Those ties are likely to remain the
centerpiece of his campaign, as he promises a return to the civility of the Obama era and a
restoration of America's standing in the world.
History, however, only moves forward. As charming and comforting as Biden's imagery of the
past may be, it is, like Trump's darker outlook, a mirage. If Trump has taught us anything
worthwhile, it is that the past cannot be replicated, no matter how much we might wish
otherwise.
"... One almost feels sorry for Bernie Sanders, who, even at this late stage, still seems to believe that he can drag Joe Biden to the 'left' and secure something/anything? for all those millions of ordinary Americans who supported Bernie's dream of a more just and equal America. ..."
"... Poor Bernie and poor ordinary Americans. It ain't gonna work. Bernie knows that the Demorcratic party has chosen Biden, not him and his political dream is over, once again. ..."
"... With Joe having these " miraculous " wins in the primaries yet bringing nothing new to the table I can only conclude we are set for another 4 yrs of Trumpelstiltskin and his money grubbing ways. ..."
"... Tulsi is inspirational. I'm not talking 'politics' but regarding her willingness to speak truth to corruption. ..."
"... The self-evident externalities of 40 years of unfettered neoliberalism (war, lies, injustice, extreme wealth inequality, etc) now seem to be approaching some sort of explosive end-point. ..."
"... These problems are too entrenched for real politicians to sort out, so what we have instead is a form theatre, albeit a third-rate form of theatre with abysmal actors taking on roles that are far too difficult for them: Trump vs Biden would be the apotheosis this morass. ..."
"... As it turned out, the security state's narrative was easy to pull off because Sander is weak, lacks courage, and was never in it to win it. He never fought back against the DNC. ..."
"... He never called out the cheating in Iowa. There were thousands of volunteers that would be willing to protest on his behalf. Timid Bernie just let it go. ..."
"... Instead Bernie, kept saying "Biden is my good friend" or "Biden can beat Trump." WTF, if Biden can beat Trump then why are you running? Are you campaigning for Biden? ..."
"... The final nail was Tulsi's tweet asking for Biden and Bernie's support for her to right to participate in the next debate. Yang and Marianne Williamson tweeted yes of course, but Bernie was silent. On subsequent mainstream media news appearances Bernie totally ignored Tulsi's candidacy. That was it – Bernie is a lackey – completely intimidated by the DNC. ..."
"... "Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a top contender to head up the World Bank. Bloomberg endorsed Biden immediately after dropping out of the 2020 race. ..."
"... Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as Treasury secretary. Warren dropped out of the race last week after disappointing losses on Super Tuesday but hasn't yet made an endorsement. Axios reported that Warren's name had been floated as part of an effort to unite the fractured Democratic Party around Biden. Some of Biden's advisers have also suggested Warren as a vice-presidential candidate for that reason. ..."
"... Seems Bernie has reprised his role as sheep dog. Probably the reason the Orwellian DNC unpersoned Tulsi is that she probably refused to play. ..."
"... Hundreds of thousands of ballots in California and Texas were discarded. Warren purposely stayed in the race to screw Bernie in Minnesota and Massachusetts, while Klobuchar and Buttigeg dropped out to prop-up Biden. ..."
"... And as I mentioned, Bernie is his own worst enemy, or as I also speculated he was never in it to win it. ..."
"... Blackmail ? The Clinton campaign exercising leverage over Sanders during the election – Podesta/wikileaks emails. 'This isn't in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good to flag this for him'. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397 ..."
"... Unfortunately. Trump may end up botching the corona crisis and lose, but whoever wins it's going to be four more years of everything getting worse. ..."
"... Some research on 'possible' fraudulent hidden computer counting from first super Tuesday. http://tdmsresearch.com/ ..."
The handful of American citizens who have by some miracle escaped the wave of death caused
by the coronavirus will be braving the toilet-paper maddened crowds to vote in the latest round
of Democratic primaries today.
There's several more rounds of voting before the convention in July, but this is the last
before the next debate on March 15th.
The process is kinda moot at this point.
The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe
Biden.
Since his "miraculous"
wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy
that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite
behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian .
Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that
Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis.
You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance.
None of the mainstream media have questioned the validity of results or the fairness of the
electoral process, although given the DNC's history you'd be forgiven for doing so.
After Biden's win, Trump immediately went on the offensive (so to speak), questioning
Biden's
mental acuity . This is likely just a taste of things to come.
Given this, you have to wonder what the point of the exercise is. Biden will likely be
mauled by Trump, so are the Democrats even trying to win? Is the plan for Biden to have "health
problems" before the convention, forcing the DNC to pick its own candidate? Or is the plan to
have him run, win and then get Ned Starked by his vice-president whoever he or (more likely)
she may be?
Whatever the plan turns out to be, progressives and leftists all over America will likely be
disappointed in Bernie. If last time is anything to go by, no matter how obviously he (and more
importantly his voters) get screwed over, Sanders will just let it happen.
It seems like Bernie is a serial offender here. Setting up hope only to fold faster than
Superman on laundry day when the pressure is on. You wonder if he's being used as a tool to
engage the youth vote, or just a puppet designed to funnel all real leftist thinkers into a
political cul-de-sac.
The other Great White Hope of American leftists – or should that be "Great Native
American hope"? – Elizabeth Warren, dropped out last week but is yet to endorse her
fellow "progressive", Bernie Sanders. This could mean she's spiteful, or it could mean she's
angling to be Biden's VP nominee. Either way, no real surprise and no real loss. Warren always
talked a better game than she played and she didn't talk all that well.
Oh, and the DNC changed their debate eligibility rules to exclude
Tulsi Gabbard . Something both the other candidates and the vast majority of the mainstream
media have been quiet about.
Questions arise
Are the democrats really rallying behind Joe Biden? why?! Are they
planning to throw the race? Is Joe Biden going senile? Who will each candidate pick as a
running mate? Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
NOBTS ,
If Bernie is real; ie. not sheep-dogging for Hillary again, he can prove it by dropping out
immediately and throwing his delegates to Tulsi so she can debate Joe Biden on Sunday; then
watch the fur fly. .last chance for the left.
Seriously, the only positive play left for Bernie, (if positive change is his intent )would
be to immediately drop out and throw a "Hail Tulsi Pass" downfield ahead of the Sunday
debate.
michaelk ,
One would imagine that Tulsi Gabbard would tick all the liberal/left boxes and virtues the
Guardian pretends to adore and aspire to. She seems almost too perfect in my eyes another
story perhaps? Anyway, one wonders what all those politically correct and so obvioulsy woke
feminist ladies at the Guardian have against Tulsi? The Guardian seems to have decided that
its future lies overseas, in America, which is very odd for a newspaper/platform based in the
UK? Consequently, they are increasingly obsessed with moving closer and closer to the
Democrat party in the US.
This is like the BBC that keeps talking to Americans about absolutely everything of
importance that happens in the world and seeking their insights and opinions to a truly
remarkably degree, considering how little they know and understand about the rest of the
world and how poor they are at foreign languages and historical knowledge. Christ they know
next to nothing about their own history, let alone the rest of the world! The idea that all
these Americans are authorities on the world is ridiculous.
Harry Stotle ,
The ghosting of Gabbard illustrates how the MSM act in concert, and how they look after their
own, i.e. backing those understand their role as puppets for corporate backers.
It also illustrates how the likes of the Guardian turn identity politics off and on like a
tap, but more importantly how even shibboleths like identity politics are still secondary to
an economic model that has placed us on the road to armegeddon.
Maxine ,
Well, Tulsi is FAR from "too perfect" .She voluntarily took part in the Bush/Cheny invasion
of Iraq .How could anybody with a working mind have believed the lies of these nortorious
criminals? .And what sort of judgement did this show? .Just as bad, she is a big fan of
India's monstrous Right-Wing leader, Modi .Nevertheless, the DNC's throwing her out of the
debate is another hideous sign of its corruption .Like her or not, she should have her
opinions heard by the public.
Maxine ,
Don't get me wrong, I find the Gaurdian as despicable as CNN, MSNBC, FOX, the NYT and the
rest of the American MSM .OffG is a god-send.
Admin2 ,
Thanks Maxine!
michaelk ,
One almost feels sorry for Bernie Sanders, who, even at this late stage, still seems to
believe that he can drag Joe Biden to the 'left' and secure something/anything? for all those
millions of ordinary Americans who supported Bernie's dream of a more just and equal America.
Poor Bernie and poor ordinary Americans. It ain't gonna work. Bernie knows that the
Demorcratic party has chosen Biden, not him and his political dream is over, once again.
Now it's all about stopping the 'monster' Trump first and foremost. The coming election
won't actually be about anything of real substance, nothing like Bernie's political ideas
about healthcare and education; but it'll be a crass referendum about Trump's personality.
Biden, of course, doesn't really have a personality anymore, that's going fast, along with
his mental capacity.
Trump will smash him to pieces and be re-elected again. Four more years,
at least.
Maxine ,
I would have voted for Bernie in 2016 if the DNC hadn't rigged the primary on behalf of
Hillary .But I was overwhelmingly disappointed that he in the end supported her .Sadly, I am
appalled that once again he announced he would support Biden if the latter won the primary
this time. How could he?. Hillary and Biden are diametrically opposed to every one of
Sander's professed principles!
Andy ,
With Joe having these " miraculous " wins in the primaries yet bringing nothing new to the
table I can only conclude we are set for another 4 yrs of Trumpelstiltskin and his money
grubbing ways.
As for Michelle Obama coming into the fight , I can only laugh and carry on
with my life. I fail to see what she has to offer, other than being Barry's wife. Not really
awe – inspiring stuff. Young Hilary must be turning in her coffin at the thought of
being pipped to the post, as the first female President by another ex presidents wife.
We
truly are living in bizarro times. The men behind the curtain must be laughing their
collective arses off at the results of this circus they have created.
Tulsi is inspirational.
I'm not talking 'politics' but regarding her willingness to speak truth to corruption.
harry stotle ,
America dispensed with the idea of democracy some time ago.
The self-evident externalities of 40 years of unfettered neoliberalism (war, lies,
injustice, extreme wealth inequality, etc) now seem to be approaching some sort of explosive
end-point.
There may be a full blown international conflict, rather than asymmetrical power used to
intimidate weaker states (led by the USA, and backed to the hilt by Britain, Israel, and
KSA).
These problems are too entrenched for real politicians to sort out, so what we have
instead is a form theatre, albeit a third-rate form of theatre with abysmal actors taking on
roles that are far too difficult for them: Trump vs Biden would be the apotheosis this
morass.
Pity more citizens in America fail to understand what has been done to them, or what this
corrupt regime has inflicted on rest of the world.
Britain is no better – to expose what is happening we need a functioning MSM but what
we have instead is the Guardian and BBC: platforms that are now infamous for churning out low
calibre, or fake news.
Is the plan for Biden to have "health problems" before the convention, forcing the DNC
to pick its own candidate?
That's my theory. I think they're going to suddenly 'discover' that Joltin' Joe has
'health problems' and then roll out their real candidate on the second ballot at the
convention this summer–probably Michelle Obama.
Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
I think our only hope now is that the Corona Virus kills all other politicians in the US,
leaving only Tulsi alive. Of course, the DNC would probably still find some way to deny her
the nomination somehow
michaelk ,
The DNC's election tactics were superb. Corrupt, rotten, foul and manipulative as well, but
they worked. The swathe of candidates at the start gave the impression of a democratic and
fair race, whilst deflecting people away from the stark choice of supporting Biden or Sanders
from the beginning.
Whilst Trump succeeded by first capturing the Republican party and then going on to win
the presidential election; Sanders chose not to follow that strategy, apparently believing,
though it's an extraordinary thing to believe, that the leadership of the party was going to
allow him to win the nomination 'fairly.'
Biden against Trump is going to be the worst, most grotesque, election contest, ever seen
in the United States. Two totally unworthy candidates battling it out over the rotting corpse
of a dying democracy. Probably the best result would be if most people just stayed at home on
election day and boycotted the entire ghastly event.
wardropper ,
Yes. People should just stay home. But of course there is a regular percentage of observers
who are incensed by the idea that people will realize how little effect their vote truly
has.
"It's treason not to vote", they rage, quite oblivious to the really treasonous system
which manipulates votes according to something quite different from the interests of
democracy.
wardropper ,
It would be interesting to see, (although it's not going to happen) how the media, faced with
an absolute zero voting turnout, would still manage to yap on about a "neck and neck race",
with the most corrupt party emerging the clear winner after all
Gary Weglarz ,
The Democratic Party candidate selection process continues to roll along providing all the
tension and suspense of an impending colonoscopy – sans anesthetic. It has been clear
since 25 (yes 25) Democratic Party challengers have already "dropped out" of the race –
that divide and conquer would be the order of the day. Spread the electorate out among a
ridiculous number of mainstream centrist candidates and then throw all that support to one
candidate – Joe Biden. Why would the party establishment choose Biden? Perhaps the
following recent quote from Joe might shed some light. In trying to reference the Declaration
of Independence Biden had the following to say to a crowd at a campaign rally:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men and women created by -- you know, you
know . . . the thing."
Since we all know "the thing" is said to "work in mysterious ways" – one can deduce
that the Democratic Party elites are perhaps depending upon "the thing" to work some sort of
a miracle for them. At any rate it is all rather "mysterious" indeed.
Since Tulsi Gabbard has had the temerity to not join the 25 brain-dead placeholders and to
"drop out" herself, and since she has further shown the very bad form of continuing to speak
to anyone who will listen about America's illegal amoral regime-change wars – she has
sadly had to be simply – "disappeared." Yes, I know, this term is usually associated
with the death-squad democracies my government supports endlessly and shamelessly in Latin
America, but if nothing else our American MSM have shown that you don't need death squads
when they are on the job. They are quite capable of completely and entirely "disappearing"
anyone sharing a message that has not been – "oligarchy approved." Trying to find
reference to Tulsi in MSM is like trying to get through a day without being brutally reminded
of Joe Biden's blinding dementia problem – pretty much impossible.
As the author suggests the Democratic Party establishment surely must have some plan other
than simply sabotaging Sanders and then throwing a demented Biden to the Orange One to act as
a pinata during the presidential debates. We American's do love "reality TV," but this I fear
would be about as crass and horrific a spectacle as watching someone drown puppies on live
television. Surely we must assume that the DNC and party oligarchy plan to use Biden as yet
another "place-holder" to be replaced between now and fall presidential debates. The name
"Hillary 'the rot' Clinton comes to mind – and suddenly one is reminded that there are
worse things in life than a colonoscopy.
Of course the actual credibility of all of this spectacle to date depends upon one
actually believing that both the polling numbers, and the voting processes, are honest and
ethical and accurate, which seems to me to be about as likely as "you know, you know . . .
the thing," performing some sort of a "miracle" on behalf of the Democratic Party so that it
can valiantly vanquish the Orange One – using of all things – a dementia
sufferer.
From my limited vantage point here in southern California it would appear that America is
very much like a runaway train speeding toward a very very thick brick wall while gaining
speed minute by minute. This train of course has no "driver" – save the inexorable laws
of history as they pertain to crumbling "empires."
With that in mind I think I'll go shopping again so I can pretend none of this is
happening – while joining with my neighbors in "hoarding" as much toilet paper as I
possibly can! Actually, truth be told, the local toilet paper supply is now long gone and
people are now hoarding paper towels – (I kid you not) – which of course portends
a lot of very very sore bottoms by the time this is all over.
Seamus Padraig ,
You can have a dogshit sandwich or a catshit sandwich, just so long as its kosher.
So true! +1000
Charlotte Russe ,
Unfortunately, for all of Bernie's enthusiastic supporter 2020 was a redux of 2016. Amnesia,
initially sets in caused by the initial excitement. Bernie's campaign overwhelms those
yearning for change. Sanders is cognizant of how young voters and the marginalized are
economically suffering. He knows exactly what to say to arouse an audience of thousands.
Devoted crowds eagerly rally around Bernie anticipating the upcoming primaries, believing
he'll win everyone of them. After all, how could anyone be against a message promoting social
justice.
And lo and behold, right out of the box the security state shenanigans begin. A "Shadow
app" surfaces in Iowa, followed by a narrow win in New Hampshire. And although Bernie won the
popular vote in the first two primaries he still comes out the loser to CIA Pete. However,
not to be deterred Bernie won the Nevada caucus in a landslide. That was the moment when
security state needed to make its move. It was now or never. These ghouls could not let
Bernie pick up any more momentum. If they did, it would be too late to stop
him–Milwaukee could turn into a bloodbath. It was time for the intelligence agencies to
take a stand.
Clyburn a sellout bourgeois conservative black was called upon to do his duty. You don't
get to be a "misleader" of the poor and the dejected if you won't convince them to smile
while jumping off a cliff.
Slick Clyburn, gathered all the other crooked black politicians and they united in force
behind brain dead Biden. When misleader Clyburn speaks his downtrodden constituency listens.
South Carolina was a wipeout–Biden overwhelmingly won. And that's all the security
state needed. Using the state-run mainstream media news propaganda machine in 72 hours
Biden's campaign was raised like Lazarus from the dead.
Drooling Joe, received a slew of slick endorsements from all the longtime party hacks. A
narrative was easily generated– Sanders was a loser and only Biden could beat Trump. At
the end of day, don't you dumbasses want to beat Trump. So let's unite behind alzheimer
Joe–he's our best chance.
As it turned out, the security state's narrative was easy to pull off because Sander is
weak, lacks courage, and was never in it to win it. He never fought back against the DNC.
He
never called out the cheating in Iowa. There were thousands of volunteers that would be
willing to protest on his behalf. Timid Bernie just let it go. There were other things
showing Bernie's lack of interest in winning. He stupidly embraced the Russiagate concocted
narrative and then was victimized by it himself. He refused to tear into Biden describing in
detail how every piece of reactionary legislation Joe passed was based on payoffs he'd
received for either his son or his brother. In South Carolina, Bernie never used the millions
donated to play video clips proving Biden is a warmongering racist.
Instead Bernie, kept saying "Biden is my good friend" or "Biden can beat Trump." WTF, if
Biden can beat Trump then why are you running? Are you campaigning for Biden?
The final nail was Tulsi's tweet asking for Biden and Bernie's support for her to right to
participate in the next debate. Yang and Marianne Williamson tweeted yes of course, but
Bernie was silent. On subsequent mainstream media news appearances Bernie totally ignored
Tulsi's candidacy. That was it – Bernie is a lackey – completely intimidated by the
DNC.
Naturally the DNC didn't want Tulsi near the debate stage–she's the bravest of the
lot. Tulsi would have proved Biden was a crook and a war criminal. Tulsi presence would be a
boom for bernie, but Bernie didn't want that since he was in cahoots with the DNC.
And in the end, that's what it was always all about NOTHING. Bernie is the Tammy and Jim
Baker of politics a prophet of false hope. He gathers up all the guiless and guillibe and
then tosses them into the lion's den.
In Biden's case it's easy to know why the slithering DC establishment gang embraced him
with open arms -- they all wanted to come back home
Here are some of the people Biden is considering for senior positions, per Axios:
"Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a top contender to head up the World Bank.
Bloomberg endorsed Biden immediately after dropping out of the 2020 race.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as Treasury secretary. Warren dropped out of the
race last week after disappointing losses on Super Tuesday but hasn't yet made an
endorsement. Axios reported that Warren's name had been floated as part of an effort to unite
the fractured Democratic Party around Biden. Some of Biden's advisers have also suggested
Warren as a vice-presidential candidate for that reason.
Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, as the US ambassador to the
United Nations or the US trade representative. Buttigieg also endorsed Biden shortly after
dropping out.
Some Biden advisers see Sen. Kamala Harris of California as a contender for attorney
general if she's not on the ticket.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Bank of America Vice Chairman Anne Finucane have both
been floated for positions at the Treasury Department.
The Biden campaign is also considering a slew of veterans from the Obama administration
for key positions. Among those being considered:
Former Secretary of State John Kerry may reprise his role or take on a Cabinet position
focused on combating climate change.
The former national security adviser Susan Rice may be nominated for a State Department
role.
Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is a contender for attorney general."
Every loathsome contemptible neoliberal military interventionist is waiting in the wings
to continue where Obama left off ..
Super Tuesday was so obviously rigged. The vote in California deviated from exit polling by
over 15% and don't get me started on that Shadow app used for the Iowa caucus. The only
difference wasn't as blatantly obvious as the last Primary.
Seems Bernie has reprised his role as sheep dog. Probably the reason the Orwellian DNC
unpersoned Tulsi is that she probably refused to play.
Charlotte Ruse ,
Hundreds of thousands of ballots in California and Texas were discarded. Warren purposely
stayed in the race to screw Bernie in Minnesota and Massachusetts, while Klobuchar and
Buttigeg dropped out to prop-up Biden.
In avid Bernie locations polling centers were closed. And when all else failed voting
machines are hacked. No one should underate the power of state-run mainstream media
propaganda they hammered Sanders and launded the creep Biden.
And as I mentioned, Bernie is his own worst enemy, or as I also speculated he was never in
it to win it.
The elections are more democratic in Afghanistan. When I previously commented on several
posts the Democratic Party Primaries need to be monitored by a UN Raconteur many found it
amusing.
Maxine ,
Why did Bernie become a candidate if he were not in it to win? .I can't figure that one out.
Eric McCoo ,
Blackmail ?
The Clinton campaign exercising leverage over Sanders during the election –
Podesta/wikileaks emails. 'This isn't in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good
to flag this for him'. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397
RealPeter ,
There is a lot in what Charlotte says. Unfortunately. Trump may end up botching the corona
crisis and lose, but whoever wins it's going to be four more years of everything getting
worse.
Andy ,
Some research on 'possible' fraudulent hidden computer counting from first super Tuesday.
http://tdmsresearch.com/
Ken ,
The fix is in for the status quo, and it's quite likely another 4 years of the orange
asshole.
Everybody knows (listen to Leonard Cohen) Tulsi Gabbard does not exist, just like everybody
knows Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, Assad, that Putin Nazi, spread some kind of Bad
Gas in Douma, repeatededly over several years since 2014, which the Intrepid White Helmets
made better–just watch their Hollywood, Oscar winning movie. Of course Joe Biden is
senile, else why would he challenge our carrot-topped Fearless leader, and everybody knows
that Putin-Nazi Boris and Natasha tried to rig the 2016 election but were thwarted by
Moose-Squirel, and other CIA assets.
"... The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe Biden. Since his "miraculous" wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian . ..."
"... Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis. You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance. ..."
The toilet-paper maddened crowds will be braving coronavirus to vote in the latest round of
Democratic primaries today.
There's several more rounds of voting before the convention in July, but this is the last
before the next debate on March 15th.
The process is kinda moot at this point.
The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe
Biden. Since his "miraculous"
wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy
that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite
behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian .
Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that
Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis.
You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance.
... ... ...
Whatever the plan turns out to be, progressives and leftists all over America will likely be
disappointed in Bernie. If last time is anything to go by, no matter how obviously he (and more
importantly his voters) get screwed over, Sanders will just let it happen.
The other Great White Hope of American leftists – or should that be "Great Native
American hope"? – Elizabeth Warren, dropped out last week but is yet to endorse her
fellow "progressive", Bernie Sanders. This could mean she's spiteful, or it could mean she's
angling to be Biden's VP nominee. Either way, no real surprise and no real loss. Warren always
talked a better game than she played and she didn't talk all that well.
Oh, and the DNC changed their debate eligibility rules to exclude
Tulsi Gabbard . Something both the other candidates and the vast majority of the mainstream
media have been quiet about.
Questions arise Are the democrats really rallying behind Joe
Biden? why?! Are they planning to throw the race? Is Joe Biden going senile? Who will each
candidate pick as a running mate? Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
Numerous so-called "front groups" operate in the United States. A front group is very simply
an organization that pretends to have a certain program while at the same time using that
identity as cover to promote a hidden agenda that is something quite different, often opposed
to what is being said publicly. The Global Climate Coalition is, for example, an organization
funded by fossil fuel providers that works to deny climate change and other related issues. The
Groundwater Protection Council does not protect water resources at all and instead receives its
money from the fracking industry, which resists any regulation of water pollution it causes.
The Partnership for a New American Economy has nothing to do with protecting the U.S. economy
and instead seeks to replace American workers with H1B immigrant laborers. Even the benign
sounding National Sleep Foundation, is in reality a Big Pharma creation intended to convince
Americans that they need to regularly use sleep inducing drugs.
Front groups in a political context can be particularly dangerous as they deceive the voter
into supporting candidates or promoting policies that have a hidden agenda. The
Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is, for example, uninterested in
preserving democracies unless that democracy is Israel, which many observers would prefer to
describe as an apartheid state. It is funded by Zionists billionaires and its leadership meets
regularly with Israeli officials. The American Enterprise Institute is likewise a neocon
mouthpiece for economic imperialism and regime change disguising itself as a free market
advocate and the Brookings Institution is its liberal interventionist counterpart.
Front groups are sometimes largely fictional, on occasion creations of an intelligence
agency to give the impression that there exists in a country a formidable opposition to
policies pursued by the governing regime. Recent developments in Venezuela and Bolivia rather
suggest the CIA creation of front groups in both countries while the Ukrainian regime change
that took place in 2014 also benefited greatly from a U.S. created and supported opposition to
the legitimate Viktor Yanukovych government.
An ardent proponent of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, an ill-conceived initiative that
has served as an enduring provocation of Russian hostility toward the West, Biden voted
enthusiastically to authorize Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq, was a major proponent of Clinton's
war in Kosovo, and pushed for military intervention in Sudan.
Looks like Trump is already lame duck President. And this will not change with the
elections
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not suggesting that President Trump deserves a second term. He didn't deserve a first one. He's a terrible person and an awful president. What I'm saying is that it is more likely than not that he has already done most of the damage that he can do. ..."
"... An achievement-filled second term would be a major reversal of recent historical precedent. Things may get worse under four more years of this idiot, but not much worse as the Democratic doomsday cult warns. ..."
"... I hope Obama enjoyed all those trips to Martha's Vineyard because that's pretty much all he has to show for term number two. ..."
"... George W. Bush screwed up one thing after another during his second four years in office, which was bookended by his hapless non-response to the destruction of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina and his role in the ineffective and wasteful bailout of Wall Street megabanks during the subprime mortgage financial crisis. What began as an illegal war of aggression against Iraq became, after reelection, a catastrophic quagmire that destroyed America's international reputation. ..."
"... Reagan was both senile and bogged down in Iran Contra. ..."
"... "If Trump wins a second term this November," James Pethokoukis writes in The Week, Trump "might propose more tax cuts, but they are more likely to be payroll tax cuts geared toward middle-class workers instead of income tax cuts for rich people and corporations. ..."
You've heard it so often that you may well believe it's true: Trump's second term would be a
disaster. For the Democratic Party. For the United States. For democracy itself. "The
reelection of Donald Trump," warns Nancy Pelosi, "would do irreparable damage to the United
States."
But would it really?
Exceptions are a normal part of history but the record suggests that Trump would not be one
of the few presidents who get much done during their second terms. There are three reasons for
the sophomore slump:
By definition, political honeymoons expire (well) before the end of a president's first
term. Elections have consequences in the form of policy changes that make good on campaign
promises. But turning a pledge into reality comes at a cost. Capital gets spent, promises are
broken, alliances shatter. Oftentimes, those changes prove disappointing. Recent example:
Obamacare. Voters often express their displeasure by punishing the party that controls the
White House with losses in Congress in midterm elections.
The permanent campaign fed by the 24-7 news cycle makes lame ducks gimpier than ever. Before
a president gets to take his or her second oath of office, news media and future hopefuls are
already looking four years ahead.
Scandals come usually home to roost during second terms. It's tough to push laws through a
Congress that is dragging your top officials through one investigation after another.
I'm not suggesting that President Trump deserves a second term. He didn't deserve a
first one. He's a terrible person and an awful president. What I'm saying is that it is more
likely than not that he has already done most of the damage that he can do.
Pundits and Democratic politicians have been pushing a self-serving narrative that implies
that everything Trump has done so far was merely a warm-up for the main event, that he would
want and be able to go even further if given the chance if November 2020 goes his way.
That doesn't make sense. Who in their right mind thinks Trump has been holding anything
back? Which president has failed to go big within a year or two?
An achievement-filled second term would be a major reversal of recent historical
precedent. Things may get worse under four more years of this idiot, but not much worse as the
Democratic doomsday cult warns.
President Obama didn't get much done during his second term, which began with the bungled
rollout of the federal and state "health exchanges." He signed the Paris climate accord,
renewed diplomatic relations with Cuba and negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran. But the ease
with which his successor canceled those achievements showcased both the ephemerality of
policies pushed through without thorough public propaganda and a general sense that second-term
laws and treaties are easy to annul. I hope Obama enjoyed all those trips to Martha's
Vineyard because that's pretty much all he has to show for term number two.
George W. Bush screwed up one thing after another during his second four years in
office, which was bookended by his hapless non-response to the destruction of New Orleans by
Hurricane Katrina and his role in the ineffective and wasteful bailout of Wall Street megabanks
during the subprime mortgage financial crisis. What began as an illegal war of aggression
against Iraq became, after reelection, a catastrophic quagmire that destroyed America's
international reputation.
Whatever the merits of Bill Clinton's legislative and policy agenda -- welfare reform, NAFTA
and bombing Kosovo would all have happened under a Republican president -- having anything
substantial or positive to point to was well in the rearview mirror by his second term, when he
found himself embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky affair and impeachment.
Reagan was both senile and bogged down in Iran Contra.
Even the most productive and prolific president of the 20th century had little to show for
his second term. FDR's legacy would be nearly as impressive today if he'd only served four
years.
Anything could happen. Donald Trump may use his second term to push dramatic changes. If
there were another terrorist attack, for example, he would probably try to exploit national
shock and fear to the political advantage of the right. Another Supreme Court justice could
pass away. On the other hand, Trump is old, clinically obese and out of shape. He might die.
It's doubtful that Mike Pence, a veep chosen for his lack of charisma, would be able to carry
on the Trump tradition as more than the head of a caretaker government.
Analysts differ on what Trump 2.0 might look like. Regardless of their perspective, however,
no one expects anything big.
"If Trump wins a second term this November," James Pethokoukis writes in The Week, Trump
"might propose more tax cuts, but they are more likely to be payroll tax cuts geared toward
middle-class workers instead of income tax cuts for rich people and corporations. He'll
look for a new Federal Reserve chair less worried about inflation than current boss Jerome
Powell, who deserves at least partial credit for the surging stock market and continuing
expansion. Trump will let the national debt soar rather than trimming projected Medicare and
Social Security benefits. And there will be more protectionism, although it may be called
'industrial policy.'"
"The early outlines of the [second-term] agenda are starting to emerge," Andrew Restuccia
reports in The Wall Street Journal. "Among the issues under consideration: continuing the
administration's efforts to lower prescription drug prices, pushing for a broad infrastructure
bill and taking another crack at reforming the country's immigration system, [White House]
officials said." They also want to reduce the deficit.
Under Trump, immigration reform is never a good thing. But it's hard to imagine anything
major happening without Democratic cooperation.
Internationally, many observers expect Trump to continue to nurture his isolationist
tendencies. But President Bernie Sanders would probably have similar impulses to focus on
America First.
By all means, vote against Trump. But don't freak out at the thought of a second term.
Mourn what happened under the first one instead -- and work to reverse it.
"... The consolidation of the Democratic Party behind Biden is a damning exposure, not merely of the politically reactionary character of this organization, but of the contemptible falsification on which the Sanders campaign has been based: that it is possible to transform the Democratic Party, the oldest American capitalist party, into the spearhead of a "political revolution" that will bring about fundamental social change. ..."
"... It is evident that the Democratic Party leadership in Congress, as well as the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee, aims to run the 2020 campaign on the exact model of Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016: portraying Trump as personally unqualified to be president and as a Russian stooge, while opposing any significant social reform and delivering constant reassurances to the ruling financial aristocracy that a restored Democratic administration will follow in the footsteps of Obama, showering trillions on Wall Street and doing the bidding of the military-intelligence apparatus. ..."
"... One could ask of the nine ex-candidates who have now endorsed Biden, why they were candidates in the first place? Why did they bother to run against the former vice president, clearly the preferred candidate of the party establishment? None of them voices any significant political differences with Biden. All of them hail the right-wing political record of the Obama-Biden administration, even though that administration produced the social and economic devastation that made possible the election of Donald Trump. ..."
"... African American Democratic Party leaders, including Representative James Clyburn in South Carolina and hundreds of others, represent one of the most right-wing and politically corrupt sections of the party. ..."
"... The thinking of this layer was summed up in a column Saturday in the Washington Post ..."
"... What the Washington Post ..."
"... the entire black Democratic Party establishment has lined up behind Biden -- including, most recently, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Senator Kamala Harris. ..."
"... Sanders seeks to counter this all-out Democratic Party campaign for Biden by seeking to woo sections of the trade union bureaucracy with appeals to economic nationalism. ..."
"... More than 13 million people, mainly workers and youth, voted for Sanders in 2016 in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Millions more continue to support him this year, with the same result. Sanders will wrap up his campaign by embracing the right-wing nominee of the Democratic Party and telling his supporters that this is the only alternative to the election, and now re-election of Trump. ..."
The campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is making a last-ditch stand in the
Michigan primary Tuesday, amid mounting indications that the Democratic Party as a whole has
moved decisively into the camp of his main rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. Sanders
cancelled rallies in Mississippi, Missouri and Illinois -- all states where he trails Biden
in the polls -- in order to concentrate all his efforts in Michigan, where he won an upset
victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.
On Sunday, Senator Kamala Harris endorsed Biden, the latest of nine former presidential
contenders to announce their support for their one-time rival, joining Pete Buttigieg, Amy
Klobuchar, Michael Bloomberg, Beto O'Rourke, John Delaney, Seth Moulton, Tim Ryan, and Deval
Patrick. Harris is to join Biden for a campaign rally in Detroit Monday.
The consolidation of the Democratic Party behind Biden is a damning exposure, not
merely of the politically reactionary character of this organization, but of the contemptible
falsification on which the Sanders campaign has been based: that it is possible to transform
the Democratic Party, the oldest American capitalist party, into the spearhead of a
"political revolution" that will bring about fundamental social change.
Former Vice President Biden is the personification of the decrepit and right-wing
character of the Democratic Party. In the past 10 days alone, Biden has declared himself a
candidate for the US Senate, rather than president, confused his wife and his sister as they
stood on either side of him, called himself an "Obiden Bama Democrat," and declared that 150
million Americans died in gun violence over the past decade. This is not just a matter of
Biden's declining mental state: it is the Democratic Party, not just its presidential
frontrunner, that is verging on political senility.
It is evident that the Democratic Party leadership in Congress, as well as the Biden
campaign and the Democratic National Committee, aims to run the 2020 campaign on the exact
model of Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016: portraying Trump as personally unqualified to be
president and as a Russian stooge, while opposing any significant social reform and
delivering constant reassurances to the ruling financial aristocracy that a restored
Democratic administration will follow in the footsteps of Obama, showering trillions on Wall
Street and doing the bidding of the military-intelligence apparatus.
One could ask of the nine ex-candidates who have now endorsed Biden, why they were
candidates in the first place? Why did they bother to run against the former vice president,
clearly the preferred candidate of the party establishment? None of them voices any
significant political differences with Biden. All of them hail the right-wing political
record of the Obama-Biden administration, even though that administration produced the social
and economic devastation that made possible the election of Donald Trump.
Even more revolting, if that is possible, is the embrace of Biden by the black Democratic
politicians. The former senator from Delaware is identified with some of the most repugnant
episodes in the history of race relations in America: the abusive treatment of Anita Hill,
when she testified against the nomination of Clarence Thomas, before Biden's Judiciary
Committee; an alliance with segregationist James Eastland on school integration in the early
1970s, highlighted at a debate by Kamala Harris, eight months before she endorsed Biden; and
the passage of a series of "law-and-order" bills that disproportionately jailed hundreds of
thousands of African Americans, all of them pushed through the Senate by Biden.
How did a politician who boasted of his close relationships with Eastland and Strom
Thurmond become the beneficiary of a virtual racial bloc vote by African Americans in the
Southern states? Because African American Democratic Party leaders, including
Representative James Clyburn in South Carolina and hundreds of others, represent one of the
most right-wing and politically corrupt sections of the party.
The thinking of this layer was summed up in a column Saturday in the
Washington Post by Colbert King, a former State Department official and local
banker, a prominent member of the African American elite in the nation's capital, who wrote
in outrage, "America's black billionaires have no place in a Bernie Sanders
world."
King denounced the suggestion that black CEOs and billionaires are "greedy, corrupt
threats to America's working families or the cause of economic disparities and human misery."
Voicing the fears of his class, he continued, "I know there are those out there who buy the
notion that America consists of a small class of privileged, rapacious super-rich lording
over throngs of oppressed, capitalist-exploited workers. You can see it in poll numbers
showing the share of Americans who prefer socialism to capitalism inching upward."
What the Washington Post columnist reveals is what Bernie Sanders has done
his best to cover up: the Democratic Party is a party of the capitalist class. It can no more
be converted to socialism than the CIA can become an instrument of the struggle against
American imperialism.
True, Sanders can dredge up Jesse Jackson for a last-minute endorsement, proof that
demagogues engaged in diverting mass left-wing sentiment into the graveyard of the Democratic
Party recognize and embrace each other across the decades. But with that exception, the
entire black Democratic Party establishment has lined up behind Biden -- including, most
recently, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Senator Kamala Harris.
Harris's statement is worth quoting. "I have decided that I am with great enthusiasm going
to endorse Joe Biden for president of the United States," she said. "I believe in Joe. I
really believe in him, and I have known him for a long time." The senator was no doubt
responding to the incentives dangled in front of her by Biden after she left the race last
December, when he gushed, "She is solid. She can be president someday herself. She can be the
vice president. She can go on to be a Supreme Court justice. She can be an attorney
general."
Sanders seeks to counter this all-out Democratic Party campaign for Biden by seeking
to woo sections of the trade union bureaucracy with appeals to economic nationalism. New
Sanders television ads in Michigan feature a United Auto Workers member declaring that his
state "has been decimated by trade deals," while Sanders declares that Biden backed NAFTA,
drawing the conclusion, "With a record like that, we can't trust him to protect American jobs
or defeat Donald Trump." The Vermont senator will find that very few auto workers follow the
political lead of the corrupt gangsters who head the UAW.
More than 13 million people, mainly workers and youth, voted for Sanders in 2016 in
the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Millions more continue to support him this year, with
the same result. Sanders will wrap up his campaign by embracing the right-wing nominee of the
Democratic Party and telling his supporters that this is the only alternative to the
election, and now re-election of Trump.
Indeed, in appearances on several Sunday television interview programs, Sanders went out
of his way to repeat, as he said on Fox News, "Joe Biden is a friend of mine. Joe Biden is a
decent guy. What Joe has said is if I win the nomination, he'll be there for me, and I have
said if he wins the nomination, I'll be there for him "
No doubt that JB is having cognitive and memory problems but it seemed to me that his wife
and sister switched placed when he turned to where he thought his sister was and mistook one
for the other without looking!
I have more issues with that crook Biden besides his senility – he's a dyed in the blue
neoliberal. He wants to cut social security and other programs for the people. He's a big
supporter of the financial industry and the MIC to name a few. His son should be behind bars
for graft.
Why just Biden? This is a question that should be asked of all three: Trump, Biden and
Sanders – with or without COVID-19. It's pretty much a given that a lot of illnesses
like flu, pneumonia and other viruses cause significantly more harm to the over 70 crowd.
Plus, as my cardiologist says to me at the end of every visit (since I flew by age 75): DON'T
FALL.
The best objection I've heard to Bernie came from someone who said he feared for his 401K
if a Sanders presidency occurred. I reminded him that the markets managed to crash all by
themselves in 2007-8, but further thought discloses he was mistaken about what constituted
wealth.
"Wealth isn't about having lots of money; it's about having lots of options." –
Chris Rock
So if the hedgies and other plutocrats crash the economy providing the options, even if
lots of dollars, stock certificates, gold bullion, etc. is in their hands, they are
sabotaging their own wealth.
"Saving" Wall Street really amounts to "saving" the tapeworm while discarding the
host.
Apparently, no one really watch the link I provided, a link that demonstrated what
Greenwald eloquently states below:
" when it comes to plainly valid questions concerning Joe Biden's cognitive fitness:
expressing revulsion and scorn at the mere mention of these questions and declaring the
topic off-limits to all decent people even though establishment Democrats were the ones
who first spread insinuations and even explicit accusations about Biden's cognitive
decline when they thought doing so could help them defeat him and/or because it genuinely
concerned them regarding his ability to defeat Trump."
Is anyone on this site willing to address the issued raised about Biden's competence,
when those who now cynically support him actually raised the issue earlier in the
campaign?
Are they all jockeying for the 25th amendment? Or a place in an administration they
know will collapse but leave them high and dry?
Or doing everything they can to keep the big bucks coming to the DNC elite, from
banks, from big pharma while they forget about the working class .the people who actually
have to work for a living?
By nominating a candidate whose place in the Democratic Party establishment was undeniable
and who lacked credibility on issues like money in politics, the Democrats simply let Trump run
as the anti-establishment candidate.
Notable quotes:
"... As the Trump campaign's onetime CEO, Steve Bannon, put it shortly after the election, "Hillary Clinton was the perfect foil for Trump's message. From her email server, to her lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street bankers, to her FBI problems, she represented everything that middle-class Americans had had enough of." ..."
"... This time around, Trump should have zero credibility running as a "populist." The president has presided over the most corrupt administration in modern history , plagued by investigations and numerous indictments that have led to convictions of some of his closest associates. Trump has nominated Supreme Court justices who defend money in politics , and his major legislative achievement has been to give billionaires and corporate elites major tax cuts . ..."
"... It should be easy for Democrats to expose Trump as the corrupt charlatan that he is. In an age when a majority of voters rate political corruption as America's biggest crisis and nearly 8 in 10 Americans agree that there should be "limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations" can spend on political campaigns, how hard can it be to defeat a hugely unpopular president who makes Richard Nixon look half decent? The surest way for Democrats to lose to Trump again would be to follow the same strategy as 2016 and nominate a candidate who embodies the establishment, carries a ton of political baggage and lacks credibility on issues like corruption. ..."
Donald Trump had the perfect opponent in the 2016 election. Running as a populist
billionaire taking on the Washington elite, he couldn't have asked for a better rival in
Hillary Clinton, who carried heavy political baggage and who, for many, personified the
so-called establishment. While Trump's populist shtick was easy to pick apart, Clinton was the
wrong person to promote the message she was trying to get across to voters.
By nominating a candidate whose place in the Democratic Party establishment was undeniable
and who lacked credibility on issues like money in politics, the Democrats simply let Trump run
as the anti-establishment candidate. Not only that, but the Clinton camp even tried courting
establishment Republicans who couldn't bring themselves to vote for their own party's
candidate.
Here was a man who had openly bragged
about bribing politicians , yet Democrats couldn't go after Trump on the issue because
their own candidate was one of the politicians to whom he'd donated in the past. The Clinton
camp raised (and spent) far
more money than Trump, but whether this actually helped or hurt her is unclear, as it also gave
credence to the perception that she was the candidate favored by big donors Meanwhile, Trump
positioned himself as the self-financing candidate who couldn't be bought.
As the Trump campaign's onetime CEO, Steve Bannon,
put it shortly after the election, "Hillary Clinton was the perfect foil for Trump's
message. From her email server, to her lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street bankers, to her
FBI problems, she represented everything that middle-class Americans had had enough of."
Under Trump, corporate America has thrived while real-income
growth has declined for most working- and middle-class people. Inequality has continued
to reach historic levels , and billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Mike Bloomberg have
seen their wealth surge . In 2020, Trump is no longer even
pretending to self-finance his campaign. With his recent predatory budget proposal he has made
it clear that he is getting ready to
gut programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, during his second term.
It should be easy for Democrats to expose Trump as the corrupt charlatan that he is. In an
age when a majority of voters rate political corruption
as America's biggest crisis and nearly 8 in 10 Americans
agree that there should be "limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations"
can spend on political campaigns, how hard can it be to defeat a hugely unpopular president who
makes Richard Nixon look half decent? The surest way for Democrats to lose to Trump again would
be to follow the same strategy as 2016 and nominate a candidate who embodies the establishment,
carries a ton of political baggage and lacks credibility on issues like corruption.
By the looks of it, Democrats might just pull it off. After Super Tuesday, it appears that
Trump will have another perfect foil for his message in 2020. Former Vice President Joe Biden
has regained his place as the Democratic frontrunner after a successful showing on Tuesday,
thanks in large part to party elites, and some of his former rivals, quickly consolidating
around his campaign the day before. Though the race is far from over, Biden is now
well-positioned to win the nomination. By selecting Biden, Democrats will effectively let Trump
and his deeply corrupt administration off the hook yet again.
Biden is a lot like Clinton, but worse in almost every measurable way. On issue after issue,
Biden has consistently been to the right of Clinton throughout his fifty-year political career.
He has a record of advocating cuts to Social
Security and Medicare; he
helped write the 1994 Crime Bill that led to an explosion in mass incarceration; he played
a critical role in passing the 2005 bankruptcy bill that stripped bankruptcy protection from
some of the most vulnerable people. Biden also supported and championed the
Iraq War .
This list goes on and on. Beyond his extremely problematic record, which will make it hard
for Democrats to go after Trump about, say, cutting Social Security (which Biden himself
supported not too long ago), Biden has his own personal scandals that will make it very
difficult for him to cast Trump as corrupt.
While his son Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine may not qualify as corruption, it was
doubtless
unethical and sleazy for Biden's son to take a high-paying consultant gig with a foreign
firm while his father was vice president (and Biden's refusal to acknowledge this conflict only
makes it worse). The behavior of Biden's family will haunt him in the general election. As Ryan
Grim wrote in The Intercept
last October, Biden's son and brother have been "trading on their family name for decades,
cashing in on the implication -- and sometimes the explicit argument -- that giving money to a
member of Joe Biden's family wins the favor of Joe Biden." Predictably, a
majority of voters believe it was inappropriate for Biden's son to take a job with the
Ukrainian firm, and Trump will exploit this and use it to defend his own family's nepotism and
corruption.
In the lead-up to the general election, Biden, who has recently struggled to
string coherent sentences together, would provide the slick demagogue Donald Trump with all the
ammunition he needs. We were given a little preview of what to expect in President Trump's
Super Tuesday commentary: "The Democrat establishment came together and crushed Bernie Sanders,
AGAIN!" he gloated on Twitter,
once again positioning himself as the anti-establishment populist.
On Monday, the Democratic establishment proved that it still has far more control over the
party than the Republican establishment did over their own party in 2016. No one stands to
benefit more from an establishment triumph than Donald Trump. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has the
credibility to call out Trump on his corruption and neoliberal economic policies, is still in
the race, but his chances are looking much slimmer than they were just a week ago.
Democrats have a choice: They can follow the same strategy that ended up costing them all
three branches of government in recent years, or they can go another way. The stakes couldn't
be higher.
Trump
recently mocked Biden over a mistake when Biden said he was looking forward to Super Thursday
instead of Super Tuesday. any chance of medical intervention here? Hillary got some shots.
Notable quotes:
"... We cannot get reelected, we cannot win this reelection, excuse me, we can only re-elect Donald Trump. ..."
"Joe Biden mistakenly endorsed President Donald Trump during a speech in St. Louis, and
Donald Trump responded with 'I agree with Joe!' on Twitter. In his speech, former vice
president Joe Biden said, ' We cannot get reelected, we cannot win this reelection,
excuse me, we can only re-elect Donald Trump. ' "
I suppose the politically correct thing is to pretend that Joe
Biden winning the Black vote isn't like the late Jeffrey Epstein being hailed as a mentor
of teenage girls.
DNC installing a man with obvious cognitive impairment is a staggering display of arrogance.
While Bush and Obama were empty suits this is completly another level.
In way I think Stupor Tuesday was a huge win for Trump.
The oldest organized political party on the planet is advancing a senile globalist meatpuppet
(with a son known to be a philandering crackhead) to handle nuclear launch codes.
Choosing Biden hands the election to Trump and that's a deal that has already been made. The
DNC don't like Sanders because they are adraid he might win, not because they are afraid he
might loose.
I agree with you that it is not going to be a slam dunk for Trump. Just like Trump wasn't
damaged by the Access Hollywood tapes, Biden's not going to be damaged by his senility,
gaffes and his prior plagiarism, Wall St cronyism and corruption. The vote for the "lesser
evil" mindset will consolidate along traditional lines. The Obama machine will run Biden's
campaign and consolidate the Democrat support. The election will hinge on a few states in
particular Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Right the major fiasco was with CDC testing kits. I do not see any other. Exaggerating the
threat would only make hoarding panic that engult the USA worse. Of source Trump desire to
protect stock market at any human or other cost was cruel and silly, but Trump is cruel and silly
in many other areas as well.
Quarantine for retired persons might really help in areas with high number of
infections.
Notable quotes:
"... For the last several weeks, we have seen the president and top administration officials presenting the public with misleading and outright false information in an effort to conceal the magnitude of the problem and the extent of their initial failures. The president has been unwilling to tell the public the truth about the situation because he evidently cares more about the short-term political implications than he does about protecting the public: ..."
The AP
reports on more of the Trump White House's bungling of the coronavirus response:
The White House overruled health officials who wanted to recommend that elderly and
physically fragile Americans be advised not to fly on commercial airlines because of the new
coronavirus, a federal official told The Associated Press.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention submitted the plan this week as a way of
trying to control the virus, but White House officials ordered the air travel recommendation
be removed, said the official who had direct knowledge of the plan. Trump administration
officials have since suggested certain people should consider not traveling, but they have
stopped short of the stronger guidance sought by the CDC.
There is no good reason for the White House to prevent this recommendation from being made
public. This is another example of how the president and his top officials are trying to keep
up the pretense that the outbreak is much less dangerous than it actually is, and in doing so
they are helping to make the outbreak worse than it has to be.
For the last several weeks, we have seen the president and top administration officials
presenting the public with
misleading and outright false information in an effort to
conceal the magnitude of the problem and the extent of their initial failures. The
president has been
unwilling to tell the public the truth about the situation because he evidently cares more
about the short-term political implications than he does about protecting the public:
Even as the government's scientists and leading health experts raised the alarm early and
pushed for aggressive action, they faced resistance and doubt at the White House --
especially from the president -- about spooking financial markets and inciting panic.
"It's going to all work out," Mr. Trump said as recently as Thursday night. "Everybody has
to be calm. It's going to work out."
Justin Fox
comments on the president's terrible messaging:
The biggest problem, though, is simply the way that the president talks about the disease.
His instinct at every turn is to downplay its danger and significance.
Minimizing the danger and significance of the outbreak ensured that the government's
response was less urgent and focused than it could have been. It encouraged people to take it
less seriously and thus made it more likely that the virus would spread. Then when the severity
of the problem became undeniable, the earlier discredited happy talk makes it easier for people
to disbelieve what the government tells them in the future.
The administration had time to prepare a more effective response, but as I
said last week the administration frittered away the time they had. They were still
preoccupied with keeping the
virus out rather than trying to manage its spread once it arrived here, as it was inevitably
going to do:
"We have contained this. I won't say airtight but pretty close to airtight," White House
economic adviser Larry Kudlow said in a television interview on Feb. 25, echoing Trump's
tweeted declaration that the virus was "very much under control" in the United States.
But it wasn't, and the administration's rosy messaging was fundamentally at odds with a
growing cacophony of alarm bells inside and outside the U.S. government. Since January,
epidemiologists, former U.S. public health officials and experts have been warning, publicly
and privately, that the administration's insistence that containment was -- and should remain
-- the primary way to confront an emerging infectious disease was a grave mistake.
The initial response and the stubborn refusal to adapt to new developments have meant that
the U.S. is in a much worse position in handling this outbreak than many other countries. Max
Nisen
comments on the lack of testing in the U.S.:
Don't cheer just yet. The lower case count doesn't mean Americans are doing a better job
of containing the virus; rather, it reflects the fact that the U.S. is badly behind in its
ability to test people. The Centers for Disease Control stopped disclosing how many people it
has tested as of Monday, but an analysis by The Atlantic could only confirm 1,895 tests.
Switzerland, a country with fewer residents than New Jersey, has tested nearly twice as many
people. The U.K., which has far fewer cases, has tested over 20,000. This gap is particularly
worrisome given evidence of community spread in a number of different states and a high death
count, both of which suggest the number of cases will jump as more tests are conducted.
Capacity is finally ramping up, but only after weeks of delays prompted by unforced errors
and botched early test kits from the CDC. The continuing inability to test broadly is leading
to missed cases, more infections, and an outbreak that will be bigger than it needed to
be.
The administration not only bungled their initial response, but they have also been
extremely resistant to admitting error. Trump's appointees are reluctant to contradict the
president when he spouts nonsense about the outbreak, and that in turn makes it more difficult
for them to communicate clearly and consistently with the public. All of this serves to
undermine public trust in the government's response, and it prevents health officials from
being able to do their jobs without political interference. The federal government's response
has been
hampered by a president who wants to make people think that the problem isn't that bad and
is already being dealt with successfully:
At the White House, Trump and many of his aides were initially skeptical of just how
serious the coronavirus threat was, while the president often seemed uninterested as long as
the virus was abroad. At first, when he began to engage, he downplayed the threat -- "The
Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA," he tweeted in late February -- and became
a font of misinformation and confusion, further muddling his administration's response.
On Friday, visiting the CDC in Atlanta, the president spewed more falsehoods when he
claimed, incorrectly: "Anybody that needs a test, gets a test. They're there. They have the
tests. And the tests are beautiful."
When the president lies about such a serious matter, he is causing unnecessary confusion and
he is sending exactly the wrong message that remedying earlier failures is not an urgent
priority. Because Trump's primary concern is making himself look good in the short term, he is
willing to risk a worse outbreak. During his visit to the CDC, the president went on in an even
more bizarre vein to praise the tests by
comparing them to his "perfect call" with the Ukrainian president last summer that led to
his impeachment:
In an attempt to express confidence in the CDC's coronavirus test (the agency's second
attempt after the first one it developed failed), Trump offered an unorthodox comparison from
the last enormous crisis to swamp his presidency. The tests are just like his
impeachment-causing attempt to pressure a foreign government to help him get reelected. "The
tests are all perfect like the letter was perfect. The transcription was perfect. Right? This
was not as perfect as that but pretty good," Trump told reporters after falsely stating,
again, that anyone who needed a test right now could get one.
This morning the president was back at it this morning with more self-serving
misinformation:
We have a perfectly coordinated and fine tuned plan at the White House for our attack on
CoronaVirus. We moved VERY early to close borders to certain areas, which was a Godsend. V.P.
is doing a great job. The Fake News Media is doing everything possible to make us look bad.
Sad!
The president needs people to think that everything he does is perfect, so he is incapable
of acknowledging his failures and prefers to vilify accurate reporting about those failures. He
cannot help but mismanage
the government response because he cannot put the national interest ahead of his own
selfishness. An untold number of Americans will be paying a steep price for the president's
unfitness for office in the weeks and months to come.
I wish you had thought a bit into the future before you voted him. Did you really think
things wouldn't turn out EXACTLY the way they have? Honestly, it's to rime tell the truth
here.
It's the Democrats who should have thought a bit into the future. It was the identity and
known character and policies of Trump's opponent that tipped my vote to Trump. And no,
obviously I didn't think things would turn out "exactly" this way. I thought if I put up with
his repulsive manner I'd get maybe a third of his main campaign promises and that the GOP
establishment would get the hiding it deserves. Boy, was I wrong.
I take you believe Hillary Clinton was worse than Trump. Fair enough, but do you still think
our country would be in the state it is now? In what way could she possibly be worse than
what we have now with Trump?
It's better for Trumpism to have burst like a zit onto the mirror, no matter how disgusting,
because it was all there anyway under Bush and Cheney, it was there alongside "Barack the
magic... birth certificate!" You can fairly easily wash off the stain of Bush and Rumsfeld,
you can sort of start to forget their sublime horror, the exact same level of lies and utter
mismanagement, but you can't wash off a man like Trump, ever. His portrait will be in the
White House so future Americans can see what we're capable of, and hopefully be more vigilant
about the subtle and polished lies and civilized outrages. We needed this barbaric display to
get some clarity.
"The president has been about the situation because he evidently cares more about the
short-term political implications than he does about protecting the public"
It's no different from the first two years of his presidency. He already betrayed those of
us who voted for the America First promises on immigration and ending the wars. He spent most
of his doing favors for Wall Street, Israel, and Saudi Arabia instead. Now he's going to
betray the many vulnerable elders who voted for him, risking their illness and even death by
his selfish evasions and lies. He's a con artist. A fake.
Sanders is not a panacea. He is a sheep dog. But neoliberal oligarchs and the Deep State are
afraid of sheep dog too. They need puppets.
Bernie Sanders is actually trying to save the Democratic Party from irrelevance. But
irrelevance does not bother party bureaucracy and Clintons who still rule the party that much:
all they want is money and plush positions.
Notable quotes:
"... Only one thing matters to the oligarchs. It is not democracy. It is not truth. It is not the consent of the governed. It is not income inequality. It is not the surveillance state. It is not endless war. It is not jobs. It is not the climate. It is the primacy of corporate power -- which has extinguished our democracy and left most of the working class in misery -- and the continued increase and consolidation of their wealth. ..."
"... Sanders was a dutiful sheepdog, attempting to herd his disgruntled supporters into the embrace of the Clinton campaign. At his moment of apostasy, when he introduced a motion to nominate Clinton, his delegates had left hundreds of convention seats empty. ..."
"... Sanders refused to support the lawsuit brought against the Democratic National Committee for rigging the primaries against him. ..."
"... Sanders misread the Democratic Party leadership, swamp creatures of the corporate state. He misread the Democratic Party, which is a corporate mirage. Its base can, at best, select preapproved candidates and act as props at rallies and in choreographed party conventions. The Democratic Party voters have zero influence on party politics or party policies. Sanders' naivete, and perhaps his lack of political courage, drove away his most committed young supporters. These followers have not forgiven him for his betrayal. They chose not to turn out to vote in the numbers he needs in the primaries. They are right. He is wrong. We need to overthrow the system, not placate it. ..."
"... Trump and Biden are repugnant figures, doddering into old age with cognitive lapses and no moral cores. Is Trump more dangerous than Biden? Yes. Is Trump more inept and more dishonest? Yes. Is Trump more of a threat to the open society? Yes. Is Biden the solution? No. ..."
"... Biden represents the old neoliberal order . He personifies the betrayal by the Democratic Party of working men and women that sparked the deep hatred of the ruling elites across the political spectrum. He is a gift to a demagogue and con artist like Trump, who at least understands that these elites are detested. Biden cannot plausibly offer change. He can only offer more of the same. And most Americans do not want more of the same. The country's largest voting-age bloc, the 100 million-plus citizens who out of apathy or disgust do not vote, will once again stay home. This demoralization of the electorate is by design. It will, I expect, give Trump another term in office. ..."
There is only one choice in this election. The consolidation of oligarchic power under
Donald Trump or the consolidation of oligarchic power under Joe Biden. The oligarchs, with
Trump or Biden, will win again. We will lose. The oligarchs made it abundantly clear, should
Bernie Sanders miraculously become the Democratic Party nominee, they would join forces with
the Republicans to crush him. Trump would, if Sanders was the nominee, instantly be shorn by
the Democratic Party elites of his demons and his propensity for tyranny. Sanders would be
red-baited -- as he was viciously Friday in The New York Times' " As Bernie
Sanders Pushed for Closer Ties, Soviet Union Spotted Opportunity " -- and turned into a
figure of derision and ridicule.
The oligarchs preach the sermon of the least-worst to us when they attempt to ram a Hillary
Clinton or a Biden down our throats but ignore it for themselves. They prefer Biden over Trump,
but they can live with either.
Only one thing matters to the oligarchs. It is not democracy. It is not truth. It is not the
consent of the governed. It is not income inequality. It is not the surveillance state. It is
not endless war. It is not jobs. It is not the climate. It is the primacy of corporate power --
which has extinguished our democracy and left most of the working class in misery -- and the
continued increase and consolidation of their wealth. It is impossible working within the
system to shatter the hegemony of oligarchic power or institute meaningful reform. Change, real
change, will only come by sustained acts of civil disobedience and mass mobilization, as with
the yellow vests movement in France and the British-based Extinction Rebellion . The longer we are
fooled by the electoral burlesque, the more disempowered we will become.
I was on the streets with protesters in Philadelphia outside the appropriately named Wells
Fargo Center during the 2016 Democratic Convention when hundreds of
Sanders delegates walked out of the hall. "Show me what democracy looks like!" they
chanted, holding Bernie signs above their heads as they poured out of the exits. "This is what
democracy looks like!"
Sanders' greatest tactical mistake was not joining them. He bowed before the mighty altar of
the corporate state. He had desperately tried to stave off a revolt by his supporters and
delegates on the eve of the convention by sending out repeated messages in his name -- most of
them authored by members of the Clinton campaign -- to be respectful, not disrupt the
nominating process and support Clinton. Sanders was a dutiful sheepdog, attempting to herd his
disgruntled supporters into the embrace of the Clinton campaign. At his moment of apostasy,
when he introduced a motion to nominate Clinton, his delegates had left hundreds of convention
seats empty.
After the 2016 convention, Sanders held rallies -- the crowds pitifully small compared to
what he had drawn when he ran as an insurgent -- on Clinton's behalf. He returned to the Senate
to loyally line up behind Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose power comes from his
ability to funnel tens of millions of dollars in corporate and Wall Street money to anointed
Democratic candidates. Sanders refused to support the lawsuit brought against the Democratic
National Committee for rigging the primaries against him. He endorsed Democratic candidates who
espoused the neoliberal economic and political positions he claims to oppose. Sanders, who
calls himself an independent, caucused as a Democrat. The Democratic Party determined his
assignments in the Senate. Schumer offered to make Sanders the head of the Senate Budget
Committee if the Democrats won control of the Senate. Sanders became a party apparatchik.
Sanders apparently believed that if he was obsequious enough to the Democratic Party elite,
they would give him
a chance in 2020 , a chance they denied him in 2016. Politics, I suspect he would argue, is
about compromise and the practical. This is true. But playing politics in a system that is not
democratic is about being complicit in the charade. Sanders misread the Democratic Party
leadership, swamp creatures of the corporate state. He misread the Democratic Party, which is a
corporate mirage. Its base can, at best, select preapproved candidates and act as props at
rallies and in choreographed party conventions. The Democratic Party voters have zero influence
on party politics or party policies. Sanders' naivete, and perhaps his lack of political
courage, drove away his most committed young supporters. These followers have not forgiven him
for his betrayal. They chose not to turn out to vote in the numbers he needs in the primaries.
They are right. He is wrong. We need to overthrow the system, not placate it.
Sanders is wounded. The oligarchs will go in for the kill. They will subject him to the same
character assassination, aided by the courtiers in the corporate press, that was directed at
Henry Wallace in 1948 and George McGovern in 1972, the only two progressive presidential
candidates who managed to seriously threaten the ruling elites since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The feckless liberal class, easily frightened, is already abandoning Sanders, castigating his
supporters with their nauseating self-righteousness and championing Biden as a political
savior.
Trump and Biden are repugnant figures, doddering into old age with cognitive lapses and no
moral cores. Is Trump more dangerous than Biden? Yes. Is Trump more inept and more dishonest?
Yes. Is Trump more of a threat to the open society? Yes. Is Biden the solution? No.
Biden represents the
old neoliberal order . He personifies the betrayal by the Democratic Party of working men
and women that sparked the deep hatred of the ruling elites across the political spectrum. He
is a gift to a demagogue and con artist like Trump, who at least understands that these elites
are detested. Biden cannot plausibly offer change. He can only offer more of the same. And most
Americans do not want more of the same. The country's largest voting-age bloc, the 100
million-plus citizens who out of apathy or disgust do not vote, will once again stay home. This
demoralization of the electorate is by design. It will, I expect, give Trump another term in
office.
By voting
for Biden , you endorse the humiliation of courageous women such as Anita Hill who
confronted their abusers. You vote for the architects of the endless wars in the Middle East.
You vote for the apartheid state in Israel. You vote for wholesale surveillance of the public
by government intelligence agencies and the abolition of due process and habeas corpus. You
vote for austerity programs, including the destruction of welfare and cuts to Social
Security . You vote for NAFTA, free trade deals, de-industrialization, a decline in wages,
the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs and the offshoring of jobs to underpaid
workers who toil in sweatshops in China or Vietnam. You vote for the assault on public
education and the transfer of federal funds to for-profit and Christian charter schools. You
vote for the doubling of our prison population, the tripling and quadrupling of sentences and
huge expansion of crimes meriting the death penalty. You vote for militarized police who gun
down poor people of color with impunity. You vote against the Green New Deal and immigration
reform. You vote for limiting a woman's right to
abortion and reproductive rights. You vote for a segregated public-school system in which
the wealthy receive educational opportunities and poor people of color are denied a chance. You
vote for punitive levels of student debt and the inability to free yourself of debt obligations
through bankruptcy . You
vote for deregulating the banking industry and the abolition of Glass-Steagall. You vote for
the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical corporations and against universal health care. You
vote for bloated defense budgets. You vote for the use of unlimited oligarchic and corporate
money to buy our elections. You vote for a politician who during his time in the Senate
abjectly served the interests of
MBNA , the largest independent credit card company headquartered in Delaware, which also
employed Biden's son Hunter.
There are no substantial political differences between the Democrats and Republicans. We
have only the illusion of participatory democracy. The Democrats and their liberal apologists
adopt tolerant positions on issues regarding race, religion, immigration, women's rights and
sexual identity and pretend this is politics. The right wing uses those on the margins of
society as scapegoats. The culture wars mask the reality. Both parties are full partners in the
reconfiguration of American society into a form of neofeudalism. It only depends on how you
want it dressed up.
"By fostering an illusion among the powerless classes" that it can make their interests a
priority, the Democratic Party "pacifies and thereby defines the style of an opposition party
in an inverted totalitarian system," political philosopher Sheldon Wolin writes.
The Democrats will once again offer up a least-worst alternative while, in fact, doing
little or nothing to thwart the march toward corporate totalitarianism. What the public wants
and deserves will again be ignored for what the corporate lobbyists demand. If we do not
respond soon to the social and economic catastrophe that has been visited on most of the
population, we will be unable to thwart the rise of corporate tyranny and a
Christian fascism.
We need to reintegrate those who have been pushed aside back into the society, to heal the
ruptured social bonds, to give workers dignity, empowerment and protection. We need a universal
health care system, especially as we barrel toward a global pandemic. We need programs that
provide employment with sustainable wages, job protection and pensions. We need quality public
education for all Americans. We need to rebuild our infrastructure and end the squandering of
our resources on war. We need to halt corporate pillage and regulate Wall Street and
corporations. We need to respond with radical and immediate measures to curb carbon emissions
and save ourselves from ecocide and extinction. We don't need a "Punch and Judy" show between
Trump and Biden. But that, along with corporate tyranny, is what we seem fated to get, unless
we take to the streets and tear the house down.
> Listen to Cornel West for a real understanding of what has happened and what are our options.
There are no options left for neoliberal Dems. This is a typical political Zugzwang. The only hope is Coronavirus (as an act
of God). Otherwise it looks like they already surrendered elections to Trump.
Biden is a dead end into which neoliberal Dems drove themselves.
See, for example
A possibility remains, therefore, that the Democrats will conduct a 'brokered convention'. Secondary candidates like Buttigieg
and Warren had lately put themselves in the anti-popular posture of endorsing such a proceeding (though there's been nothing
like it since the 1950s): at a brokered convention, a candidate with a solid plurality can be denied the nomination on the
first ballot and defeated later by a coalition.
If Biden now runs far ahead of Sanders, he may sew it up in advance.
On the other hand, his verbal gaffes (announcing himself a candidate for the Senate rather than the presidency; saying 'I
was a Democratic caucus') and his fabricated or false memories (a non-existent arrest in South Africa for demonstrating against
the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela) have exposed a cognitive fragility that some people fear could make him ridiculous by November.
A Biden-Trump contest in 2020 would resemble Clinton-Trump in at least one respect. It would be a case, yet again, of the
right wing of the Democratic Party making the conventional choice against the party's own insurgent energy.
The Democrats and their media outworks are treating Latinos, African Americans and whites as separate nations. Women are
a nation, too – parsed (where useful) as Latino, African American or white.
So the answer to Trump's divide and conquer comes in the form of these college-certified categories that self-divide and
surrender.
The only other weapon of note has been an attempted revival of the Cold War. On 23 February, the New York Times led with
two anti-Sanders hatchet jobs, targeting him as both a destroyer of the Democratic Party and a possible Russian agent
But the mainstream media and their captive party, the party and its captive media, show no sign of letting up the pressure.
A recent leak from a misinterpreted fragment of a report by the Director of National Intelligence became a two-day Red Scare
The truth is that the corporate-liberal media are comfortable with the Trump presidency. They have prospered wonderfully
from his entertainment value, even as they staked out a high ground in the anti-Trump 'resistance'. It will be hard to deny
the plausibility of the charge likely to issue soon from the Sanders campaign, namely that 'the fix is in'; and that, once
more, the people are being denied their proper voice – at first through an organised propaganda campaign that was fed into
debates as well as news coverage, and at last through public co-ordination by the party establishment to guide Democrats into
the one acceptable box.
As COVID-19 begins its inevitable "community transmission" phase around the United States,
the purveyors of the conventional wisdom are largely focused on President Trump's (and by
extension,
prayerful Vice President Pence's) incompetence and his self-serving, empathy-free approach
to the coronavirus. And it is true that, as with all things Trump, it seems that all he really
cares about is the stock market and its effect on his reelection bid. But Trump's narcissism
obscures something both far more pernicious and far more permanent than his oft-televised
obsession with himself and that's the fact that he's been busily making Milton Friedman's
"Supply Side/The Bottom Line Is The Only Line" dream an intractable reality.
It was a dream that first took flight when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. The dream was
often made manifest by the neoliberal lurch and deregulatory impulses of President Bill
Clinton. But it is Trump who's come closest to fully realizing the dream of ending responsive
government. It should come as no surprise, though. Trump lifted, among other things ,
his " Make America
Great Again " slogan from the Gipper. He's also taken Reagan's anti-FDR pitch about the
dangers of government (see "The Deep State") and, with the help of a motley crew of Tea
Partiers, Evangelicals and corporate Republicans, transformed it into, as Steve Bannon calls
it, a "
War on the Administrative State ."
Since taking office and taking complete control of the news-cycle, Trump has been
systematically starving Federal agencies of resources, personnel and attention. He has, through
the sycophants
and
lobbyists he's installed around the Executive Branch, been pushing out career professionals
and barely replacing them with also-rans. And he is dismantling every aspect of government
he cannot
use to reward his corporate clients or punish political apostates.
The idea is to cripple the Federal government from within instead of doing the hard
legislative work of changing the laws that legally compel government action. As a result, many
of the regulations on the books are becoming
functionally irrelevant . Some laws are being rewritten by the lobbyists who used to lobby
against 'em, but mostly the Executive Branch is being systematically emaciated by the political
equivalent of chronic wasting disease.
It's an approach first pioneered by Reagan devotee Grover Norquist, who advocated "
starving the beast
" of government down to a manageable size before "drowning it" in a bathtub. It's an idea
currently being implemented with wide-ranging effect by Trump, who, like Reagan before
him , is
accelerating the bankrupting of the already debt-laden treasury with a combo of tax cuts
and massive spending on a world-dwarfing defense industry. Eventually, the theory goes, the
"safety net," a.k.a. "entitlements," and other "common good" spending will collapse under the
weight of the financial limitations generated by profuse borrowing to fund market-distorting
tax cuts and to dole out subsidies and tax gifts to cronies and key corporations. All the
while, the ever-less regulated chemical, oil, defense, agricultural and (most importantly of
all) financial industries will continue to hoard assets through the rinsing and repeating of
the supply side boom-and-bust scheme, a.k.a. the business cycle.
Frankly, this all looks like the endgame of a long plan to undo the demand side economy
created by the New Deal. Along with the seemingly (but not) contradictory spike in Unitary
Executive power (which is about protecting rackets, shielding enforcers from prosecution
and about enforcing political compliance), this is a transformation decades in the making and
Trump is the perfect salesman for this final episode even better than Reagan or Clinton because
his "flood the zone" narcissism is the ultimate, 24/7 distraction for a people addicted to
binge watching, inured to scripted reality shows and motivated by belligerent infotainment.
Reagan was the first actor to hit his marks on a stage set for him by the interlocking
forces of Big Oil, Big Defense and Wall Street. Not coincidentally, this same Venn Diagram of
power has profited mightily from Trump's Presidency. Rather than an actor, though, Trump is the
barking emcee of the final season of the American Dream Gameshow a program that was initially
cancelled in 1980, but somehow kept running in syndication on one of the two crappy channels a
"free" people have been given to chose from. But now, the final credits are closer to rolling
that ever before.
As such, Trump is the omega to Reagan's alpha. And any coronavirus-related "incompetence"
you see being reported is a feature, not a bug, of this Re-Great'd America. And that's because
Trump is not an outlier. He is a culmination.
JP Sottile is a freelance journalist, published historian, radio co-host and
documentary filmmaker (The Warning, 2008). His credits include a stint on the Newshour news
desk, C-SPAN, and as newsmagazine producer for ABC affiliate WJLA in Washington. His weekly
show, Inside the Headlines w/ The Newsvandal, co-hosted by James Moore, airs every Friday on
KRUU-FM in Fairfield, Iowa. He blogs under the pseudonym " the Newsvandal ".
There
was this moment during the State of the Union Address that I can't stop thinking about.
When President Trump spoke to army wife Amy Wiliams during his speech and told her he'd
arranged her husband's return home from Afghanistan as a "special surprise," it was difficult
to watch.
Sgt. Townsend Williams then descended the stairs to reunite with his family after seven
months of deployment. Congress cheered. A military family's reunion -- with its complicated
feelings that are typically handled in private or on a base -- was used for an applause
line.
That gimmick was the only glimpse many Americans will get of the human reality of our wars
overseas. There is no such window into the lives or suffering of people in Yemen, Somalia,
Afghanistan, or beyond.
That's unacceptable. And so is the myth that Trump is actually ending the wars.
The U.S. has reached a deal with the Taliban to remove 3,400 of the 12,000 U.S. troops
currently in Afghanistan, with the pledge to withdraw more if certain conditions are met.
That's a long overdue first step, as U.S. officials are finally recognizing the war is a
disaster and are negotiating an exit.
But taking a step back reveals a bigger picture in which, from West Africa to Central Asia,
Trump is expanding and deepening the War on Terror -- and making it deadlier.
Far from ending the wars, U.S. airstrikes in Somalia and Syria have skyrocketed under Trump,
leading to more
civilian casualties in both countries. In Somalia, the forces U.S. operations are
supposedly targeting have not been defeated after 18 years of war. It received little coverage
in the U.S., but the first week of this year saw a truck bombing in Mogadishu that killed more
than 80 people.
Everywhere, ordinary people, people just like us except they happen to live in other
countries, pay the price of these wars. Last year saw over 10,000 Afghan civilian casualties --
the sixth year in a row to reach those grim heights.
And don't forget, 2020 opened with Trump bringing the U.S. to the brink of a potentially
catastrophic war with Iran. And he continues to escalate punishing sanctions on the country,
devastating women, children, the elderly, and other vulnerable people.
Trump is not ending wars, but preparing for more war. Over the past year, he has deployed
14,000 more
troops in the Middle East -- beyond the tens of thousands already there.
If this seems surprising, it's in part because the problem has been bipartisan. Indeed, many
congressional Democrats have actually supported these escalations.
In December, 188 House Democrats
joined Republicans in passing a nearly $740 billion military budget that continues the
wars. They passed the budget after abandoning anti-war measures put forward by California
Representative Barbara Lee and the precious few others trying to rein in the wars.
It's worth remembering that State of the Union visual, of Congress rising in unison and
joining the president in applause for his stunt with the Williams family. Because there has
been nearly that level of consensus year after year in funding, and expanding, the wars.
Ending them will not be easy. Too many powerful interests -- from weapons manufacturers to
politicians -- are too invested. But ending the wars begins with rejecting the idea that real
opposition will come from inside the White House.
As with so many other issues -- like when Trump first enacted the Muslim Ban and people
flocked to airports nationwide in protest, or the outpouring against caging children at the
border -- those of us who oppose the wars need to raise our voices, and make the leaders
follow. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Khury Petersen-Smith
> Listen to Cornel West for a real understanding of what has happened and what are our options.
There are no options left for neoliberal Dems. This is a typical political Zugzwang. The only hope is Coronavirus (as an act
of God). Otherwise it looks like they already surrendered elections to Trump.
Biden is a dead end into which neoliberal Dems drove themselves.
See, for example
A possibility remains, therefore, that the Democrats will conduct a 'brokered convention'. Secondary candidates like Buttigieg
and Warren had lately put themselves in the anti-popular posture of endorsing such a proceeding (though there's been nothing
like it since the 1950s): at a brokered convention, a candidate with a solid plurality can be denied the nomination on the
first ballot and defeated later by a coalition.
If Biden now runs far ahead of Sanders, he may sew it up in advance.
On the other hand, his verbal gaffes (announcing himself a candidate for the Senate rather than the presidency; saying 'I
was a Democratic caucus') and his fabricated or false memories (a non-existent arrest in South Africa for demonstrating against
the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela) have exposed a cognitive fragility that some people fear could make him ridiculous by November.
A Biden-Trump contest in 2020 would resemble Clinton-Trump in at least one respect. It would be a case, yet again, of the
right wing of the Democratic Party making the conventional choice against the party's own insurgent energy.
The Democrats and their media outworks are treating Latinos, African Americans and whites as separate nations. Women are
a nation, too – parsed (where useful) as Latino, African American or white.
So the answer to Trump's divide and conquer comes in the form of these college-certified categories that self-divide and
surrender.
The only other weapon of note has been an attempted revival of the Cold War. On 23 February, the New York Times led with
two anti-Sanders hatchet jobs, targeting him as both a destroyer of the Democratic Party and a possible Russian agent
But the mainstream media and their captive party, the party and its captive media, show no sign of letting up the pressure.
A recent leak from a misinterpreted fragment of a report by the Director of National Intelligence became a two-day Red Scare
The truth is that the corporate-liberal media are comfortable with the Trump presidency. They have prospered wonderfully
from his entertainment value, even as they staked out a high ground in the anti-Trump 'resistance'. It will be hard to deny
the plausibility of the charge likely to issue soon from the Sanders campaign, namely that 'the fix is in'; and that, once
more, the people are being denied their proper voice – at first through an organised propaganda campaign that was fed into
debates as well as news coverage, and at last through public co-ordination by the party establishment to guide Democrats into
the one acceptable box.
The DNC
basically chose the overwhelmingly weaker nominee (and sometimes they even did it
blatantly ), and so they lost
to Trump instead of to have their billionaire donors lose to Sanders and to the American public
by Sanders becoming the nominee and then the President. Keeping the support from their
billionaire donors was the DNC's top priority, in 2016 . Of course, America's voting public
generally don't know that both the DNC and the RNC are far more committed to keeping the
support from their billionaire donors than they are committed to winning elections. This is why
those voters pay close heed to what their Party's leaders say about which candidates are
'electable' and which ones aren't.
The voters don't understand how politics actually works, in today's America -- they think
that winning the current general election is a Party official's top priority . They think that
Party professionals are professionals at selecting winners, but instead Party professionals are
professionals at pleasing their Party's billionaires. If a voter wants to please him or her
self instead of please a group of billionaires, that voter ought to vote for whomever that
voter thinks would best serve that voter and not serve any group of billionaires
As the Huffington Post
reported on March 4th , the day after Joe Biden's huge Super-Tuesday win, "'Voters liked
both candidates but clearly consolidated around the one they saw as most electable,' said Jared
Leopold, who was the communications director for the Democratic Governors' Association during
the race. 'The intraparty ideological fight pales in comparison to the thirst to beat Donald
Trump and his buddies.'"
Those people's top concern is to please the few individuals who fund their careers. Winning
the current electoral contest isn't actually their #1 concern, though voters think it is. The
Party professionals have a longer-term, personally career-oriented, goal in mind -- pleasing
their bosses' bosses.
"Perhaps this will finally burst the out-of-control asset price bubble and drop-kick the
Outlaw US Empire's economy into the sewer as the much lower price will rapidly slow the
recycling of what remains of the petrodollar. Looks like Trump's reelection push just fell
into a massive sinkhole as the economy will tank."
Posted by: karlof1 | Mar 9 2020 1:29 utc | 49
....
Call me crazy- but this Virus provides great cover as to why the economy plummets, the
Murikan sheeple will eat it up. Prepare for the double media blitz on the virus AND the
economy tanking as its result.
Don't worry...just continue to go shopping and take those selfies.
It will be hard for the American people to swallow that one. From day 1 I've read a lot of
"articles" and "papers" from know-it-all Western doctors and researchers from commenters here
in this blog, all of them claiming to have very precise and definitive data on what was
happening. A lot of bombastic conclusions I've read here (including one that claimed R0 was
through the roof - it's funny how the R0 is being played down after it begun to infect the
West; suddenly, it's all just a stronger cold...).
And that's just here, in MoA's comment section. Imagine what was being published in the
Western MSM. I wouldn't be surprised there was a lot of rednecks popping their beers
celebrating the fall of China already.
Since China allegedly had a lot of idle industrial capacity - that is, if we take the
Western MSM theories seriously (including the fabled "ghost towns" stories) - then boosting
production wouldn't be a problem to China.
Disclaimer: it's normal for any kind of economy - socialist or capitalist - to have a
certain percentage of idle capacity. That's necessary in order to insure the economy against
unexpected oscillations in demand and to give space of maneuvre for future technological
progress. Indeed, that was one of the USSR's mistakes with its economy: they instinctly
thought unemployment should be zero, and waste should also be zero, so they planned in a way
all the factories always sought to operate at 100% capacity. That became a problem when
better machines and better methods were invented, since the factory manager wouldn't want to
stop production so that his factory would fall behind the other factories in the five-year
plan's goals. So, yes, China indeed has idle capacity - but it is mainly proposital, not a
failure of its socialist planning.
By the latest count, in addition to yuan loans worth 113 billion U.S. dollars granted by
financial institutions and more than 70 billion U.S. dollars paid out by insurance companies,
the Chinese government has allocated about 13 billion U.S. dollars to counter fallout from
the outbreak.
The numbers could look abstract. However, breaking the data down reveals how the money is
being carefully targeted. The government is allocating the money based on a thorough
evaluation of the system's strengths.
...
Local governments are equipped with more local knowledge that allows them to surgically
support key manufacturers or producers that are struggling.
Together, they have borne the bulk of the financial responsibility with an allocation of
equivalently more than nine billion U.S. dollars. It is carefully targeted, divided into
hundreds of thousands of individual grants that are tailor-made by and for each county, town,
city and business.
This is the mark of a socialist system.
The affected capitalist countries will simply use monetary devices (so the private sector
can offset the losses) and burn their own reserves with non-profitable palliatives such as
masks, tests, other quarantine infrastructure etc.
Sounds like US socialism. Basically corporate socialism. Loans are just dollars created out
of thin air, same as in US. Insurance payouts come from premiums, nothing socialist about
that, pure capitalism. Government hand outs to provinces, cities, state owned
corporations,well all of these are run by the party elite, its called pork. US handed out a
lot of pork during the last financial crisis. None of it trickled down to the little people.
I doubt it does in China either.
All crisis are opportunities for the elite to get richer. Those Biolake firms in Wuhan
will make out like bandits. Chinese firms will double the price of API's sold to India and
US. China will knock out the small farmer in the wake of concurrent chicken and swine flu so
the big enterprises take over, a mimicry of the US practice over the last century. China tech
firms will double up on surveillance apps, censoring tools, surveillance and toughen up
social credit restrictions. 5G will allow China to experiment with nanobots to monitor
citizens health from afar (thanks to Harvards Dr Leiber).
Oh yes, socialism with Chinese characteristics is a technocratic capitalists dream. Thats
why the West has never imposed sanctions on China since welcoming them to the global elites
club. Sanctions are reserved for those with true socialism, especially those who preach
equality and god forbid, democracy.
Call me crazy- but this Virus provides great cover as to why the economy plummets, the
Murikan sheeple will eat it up. Prepare for the double media blitz on the virus AND the
economy tanking as its result.
Don't forget the Russians.. They have to be to blame. See they just kept the price of oil low
so now the rest of the world gets gas cheaper than the USA. The USA motorist now has to bail
out the dopey frackers and shale oil ponzis.
Global envy will eat murica. Maybe they will just pull out all their troops and go home.
;)
"... Faced with Zionism at its most aggressive, most US presidents tend to mellow, discovering long-standing friendships among those who most infuriate them. But Sanders has talked of Palestinian suffering and dignity on numerous occasions – which neither Biden nor Warren have yet chosen to do on the campaign – and his contention that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) promotes "bigotry" aroused perhaps too much fury from the pro-Israeli lobby group ..."
"... Its boss, Howard Kohr, is well aware that neither Sanders nor Warren – nor, apparently, Biden, though we'll see about this -- had any interest in attending this year's AIPAC conference. His latest remarks, clearly directed at the man who could be America's first Jewish president, are worthy of serious examin ..."
"... Robert Fisk writes for the Independent , where this column originally appeared. ..."
And many American voters – save for pro-Israeli lobbyists, liberal Jewish groups and
disparate Muslim organisations – don't care a hill of beans about the fears of Israel and the Arabs. But both
Muslims and Jews in the region have been carefully studying what the three remaining Democrat
contenders have said about two-state solutions, Israeli colonies in the West Bank and the US
embassy, currently in Jerusalem courtesy of Donald Trump. It's time we did the same.
First of all, despair all ye who think the Democrats are going to reverse Trump's disastrous
transfer of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Those who believe that a Democrat
president will simply roll back on Trump's disastrous policies – not just over the
embassy but anywhere else in the Middle East – had better shake off their illusions.
History doesn't go backwards. None of the Democratic candidates would commit to reversing
Trump's embassy decision when asked; only Sanders spoke vaguely of returning it to Tel Aviv.
The rest chickened out by suggesting, rather outrageously, that the existence of the embassy in
Jerusalem would become part of future Israeli-Palestinian negotiations – something which
was never part of the original Oslo negotiations nor any UN resolution.
Elizabeth Warren announced in the South Carolina debate last month that the decision should
be left up to "Israel and Palestine" – presumably suggesting that the 'capital' of a
two-state solution was up to them, even though Bibi Netanyahu believes it's all wrapped up
– Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, full stop. And "Palestine", Warren should have been
aware, doesn't as a state actually exist.
"But it's not up to us to determine what the terms of a two-state solution are," quoth she.
" The best way to do that is to encourage the parties to get to the negotiating table
themselves." Repeatedly asked if she would move the embassy back to Tel Aviv, Warren equally
repeatedly said that "we should let the parties determine the capital." Later she rather eerily
referred to "capitals" – without explaining if she was thinking of a Palestinian
"capital" in the village of Abu Dis, the grim little solution that Madeleine Albright
half-heartedly supported two decades ago.
Sanders, of course, captured the imagination and fury of Arabs and Israelis (and Israel's
supposed friends in America) by his characterisation of Netanyahu as a "reactionary racist"
– a description he may now choose to soften. Faced with Zionism at its most
aggressive, most US presidents tend to mellow, discovering long-standing friendships among
those who most infuriate them. But Sanders has talked of Palestinian suffering and dignity on
numerous occasions – which neither Biden nor Warren have yet chosen to do on the campaign
– and his contention that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) promotes
"bigotry" aroused perhaps too much fury from the pro-Israeli lobby group .
Its boss, Howard Kohr, is well aware that neither Sanders nor Warren – nor,
apparently, Biden, though we'll see about this -- had any interest in attending this year's
AIPAC conference. His latest remarks, clearly directed at the man who could be America's first
Jewish president, are worthy of serious examin ation. "A growing and highly vocal and
energised part of the electorate fundamentally rejects the value of the US-Israeli alliance,"
he said. " The leaders of this movement say they support Israel's right to defend herself. But
every time Israel exercises that right, they condemn Israel."
Kohr wasn't referring here to BDS, the boycott, divest and sanctions movement which does
frighten Israeli leaders, but the increasingly worried men and women in America – young
Jewish liberals prominent among them – who are disgusted by the suffering faced by the
Palestinians in Gaza. Unafraid of Sanders' unwise use of the word "socialism" – which
used to be quite acceptable in Israel many years ago – they are searching, I suspect, for
a morality in international politics which the US regularly suspends when confronted by
Israel's colonial project in the West Bank.
"Israel cannot afford false friends," Kohr continued in a very clear assault on Sanders'
condemnation of the Israeli government and its now yet-again elected prime minister, an attack
he described as "demonising Israel". Last spring, Kohr spoke of the "intense hatred" of Israel
which, he contended, was moving from the margins to the centre of US politics. " Israel has
been able to count on its friendship with the United States," he now says.
But George W Bush and Obama "each understood that America's commitment to Israel's safety
must be consistent, it must be unequivocal [sic], and it must be dependable." In reality
– a quality often lost in any discussion of US-Israeli relations in Washington –
Obama was angered by Netanyahu's constant interference in US politics, his lone appeals to
Congress over the president's head and his absolute refusal to postpone or close down or
abandon the steady theft of Palestinian Arab land for Jewish colonies between Jerusalem and the
Jordan river. Kohr's reference to the necessity of America's "unequivocal" support is not quite
what he meant.
The correct word – had he dared to say it – would have been "uncritical". And
Sanders is not uncritical. In the strait-jacket, fearful debates which pass for serious
television discussion in the United States, condemnation of Israel and its grotesque occupation
of another people's land – if not splashed with accusations of antisemitism – is
regarded as off-limits, unacceptable, even immoral.
Sanders has broken this silly convention. And thus he must be dismissed as a "socialist'
(this is partly his fault, of course) and a "radical", a word which my elderly Dad would
probably have interpreted as a 'Bolshie'. Sanders is not a Bolshevik – though he
sometimes looks like one when he's on the stump – and his real threat to Israel is that
in the eyes of his supporters, he is honest, and seen to be honest. The fact that Sanders is
Jewish and represents the bravest of America's liberal Jewish community is all the more
frightening to Israel's right-wing supporters.
And so we come to Joe Biden, a man whom Netanyahu used to run rings around when Biden was
Obama's vice president. In 2010, the Netanyahu government blithely announced 1,600 new
settlement houses on occupied Palestinian land shortly after Biden's arrival on an official
visit to Israel. Huffily arriving 90 minutes late for dinner with Netanyahu, Biden condemned
the decision – and said no more. Four years later, addressing the Saban Forum, part of
the right-wing Brookings Institute, Biden spent much time condemning Iran, praising Obama's $17
billion financial support for Israel's military – which he calculated at $8.5 million a
day – and referring obliquely to the grave reservations which the Obama administration
had about Israel as "tactical disagreements", "tactical divides", "normal disagreements" and
"different perspectives".
Only at the very end of his 2014 peroration did Biden mildly condemn "expanding settlement
activity and construction and the demolition of homes of attackers [sic]" as
"counterproductive". He referred to "terrorist" attacks by Palestinians and "vigilante attacks"
by Jewish settlers. And that's pretty much what we can expect of a Biden presidency.
He might, conceivably, try to roll back Trump's destruction of the Iranian nuclear agreement
into which Obama put so much energy – but just as he will not commit himself to reversing
Trump's decision on the US embassy transfer to Jerusalem, he's likely to search for another
nuclear agreement to take the place of the Obama one – which, in his perverse and
hopeless way, is what Trump has been suggesting.
The trouble is that while former Democrat candidates are now ganging up to destroy Sanders'
chances of nomination – along with a significant portion of the US "liberal" press
– Trump, barring a virus-induced economic collapse, is unlikely to spend much time
worrying about a Biden candidacy.
Just as they prefer a "safe pair of hands" to protect the party, so the Democrat elite and
the "old" liberals fear the moral crusade upon which Sanders might embark – about health
and human rights just as much as the Middle East. Better to avoid conflict with Israel, too.
And that was Hilary Clinton's policy, wasn't it? And that's how Sanders went off the rails in
the last presidential election, finally asking his supporters to give their vote to Hillary, as
they shouted: "No! No! No!" Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Robert Fisk
Robert Fisk writes for the Independent , where this column originally
appeared.
With the impact of the Coronavirus on the economy, the stock market and the national mood
still unknown, President Trump's ability to ride into reelection on the strength of the economy
is no longer so certain. Economists who thought that 2021-2022 would be the earliest point of a
major economic downturn and market correction are now warning that 2020 could see a global
recession--possibly a replay of 2008. That is if the COVID-19 virus does turn into a global
pandemic, another big unknown.
Mr. Lang,
re Trump doesn't look senescent at all to me. To underestimate him is a serious error.
Overestimating him also is an error. Rumpsfeld perpetuated the inanity that "there are
known knowns ... but there are also unknown unknowns". He'd be perfect for the Trump team but
there isn't enough place for his ego too.
COVID-19 is a known unknown, but Trump says that ...
everything will be fine ...
that the disease pandemy will be over in, say, May or June ...
and was anyway only invented by the Democrats to harm his re-election campaign
...
and that that little crash recently at wall street was to blame only on Boeing (what,
not Airbus too?) ...
penal taxes! penal taxes! subsidies! subsidies!
... and naturally the FED's way too low or whatever harming interest rate harms him,
him, him and his campaign the US very very badly.
Sadly that is an undeliberate 'crack fuelled joke'. So I don't so much think of error
but of utter horror, severely aggravated by egomany and incompetence. That's something
worse than obvious and happily tweeted personal character defects or severe
over-golferitis.
The US gvt expert team for disease control? Yes, there was something like that,
created and hired by Obama and fired by Trump, 'to save money and for having Obama's
name on the employment contract '.
Their replacement? An improvisation led by Pence who told his underlings on day one of
that sub-job to STFU and that only he will talk with media over corona - and then flew
off to iirc Florida to collect election campaign donations for himself and/or Trump.
Obviously, priorities clearly set.
COVID-19, if the shit hits the fan, may kill off some - if it has or tops SARS 10%
lethality - say 32,8 million American citizens. That's, let me put it this way, not just
bad for Trump's ego and re-election campaign. It would be a pity for the other bystanders
too.
My employer has yesterday informed us that employer travels to Asia are not permitted
atm, and that empoyees in Korea, China, Japan etc are ordered to work from home for the
next few weeks to prevent and/or control COVID-19 distribution. That sounds like someone
taking it rather seriously; note the contrast.
Also interesting, my boss earns every day as much as I do in a year, if she wanted to
top Trump's donation for corona virus research she'd have to pay her her salary of 4-5
days, not that of a quarter of a year. That'd be 'rich vs wannabes', and the rich
win.
"... The "normalcy" to which Biden would return the U.S. is rather different. There would be a restoration of sorts, but the restoration would be that of the bankrupt bipartisan foreign policy consensus, among other things. As Emma Ashford suggested in a recent discussion , Biden's foreign policy could be described as "Make American Exceptionalism Great Again." ..."
"... Biden's rhetoric is full of the tired boilerplate rhetoric about U.S. global leadership. Biden's new article for Foreign Affairs includes quite a bit of this: ..."
"... As president, I will take immediate steps to renew U.S. democracy and alliances, protect the United States' economic future, and once more have America lead the world. This is not a moment for fear. This is the time to tap the strength and audacity that took us to victory in two world wars and brought down the Iron Curtain. ..."
"... basically, a Biden foreign policy would be "Obama but worse" https://t.co/wIZwch5Bmk ..."
"... Inasmuch as Biden is much more comfortable with the nostrums of the foreign policy establishment and with their assumptions about the U.S. role in the world than Obama was, that seems like the right conclusion. A foreign policy that is like Obama's but more conventional probably doesn't sound that bad, but we should remember that this is the same foreign policy that left the U.S. engaged in more than one illegal war and normalized illegal warfare without Congressional authorization. ..."
"... Returning to an era of "normalcy" characterized by repeated policy failures, lack of accountability, and open-ended warfare is not the kind of restoration that Americans need. It might be good enough to win the election, but it isn't going to fix what ails U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... I hope that Sanders really takes it to Biden on the horrendous failures of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, particularly the wrecking of Libya, Syria, and Yemen, the sheer scale of human misery that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden caused, including unleashing millions of terrified refugees into Europe. I find Sanders' dalliance with communist dictatorships during the Cold War disgusting, but Biden's responsibility for implementing the Obama/Clinton foreign policy horrors is far worse. ..."
"... Unfortunately, most voters don't seem to care much about foreign policy--which is really outrageous considering it is the area in which Presidents have the greatest latitude to act unilaterally. But that is the world we live in. ..."
"... Even if he does publicly recant it, my view is that talk is cheap. Politicians will say what they think the voters want to hear. It doesn't mean they'll do it. ..."
"... Wasn't Biden the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the person that maybe has done more than VP Dick C. in 2002 to start and legitimize the Iraq war? ..."
"... Bottom line is Biden is fraud and everything he and his handlers say or write must be viewed as such. ..."
oe Biden's candidacy is defined by the idea that he will "restore" things to the way they were four years ago and that he will
preside over a "return to normalcy" after the Trump years. The
phrase "return
to normalcy" has been
linked to the
Biden campaign
for the better part of the last year. TAC 's Curt Mills
commented on this
after Biden's recent primary wins:
Biden then, not Trump, would be the candidate of the centennial. Like Warren Harding, he promises a return to normalcy.
The Harding comparison is quite useful because it shows how Biden's "return to normalcy" will be quite different from the one
Harding proposed a century ago. Harding contrasted
normalcy with "nostrums." This was a shot at the ideological fantasies of the Wilson era and the upheaval that had come with U.S.
entry into WWI. This is the
full quote :
America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation,
but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence
in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality.
The "normalcy" to which Biden would return the U.S. is rather different. There would be a restoration of sorts, but the restoration
would be that of the bankrupt bipartisan foreign policy consensus, among other things. As Emma Ashford suggested in a recent
discussion , Biden's foreign policy could be described as "Make American Exceptionalism Great Again."
Where Harding's "normalcy" represented the repudiation of Wilsonian fantasies, Biden's would be an attempt to revive them at least
in part. Harding contrasted "normalcy" with Wilson's "nostrums," but Biden's rhetoric is full of the tired boilerplate rhetoric
about U.S. global leadership. Biden's new
article
for Foreign Affairs includes quite a bit of this:
As president, I will take immediate steps to renew U.S. democracy and alliances, protect the United States' economic future,
and once more have America lead the world. This is not a moment for fear. This is the time to tap the strength and audacity that
took us to victory in two world wars and brought down the Iron Curtain.
The Cold War ended thirty years ago, and it is telling that Biden does not point to any victories for the U.S. in the decades
that have followed. Proponents of U.S. global "leadership" have to keep reaching farther and farther back in time to recall a time
when U.S. "leadership" was successful, and they have remarkably little to say about the thirty years when they have been running
things. That is what they want to "restore," but it's not clear why Americans should want to go back to a status quo ante that produced
such staggering and costly failures as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Like the early 19th century Bourbon restoration, it would be
a return to power for those who had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
John Carl Baker comments on an op-ed co-authored last year by Robert Kagan and Anthony Blinken. Blinken is now Biden's main foreign
policy adviser, and that leads Baker to draw this conclusion:
Inasmuch as Biden is much more comfortable with the nostrums of the foreign policy establishment and with their assumptions
about the U.S. role in the world than Obama was, that seems like the right conclusion. A foreign policy that is like Obama's but
more conventional probably doesn't sound that bad, but we should remember that this is the same foreign policy that left the U.S.
engaged in more than one illegal war and normalized illegal warfare without Congressional authorization.
Returning to an era of "normalcy" characterized by repeated policy failures, lack of accountability, and open-ended warfare
is not the kind of restoration that Americans need. It might be good enough to win the election, but it isn't going to fix what ails
U.S. foreign policy.
I hope that Sanders really takes it to Biden on the horrendous failures of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, particularly the
wrecking of Libya, Syria, and Yemen, the sheer scale of human misery that Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Biden caused, including
unleashing millions of terrified refugees into Europe. I find Sanders' dalliance with communist dictatorships during the Cold
War disgusting, but Biden's responsibility for implementing the Obama/Clinton foreign policy horrors is far worse.
I'm one of those poor saps who was taken in by Trump in 2016, and I want a Democrat I can vote for. I can't see voting for
someone with Biden's appalling foreign policy record. If he doesn't recant it publicly and convincingly then he will likely lose
to Trump.
"If he doesn't recant it publicly and convincingly then he will likely lose to Trump."
I don't know about that. Unfortunately, most voters don't seem to care much about foreign policy--which is really
outrageous considering it is the area in which Presidents have the greatest latitude to act unilaterally. But that is the
world we live in.
Even if he does publicly recant it, my view is that talk is cheap. Politicians will say what they think the voters want to
hear. It doesn't mean they'll do it. The only recantation I would find somewhat persuasive (I don't think anything would "convince"
me) is if he were to state that he will appoint somebody like Sanders or Rand Paul as secretary of State and someone like Tulsi
Gabbard as secretary of Defense, and staff his national security council by recruiting from the Quincy Institute. (To actually
capture my vote would require additional personnel commitments, such as Elizabeth Warren for secretary of the Treasury--but that's
off topic for this thread.)
Right now, I would vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination and doesn't do something between now and November to alienate
me. If Biden is the nominee, barring something really drastic, I'll do my usual and find a third party candidate to vote for.
Wasn't Biden the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the person that maybe has done more than VP Dick C. in 2002 to start
and legitimize the Iraq war? Just accusing Biden of voting for the Iraq war is nothing. About 70 other senators have voted for
it. Biden was the legislative Architect that paved the way for the Iraq War, and in my books (keeping the UN Charter as the legal
standard), he is a War Criminal.
I realize that almost everything Biden has to say about foreign policy is abysmal, and both Sanders and Warren were much better,
but neither were electable (and both were abysmal on domestic policy and trade policy). Biden may be banal, but he is not vicious,
as Trump so clearly is.
Furthermore, I think the otherwise estimable Mr. Larison fails to realize that the general public does
set some vague parameters for what is and what is not acceptable foreign policy, though often without knowing it. I think it quite
likely that Donald Trump will "abandon" Afghanistan, just as Max Boot et al. fear, and no one who can't name the Acela stops between
New York and DC will care. Trump, when he isn't assassinating people, is much less aggressive than the Obama/Clinton administration.
Although he talks about regime change, he doesn't follow through. He can be talked out of withdrawing troops, but so far hasn't
tried sending them in. Early in his administration he was widely praised for firing Tomahawk missiles into Syria. Why hasn't he
done it again? There is nothing Trump likes so much as praise. Why abandon what seemed like a sure-fire applause line?
The "electability" concept is something mostly constructed by the media. Only a very small percentage of voters come in direct
contact and hear and observe the candidates. The very brief TV debates, much choreographed and controlled are no good. As such,
media starts and keeps repeating this notion of electability.
As a person, presence, message, I think the most charismatic individual to show up for this presidential cycle is Tulsi Gabbard.
Her showing is off the charts compared with everyone else. Beside her anti regime change message (she is not necessarily anti-war),
her charisma is such a threat that she had to be excluded from the consciousness and awareness of people. And what was implanted
in people's mind is that she is an Assad apologist and that she met with the blood thirsty Assad.
How about restoration of the "normalcy" of bipartisan consensus on "comprehensive immigration reform" AKA a general amnesty which
will likely benefit some 25 to 35 million illegal aliens plus their descendants, in practice?
It doesn't seem to make much sense harping about restoring sanity to American foreign policy when America might not even exist
in 20 years.
even some of us without Nobel prizes could see that Ryan was a phony.
But don't expect that to mean much in an election. Biden has lost me out of his own
mouth. Not his gaffes, but his overarching policy philosophy.
But that (policy) is not much different from standard Democrat "appeal to the poor,
appease the rich" policy.
And bad as that is, it is much, much better than R's (Trump) "who gives a damn about the
constitution or human decency or the appearance of fair play?"
Which would mean "if Bernie really can't win, help Biden win and hope for more
influence and better strategy next time." With Trump there will be no next time.
As for Warren, I hope she stays in the fight. Not to win the nomination, but to say
intelligent things about the Crooks controlling financial policies that rob the poor to
the point of no return.
and if EMichael sees no indication of the DNC favoring anyone, that tells me more
about Michael than it does about the DNC.
likbez , March 9, 2020 12:39 am
Biden is a dead end. I think half of Sanders voters probably will never vote for Biden. This
is like a civil war between proponents of the restoration of the New Deal Capitalism vs Clinton
Pro-Wall Street wing of the party. Many Bernie supporters view Biden as the enemy (and
politically he is the enemy as a staunch neoliberal and neocon)
Please note that some of them in 2016 voted for Trump.
"12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic
presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election. That is according
to the data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) -- a massive election
survey of around 50,000 people."
When Trump was first elected I figured it was a 1 term deal. After all, why does a
billionaire want to waste all of his twighlight years as President for any longer. But the
Dems failed to run anyone that could relieve him from duty. What to do? Well Covid-19.
Knowing how fearful Americans are, not taking a overhyped health care crisis seriously is
political suicide. Yet he chooses to do so. If politicians know nothing they know the people
demand "to be kept safe". Yet Trump seems oblivious, opening himself up to defeat.
... ... ...
Otherwise I guess people might vote for Biden if they get scared enough, and if they get
the chance to vote. Stay tuned though.
Biden and Sanders are both campaigning actively and meeting voters in many different states.
Plenty of hugs/handshakes. I am wondering what precautions they have taken against the
coronavirus. Note they are both in their late 70's.
AOC and the rest of the gang need to make sure they survive in case Biden does become
president. Otherwise they'll likely be targeted and primaried in a purge of leftists. It may
happen anyway, but she needs to survive to fight beyond a Biden presidency.
What I was thinking. But campaigning hard for Hillary did not shield Bernie from the scorn
of the frenzied neoliberals who lost the presidency to the most horrid candidate that I can
remember.
AOC cannot say it but I can. I have no reason to support the Dems if Bernie is not in the
general election. In fact, I will work to burn the party to the ground since it will just be
in the way of enacting the required policies to fix America.
And for reference, I am a boomer, and a fifty year Dem voter, but enough is enough.
"... How is it that Biden won so many states based on endorsements alone? No field offices, no real money, he barely visited some states, if at all and yet he won. ..."
"... Hillary had tons of endorsements everywhere, a field office in every state and major city, lots of cash, and she didn't win as many. This does not compute. ..."
"... The only difference is Biden is personally more appealing and approachable than Hillary. But still. Something fishy here. I'm wondering how many of those states had audit trails like hand-marked paper ballots and how many did not? ..."
"... The wide discrepancy between exit poll numbers and vote total percentages in some states seems a little fishy, too. Electronic voting machines: progress! (removing my foil bonnet now) ..."
How is it that Biden won so many states based on endorsements alone? No field offices, no
real money, he barely visited some states, if at all and yet he won.
Hillary had tons of
endorsements everywhere, a field office in every state and major city, lots of cash, and she
didn't win as many. This does not compute.
The only difference is Biden is personally more
appealing and approachable than Hillary. But still. Something fishy here. I'm wondering how
many of those states had audit trails like hand-marked paper ballots and how many did
not?
The wide discrepancy between exit poll numbers and vote total percentages in some states
seems a little fishy, too. Electronic voting machines: progress! (removing my foil bonnet
now)
I'll put the foil bonnet on Flora. DCG, the fishy smell is election fraud courtesy of the
DNC. Unless we have paper ballots hand counted in public, I don't buy the miraculous Biden
resurgence narrative from his supposed silent majority. Give me a family blogging break.
I absolutely fail to understand why anyone would consider this idea tin foil. Who do we
think we're dealing with here? These folks are playing to win and they will do anything and
everything in their power to do so. The system is set up perfectly to support psychopaths
Me neither. That fact that the Democrat party has never even tried to address the problems
with election integrity, even when they've had the presidency stolen from them, speaks
volumes.
They allow a phony riot to stop the count in FL, then hardly make a peep when the Supremes
anoint Bush in 2000 in a decision not meant to set precedent, and their response is
the Help America Vote Act which foisted these easily hackable machines on us as a solution?
The only reason you do that is if you want to be able to rig elections yourself.
After the debacle of the Iowa caucus this year and the unheard of swing to Biden this
week, it sure looks like the fix is in.
Please educate me–no seriously!–as to how hand marked paper ballots are so
very different from machine marked paper ballots. If you assume that machine marked
ballots–marked with the candidate's name (written in human readable English) and
securely stored for a potential hand recount–are crooked then aren't you assuming that
the entire election machinery is crooked and not just a vote tabulating machine? After all
long before computers were invented there was that thing called ballot box
stuffing.
Machine marked ballots have a middleman. Said machines 'phone home' to a central server,
which may well be running a program that fractionally 'shifts' votes as needed to edge out a
win for the estab preferred candidate (of either party). The 'red shift' in vote results
after electronic voting has been noted by statisticians.
One interesting coincidence here is that I was going to link to some statisticians' work I
know of, work that was easily available online as late as early January this year. When I
search for the links now they are either gone or the links are warned off as 'suspect'.
Info easily found online. Here's one very recent story's take away:
"Some of the most popular ballot-marking machines, made by industry leaders Election
Systems & Software and Dominion Voting Systems, register votes in bar codes that the
human eye cannot decipher. That's a problem, researchers say: Voters could end up with
printouts that accurately spell out the names of the candidates they picked, but, because of
a hack, the bar codes do not reflect those choices. Because the bar codes are what's
tabulated, voters would never know that their ballots benefited another candidate.
"Even on machines that do not use bar codes, voters may not notice if a hack or
programming error mangled their choices. A University of Michigan study determined that only
7 percent of participants in a mock election notified poll workers when the names on their
printed receipts did not match the candidates they voted for."
In the just past election are there any reports of ballots being printed out that had a
different name than the one the voter selected to be printed? And if that did happen would it
be anything other than accidentally pressing the wrong button? Surely if this "voters didn't
look at the ballot" (which personally I greatly doubt) idea was really the cheating scheme
then it would be highly likely to be exposed.
Re-read the part about the 'computer reads and tabulates the barcode information, not the
english text printout'. A hack or middleman could fiddle the barcode printout/information
(unrecognized by the human eye) , not the text printout.
Also consider that the fiddle works best if it's only a few percentage points different
than expected, one way or the other. People then say of unexpected results, 'oh, it was
really close, but that's how it goes, elections can be unpredictable', and accept the
election results as 'the will of the people.' It's called "electronic fractional vote
shifting". Really. It's called that. Fractional vote shifting.
Right–without a doubt. But the reason it prints that piece of paper is for a later
human audit by eye should a recount be demanded. In that case the barcode would become
irrelevant. There is a paper trail.
That said, I would agree there could be secret ballot concerns about the way I voted. You
feed the ballot into the counter right side up and unfolded with an election "helper"
standing nearby.
One reason both parties prefer 'close elections'. A few points either way won't raise
eyebrows. Won't raise a demand for a recount. (And, like compound interest, a 'few points'
one way or the other in various elections, over time, can add up to large effects in
political direction. imo.)
The problem is getting to the recount. My state does not allow recounts unless the machine
tally is extremely close. So if you want to rig an election, just make sure your candidate
wins by enough and there will never be a recount of those machine counted paper ballots.
I asked city officials for a few years to do recounts just to audit the machines, and was
told it was not allowed under state law unless there was a close enough race – I
believe the threshhold is in the low single digits. My wife later ran for office and lost by
about 1% and I was finally able to get a recount. We counted all the ballots by hand and
while the final outcome didn't change, what we found was that the hand recount tallied about
1-2% more votes than the machines had.
flora is right about the close elections. I find it very odd that in my younger days we
had landslides fairly often and now every presidential election goes right down to the
wire.
OK. This is my experience as a counter in a UK General Election, where hand-marked
ballot-papers are counted in public.
Each voting station has a sealed tin box. Arriving to vote your name is checked against
the electoral role and you are handed a ballot paper. You go into a curtained booth with a
stand-up desk and a pencil in a string and put a X in a box opposite the candidate you vote
for. Outside the booth you fold your ballot paper and post it into the box through a narrow
slot. When the election closes the box is delivered to – in our case – the
town-hall – where the counters sit at tables three to a side with a team-leader at the
head. One of the boxes is brought to each table, unsealed and the contents dumped into the
middle of it. Each counter then snags a pile of marked votes and sorts them into piles as
voted. Any uncertainties – where the vote isn't obvious – is passed up to the
team leader for assessment. When all the votes are tallied – including the
uncertainties – the total is compared with the note from the polling station stating
the number of votes cast there, and if they don't agree the count for that box is done
again.
All this is done under the eyes of representatives of the candidates who are free to move
around the tables at will, and who in particular can watch over the team-leaders dealing with
the uncertain ballot papers, but who are free to challenge any counter's tally.
Ballot boxes could be 'switched' between the voting station and the count, but that would
only work if you knew how many papers were in the box per the count or could also substitute
the tally signed off by the polling-station superintendent. Ballot-box stuffing wouldn't work
as again the votes cast and counted for that box/station would not align.
Could it be gamed? I suppose, but it would take a massive effort and conspiracy –
mostly at the polling-station/transit stage, tho' again the candidates can have observers
there. The whole system is run by the local authority and most of those involved in the
polling-station/count are local authority workers with their own political preferences so
finding enough to suborn to fix the count would be a difficult, and politically dangerous
operation. Even if one polling-station's box was corrupted in some way it would have little
effect on the overall result, and if it stood out as atypical could invite investigation.
So no, it's not perfect, but I can't think of a better way of doing it.
Ps. Each voting paper is numbered and taken from a book leaving a stub with the same
number. So to 'stuff' or otherwise tamper with the voting papers in the box you'd also need
to swap the actual voting paper book with a substitute bearing the same number system and I
think, tho' don't quote me on this, books of ballot papers for the various polling stations
are only issued on election day and at random.
IIRC, in a nut-shell, some of the systems used have a bar code printed on the ballot at
the time they are scanned into the system.
That bar code ' marks ', the ballot, and supposedly communicates the voter's
intentions to the tabulating software that counts the votes.
The rest of the ballot looks proper to the voter, but the voter has no way of telling what
the bar code means.
And from any IT professional's point of view, who cares what the ballot looks like, if the
mark on your ballot, (the one that is counted) was not made by your hand (say, a bar code
printed by a scanner), and/or, if there is a computer used to count the votes, that system is
intended to allow falsification of election results.
Due to the lack of legal action on the part of either of our political parties, to refute
the results of elections stolen by wholesale electronic election fraud, I can only conclude
that election fraud is a wholly acceptable tool in their bi-partisan toolbox?
And yes, you're right, they've always stuffed the ballot box, think of electronic vote
tabulation as the newest twist on an old trick.
The invention of electronic voting was intended to insure that voters can never vote their
way to freedom.
So your argument is that we must have hand counted ballots because the machine marked
version won't work because the recounters would have to hand count the ballots. Just to
repeat, yet again, when I voted a ballot shaped piece of plain paper was printed with my
candidate choice clearly printed along with a bar code, not qr. This then becomes the vote
itself and it can be read by a scanner or by a human. If done by a human then it is utterly
no different than if I had checked a box on a pre printed ballot.
And for all the objections cited by those above there are valid reasons for states to want
such a system. Obviously an all manual system is very labor intensive and also subject to
human error unless double checked by still more labor. You'd also have to print lots of
ballots before every election while not knowing exactly how many will be needed.
If there are suspicions of vote machine companies–and there should be–a more
logical approach might be to insist that all software is open source and that no machines are
connected directly to the internet or have usb ports. Signs in the precincts should advise
voters to check their paper ballot to make sure the correct choice is printed.
Creating employment insecurity was the entire point of neoliberal reforms such as
outsourcing, de-skilling and contingent employment. Neoliberal theory had it that desperate
workers work both longer and harder. And they die younger.
We can view "Creepy Joe" and Trump as representatives of "neoliberal plague" The slogan
should be " No Pasaran "
( Dolores Ibárruri's famous battlecry appeal for the defense of the Second Spanish
Republic)
Notable quotes:
"... For those who aren't familiar with Albert Camus' The Plague , disparate lives are brought together during a plague that sweeps through an Algerian city. ..."
"... Through the virus, a new light is being shone on four decades of neoliberal reorganization of political economy. The combination of widespread economic marginalization and a lack of paid time off means that sick and highly contagious workers will have little economic choice but to spread the virus. And the insurance company pricing mechanism intended to dissuade people from overusing health care ('skin in the game') means that only very sick people will 'buy' health care they can't afford. ..."
"... If this last part reads like (Ayn) Randian social theory as interpreted by a budding sociopath in the basement of his dead parent's crumbling tract home, it is basic neoliberal ideology applied to circumstances that we can see playing out in real time. ..."
"... While the American response to the Coronavirus threat seems to be less than robust, there was a near instantaneous response from the Federal Reserve to a 10% decline in stock prices. ..."
"... If priorities seem misplaced, you haven't been paying attention. The statistics on suicides, divorces, drug addiction and self-destructive behavior that result from the loss of employment were understood and widely published by the early 1990s, at the peak of that era's round of mass layoffs. Creating employment insecurity was the entire point of neoliberal reforms such as outsourcing, de-skilling and contingent employment. Neoliberal theory had it that desperate workers work both longer and harder. And they die younger. ..."
"... But how likely is it that people will 'demand' too much healthcare? The starting position of Obamacare was that the American healthcare system provided half the benefit at twice the price of comparable systems. ..."
"... Milton Friedman, one of the founders of neoliberalism through the Mont Pelerin Society, produced a long career's worth of half-baked garbage economics. On the rare occasions when he wasn't helping Chilean fascists toss students out of airplanes in flight, he was pawning his infantile theories off on future Chamber of Commerce and ALEC predators. His positivism was already known to be a farce when he took it up. Here is a primer that explains why it is, and always will be, a farce. ..."
For those who aren't familiar with Albert Camus' The Plague ,
disparate lives are brought together during a plague that sweeps through an Algerian city.
Today, by way of the emergence of a lethal and highly communicable virus (Coronavirus), we --
the people of the West, have an opportunity to reconsider what we mean to one another. The
existential lesson is that through dread and angst we can choose to live, with the
responsibilities that the choice entails, or just fade away.
Through the virus, a new light is being shone on four decades of neoliberal
reorganization of political economy. The combination of widespread economic marginalization and
a lack of paid time off means that sick and highly contagious workers will have little economic
choice but to spread the virus. And the insurance company pricing mechanism intended to
dissuade people from overusing health care ('skin in the game') means that only very sick
people will 'buy' health care they can't afford.
Market provision of virus test kits, vaccines and basic sanitary aids will, in the absence
of government coercion, follow the monopolist's model of under-provision at prices that are
unaffordable for most people. The most fiscally responsible route, in the sense of assuring
that the rich don't pay taxes, is to let those who can't afford health care die. If this means
that tens of millions of people die unnecessarily, markets are a harsh taskmaster. (
3.4% mortality rate @
2X – 3X the contagion rate of the Spanish Flu @ 4 X 1918 population).
If this last part reads like (Ayn) Randian social theory as interpreted by a budding
sociopath in the basement of his dead parent's crumbling tract home, it is basic neoliberal
ideology applied to circumstances that we can see playing out in real time. According to
Ryan Grim of The Intercept, Bill Clinton eliminated the ' reasonable
pricing ' requirement for drugs made by companies that receive government funding. This has
bearing on both commercially developed Coronavirus test kits and vaccines.
Leaving aside technical difficulties that either will or won't be resolved, how would any
substantial portion of the 80% of the population that lives hand-to-mouth be effectively
quarantined when losing an income creates a cascade effect of evictions, foreclosures,
starvation, repossessions, shut-off utilities, etc.? The current system conceived and organized
to make desperate and near desperate workers labor with the minimum of pay and benefits is a
public health disaster by design.
While the American response to the Coronavirus threat seems to be less than robust,
there was a near instantaneous response from the Federal Reserve to a 10% decline in stock
prices. The same Federal Reserve that has been engineering a non-stop rise in stock prices
since Wall Street was bailed out in 2009 knows perfectly well how narrowly stock ownership is
concentrated amongst the rich -- it publishes the data. It quickly lowered the cost of
financial speculation as the cost of Coronavirus tests and a vaccine -- and the question of who
will bear them, remain indeterminate.
If priorities seem misplaced, you haven't been paying attention. The statistics on
suicides, divorces, drug addiction and self-destructive behavior that result from the loss of
employment were understood and widely published by the early 1990s, at the peak of that era's
round of mass layoffs. Creating employment insecurity was the entire point of neoliberal
reforms such as outsourcing, de-skilling and contingent employment. Neoliberal theory had it
that desperate workers work both longer and harder. And they die younger.
The brutality of the logic used by the Obama administration in constructing the ACA,
Obamacare, is worthy of exploration. The premise behind the 'skin in the game' idea is
neoliberalism 101, developed by a founder of neoliberalism, economist Milton Friedman, to
ration health care. The basic idea is that without a price attached to it, people will 'demand'
more health care than they need. That from a public health perspective, oversupplying health
care is better than undersupplying it, is ignored under the premise that public health concerns
are communistic. (Read Friedman).
But how likely is it that people will 'demand' too much healthcare? The starting
position of Obamacare was that the American healthcare system provided half the benefit at
twice the price of comparable systems. Through the 'market' pricing mechanism that
existed, the incentive was for people to avoid purchasing healthcare because it was / is wildly
overpriced. Not considered was that through geographical and specialist 'natural monopolies,'
health care providers had an incentive to undersupply health care by providing high-margin
services to the rich.
Furthermore, why would a healthcare system be considered from the perspective of
individual users? In contrast to the temporal sleight-of-hand where Obamacare 'customers' are
expected to anticipate their illnesses and buy insurance plans that cover them, the entire
premise of health insurance is that illnesses are unpredictable. Isn't the Coronavirus evidence
of this unpredictable nature? And through the nature of pandemics, it is known that some people
will get sick and other people won't. Not known is precisely who will get sick and who
won't.
While there are public health emergency provisions in Obamacare that may or may not be
invoked, why does it make sense in any case to require that people anticipate future illnesses?
Such a program isn't health care and it isn't even health insurance. It is gambling. Guess
right and you live. Guess wrong and you die. Why should we be guessing at all? Prior to
Obamacare, health insurance companies gamed the system with life and death decisions. In true
neoliberal fashion, Obamacare randomized the process as health insurers continue to game the
system.
As I understand it, the public health emergency provision in Obamacare might cover virus
testing and the cost of a vaccine if one is ever found. Great. What about care? How many
readers chose a plan that covers Coronavirus? How many days can you go without a paycheck if
you get sick or are quarantined? Who will take care of your children and for how long? How will
you pay your rent or mortgage? Who will deliver groceries to your house and how will you pay
for them? How will you make the car payment before they repossess it and how will you get to
work without it if you recover?
The rank idiocy -- and the political content, of the frame of individual 'consumers'
overusing health care quickly devolves to the fact that some large portion of the American
people can't afford to go to the doctor when they need to. Even if they can afford the direct
costs, they can't afford the indirect costs. When Obamacare was passed, the U.S. had the worst
health care outcomes among rich countries. Ten years later, the U.S. has the
worst healthcare outcomes among rich countries . And medical bankruptcies are virtually
unchanged since Obamacare was passed.
The reason for focusing on Obamacare is it is the system through which we encounter the
Coronavirus. In the narrow political sense of getting a health care bill passed, Obamacare may
or may not have been 'pragmatic.' In a public health care sense, it is a disaster decades in
the making. The problem wasn't / isn't Mr. Obama per se. It is the radical ideology behind it
that was posed as pragmatism. Mr. Obama's success was to get a bill passed -- a political
accomplishment. It wasn't to create a functioning healthcare system.
The otherworldly nature of neoliberal theory has led to a most brutal of social
philosophies. Mr. Obama later put his energy into lengthening drug company
patents to give drug companies an economic advantage provided by the government. Economist
Dean Baker has made a career out of hammering this general point home. Michael Bloomberg
benefited from government support for both technology and finance. His fortune of $16 billion
in 2009 followed stock prices higher to land him at $64.2 billion in 2020.
Donald Trump inherited a large fortune that likewise followed stock and Manhattan real
estate prices higher. Both he and Mr. Bloomberg could have put their early fortunes into
passive portfolios and received the returns that they claim to be the product of superior
intelligence and hard work. Analytically, if the variability of these fortunes tracks systemic,
rather than personal, factors, then systemic factors explain them. The same is true of most of
the great fortunes of the epoch of finance capitalism that began around 1978.
The point of merging these issues is that they represent flip sides of the neoliberal coin.
In a broad sense, neoliberalism is premised on economic Darwinism, the quasi-religious (it
isn't Darwin) idea that people land where they deserve to land in the social order. This same
idea, that systemic differences in economic outcomes are evidence of systemic causes, applies
here. However, differences in intelligence, initiative and talent don't map to systemic outcomes , meaning that
concentrated wealth isn't a reward for these.
The ignorant brutality of this system appears to be on its way to getting a reality check
through a tiny virus. Unless the Federal government figures this out really fast, most of the
bodies will be carried out of poor and working class neighborhoods like mine. Few here have
health insurance and most health care providers in the area don't take the insurance they do
have. More than a day away from work and many of my neighbors will no longer have jobs.
Evictions are a regular state of affairs in good times. There are no resources to facilitate a
larger-picture response.
Liberalism, of which neoliberalism is a cranky cousin, lives through a patina of pragmatism
until the nukes start flying or a virus hits. Getting healthcare 'consumers' to consider their
market choices follows a narrow logic up to the point where none of the choices are relevant to
a public health emergency. One I plus another I plus another I doesn't equal us. The
fundamental premise of neoliberalism, the Robinsonade I, has
always been a cynical dodge to let rich people keep their loot.
The mortality rate and contagion factor recently reported for Coronavirus (links at top)
place it above the modern benchmark of the Spanish Flu of 1918 in terms of potential lethality.
What should make people angry is how the reconfiguration of political economy intended to make
a few people really rich has put the rest of us at increased risk. These are real people's
lives and they matter.
Finally, for students of neoliberalism: there is no conflation of neoliberalism with
neoclassical economics here. Milton Friedman, one of the founders of neoliberalism through
the Mont Pelerin Society, produced a long career's worth of half-baked garbage economics. On
the rare occasions when he wasn't helping Chilean fascists toss students out of airplanes in
flight, he was pawning his infantile theories off on future Chamber of Commerce and ALEC
predators. His positivism was already known to be a farce when he took it up. Here is a primer that
explains why it is, and always will be, a farce.
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is
published by CounterPunch Books.
"Then we have this crazy thing that happened on Tuesday, which [Biden] thought was Thursday,
but he also said 150 million people were killed with guns and that he was running for the
United States Senate. There's something going on there," Trump said.
Biden – who
did say those things – has a track record of gaffes and has turned in bumbling debate
performances, but Trump's line of attack raised the unedifying spectacle of an election focused
on two men in their 70s attacking each other's alleged cognitive decline.
> he needs to ask questions biden will not be prepared for with easy scripted
responses
The Biden campaign now has money, so they can for the first time really prepare Biden for
the debates. However, remember how Biden messed up the number for supporters to text him? I'm
not sure Biden is especially coachable. Challenge Biden to deploy multiple scripts in a short
time, and he might implode.
Creating employment insecurity was the entire point of neoliberal reforms such as
outsourcing, de-skilling and contingent employment. Neoliberal theory had it that desperate
workers work both longer and harder. And they die younger.
We can view "Creepy Joe" and Trump as representatives of "neoliberal plague" The slogan
should be " No Pasaran "
( Dolores Ibárruri's famous battlecry appeal for the defense of the Second Spanish
Republic)
Notable quotes:
"... For those who aren't familiar with Albert Camus' The Plague , disparate lives are brought together during a plague that sweeps through an Algerian city. ..."
"... Through the virus, a new light is being shone on four decades of neoliberal reorganization of political economy. The combination of widespread economic marginalization and a lack of paid time off means that sick and highly contagious workers will have little economic choice but to spread the virus. And the insurance company pricing mechanism intended to dissuade people from overusing health care ('skin in the game') means that only very sick people will 'buy' health care they can't afford. ..."
"... If this last part reads like (Ayn) Randian social theory as interpreted by a budding sociopath in the basement of his dead parent's crumbling tract home, it is basic neoliberal ideology applied to circumstances that we can see playing out in real time. ..."
"... While the American response to the Coronavirus threat seems to be less than robust, there was a near instantaneous response from the Federal Reserve to a 10% decline in stock prices. ..."
"... If priorities seem misplaced, you haven't been paying attention. The statistics on suicides, divorces, drug addiction and self-destructive behavior that result from the loss of employment were understood and widely published by the early 1990s, at the peak of that era's round of mass layoffs. Creating employment insecurity was the entire point of neoliberal reforms such as outsourcing, de-skilling and contingent employment. Neoliberal theory had it that desperate workers work both longer and harder. And they die younger. ..."
"... But how likely is it that people will 'demand' too much healthcare? The starting position of Obamacare was that the American healthcare system provided half the benefit at twice the price of comparable systems. ..."
"... Milton Friedman, one of the founders of neoliberalism through the Mont Pelerin Society, produced a long career's worth of half-baked garbage economics. On the rare occasions when he wasn't helping Chilean fascists toss students out of airplanes in flight, he was pawning his infantile theories off on future Chamber of Commerce and ALEC predators. His positivism was already known to be a farce when he took it up. Here is a primer that explains why it is, and always will be, a farce. ..."
For those who aren't familiar with Albert Camus' The Plague ,
disparate lives are brought together during a plague that sweeps through an Algerian city.
Today, by way of the emergence of a lethal and highly communicable virus (Coronavirus), we --
the people of the West, have an opportunity to reconsider what we mean to one another. The
existential lesson is that through dread and angst we can choose to live, with the
responsibilities that the choice entails, or just fade away.
Through the virus, a new light is being shone on four decades of neoliberal
reorganization of political economy. The combination of widespread economic marginalization and
a lack of paid time off means that sick and highly contagious workers will have little economic
choice but to spread the virus. And the insurance company pricing mechanism intended to
dissuade people from overusing health care ('skin in the game') means that only very sick
people will 'buy' health care they can't afford.
Market provision of virus test kits, vaccines and basic sanitary aids will, in the absence
of government coercion, follow the monopolist's model of under-provision at prices that are
unaffordable for most people. The most fiscally responsible route, in the sense of assuring
that the rich don't pay taxes, is to let those who can't afford health care die. If this means
that tens of millions of people die unnecessarily, markets are a harsh taskmaster. (
3.4% mortality rate @
2X – 3X the contagion rate of the Spanish Flu @ 4 X 1918 population).
If this last part reads like (Ayn) Randian social theory as interpreted by a budding
sociopath in the basement of his dead parent's crumbling tract home, it is basic neoliberal
ideology applied to circumstances that we can see playing out in real time. According to
Ryan Grim of The Intercept, Bill Clinton eliminated the ' reasonable
pricing ' requirement for drugs made by companies that receive government funding. This has
bearing on both commercially developed Coronavirus test kits and vaccines.
Leaving aside technical difficulties that either will or won't be resolved, how would any
substantial portion of the 80% of the population that lives hand-to-mouth be effectively
quarantined when losing an income creates a cascade effect of evictions, foreclosures,
starvation, repossessions, shut-off utilities, etc.? The current system conceived and organized
to make desperate and near desperate workers labor with the minimum of pay and benefits is a
public health disaster by design.
While the American response to the Coronavirus threat seems to be less than robust,
there was a near instantaneous response from the Federal Reserve to a 10% decline in stock
prices. The same Federal Reserve that has been engineering a non-stop rise in stock prices
since Wall Street was bailed out in 2009 knows perfectly well how narrowly stock ownership is
concentrated amongst the rich -- it publishes the data. It quickly lowered the cost of
financial speculation as the cost of Coronavirus tests and a vaccine -- and the question of who
will bear them, remain indeterminate.
If priorities seem misplaced, you haven't been paying attention. The statistics on
suicides, divorces, drug addiction and self-destructive behavior that result from the loss of
employment were understood and widely published by the early 1990s, at the peak of that era's
round of mass layoffs. Creating employment insecurity was the entire point of neoliberal
reforms such as outsourcing, de-skilling and contingent employment. Neoliberal theory had it
that desperate workers work both longer and harder. And they die younger.
The brutality of the logic used by the Obama administration in constructing the ACA,
Obamacare, is worthy of exploration. The premise behind the 'skin in the game' idea is
neoliberalism 101, developed by a founder of neoliberalism, economist Milton Friedman, to
ration health care. The basic idea is that without a price attached to it, people will 'demand'
more health care than they need. That from a public health perspective, oversupplying health
care is better than undersupplying it, is ignored under the premise that public health concerns
are communistic. (Read Friedman).
But how likely is it that people will 'demand' too much healthcare? The starting
position of Obamacare was that the American healthcare system provided half the benefit at
twice the price of comparable systems. Through the 'market' pricing mechanism that
existed, the incentive was for people to avoid purchasing healthcare because it was / is wildly
overpriced. Not considered was that through geographical and specialist 'natural monopolies,'
health care providers had an incentive to undersupply health care by providing high-margin
services to the rich.
Furthermore, why would a healthcare system be considered from the perspective of
individual users? In contrast to the temporal sleight-of-hand where Obamacare 'customers' are
expected to anticipate their illnesses and buy insurance plans that cover them, the entire
premise of health insurance is that illnesses are unpredictable. Isn't the Coronavirus evidence
of this unpredictable nature? And through the nature of pandemics, it is known that some people
will get sick and other people won't. Not known is precisely who will get sick and who
won't.
While there are public health emergency provisions in Obamacare that may or may not be
invoked, why does it make sense in any case to require that people anticipate future illnesses?
Such a program isn't health care and it isn't even health insurance. It is gambling. Guess
right and you live. Guess wrong and you die. Why should we be guessing at all? Prior to
Obamacare, health insurance companies gamed the system with life and death decisions. In true
neoliberal fashion, Obamacare randomized the process as health insurers continue to game the
system.
As I understand it, the public health emergency provision in Obamacare might cover virus
testing and the cost of a vaccine if one is ever found. Great. What about care? How many
readers chose a plan that covers Coronavirus? How many days can you go without a paycheck if
you get sick or are quarantined? Who will take care of your children and for how long? How will
you pay your rent or mortgage? Who will deliver groceries to your house and how will you pay
for them? How will you make the car payment before they repossess it and how will you get to
work without it if you recover?
The rank idiocy -- and the political content, of the frame of individual 'consumers'
overusing health care quickly devolves to the fact that some large portion of the American
people can't afford to go to the doctor when they need to. Even if they can afford the direct
costs, they can't afford the indirect costs. When Obamacare was passed, the U.S. had the worst
health care outcomes among rich countries. Ten years later, the U.S. has the
worst healthcare outcomes among rich countries . And medical bankruptcies are virtually
unchanged since Obamacare was passed.
The reason for focusing on Obamacare is it is the system through which we encounter the
Coronavirus. In the narrow political sense of getting a health care bill passed, Obamacare may
or may not have been 'pragmatic.' In a public health care sense, it is a disaster decades in
the making. The problem wasn't / isn't Mr. Obama per se. It is the radical ideology behind it
that was posed as pragmatism. Mr. Obama's success was to get a bill passed -- a political
accomplishment. It wasn't to create a functioning healthcare system.
The otherworldly nature of neoliberal theory has led to a most brutal of social
philosophies. Mr. Obama later put his energy into lengthening drug company
patents to give drug companies an economic advantage provided by the government. Economist
Dean Baker has made a career out of hammering this general point home. Michael Bloomberg
benefited from government support for both technology and finance. His fortune of $16 billion
in 2009 followed stock prices higher to land him at $64.2 billion in 2020.
Donald Trump inherited a large fortune that likewise followed stock and Manhattan real
estate prices higher. Both he and Mr. Bloomberg could have put their early fortunes into
passive portfolios and received the returns that they claim to be the product of superior
intelligence and hard work. Analytically, if the variability of these fortunes tracks systemic,
rather than personal, factors, then systemic factors explain them. The same is true of most of
the great fortunes of the epoch of finance capitalism that began around 1978.
The point of merging these issues is that they represent flip sides of the neoliberal coin.
In a broad sense, neoliberalism is premised on economic Darwinism, the quasi-religious (it
isn't Darwin) idea that people land where they deserve to land in the social order. This same
idea, that systemic differences in economic outcomes are evidence of systemic causes, applies
here. However, differences in intelligence, initiative and talent don't map to systemic outcomes , meaning that
concentrated wealth isn't a reward for these.
The ignorant brutality of this system appears to be on its way to getting a reality check
through a tiny virus. Unless the Federal government figures this out really fast, most of the
bodies will be carried out of poor and working class neighborhoods like mine. Few here have
health insurance and most health care providers in the area don't take the insurance they do
have. More than a day away from work and many of my neighbors will no longer have jobs.
Evictions are a regular state of affairs in good times. There are no resources to facilitate a
larger-picture response.
Liberalism, of which neoliberalism is a cranky cousin, lives through a patina of pragmatism
until the nukes start flying or a virus hits. Getting healthcare 'consumers' to consider their
market choices follows a narrow logic up to the point where none of the choices are relevant to
a public health emergency. One I plus another I plus another I doesn't equal us. The
fundamental premise of neoliberalism, the Robinsonade I, has
always been a cynical dodge to let rich people keep their loot.
The mortality rate and contagion factor recently reported for Coronavirus (links at top)
place it above the modern benchmark of the Spanish Flu of 1918 in terms of potential lethality.
What should make people angry is how the reconfiguration of political economy intended to make
a few people really rich has put the rest of us at increased risk. These are real people's
lives and they matter.
Finally, for students of neoliberalism: there is no conflation of neoliberalism with
neoclassical economics here. Milton Friedman, one of the founders of neoliberalism through
the Mont Pelerin Society, produced a long career's worth of half-baked garbage economics. On
the rare occasions when he wasn't helping Chilean fascists toss students out of airplanes in
flight, he was pawning his infantile theories off on future Chamber of Commerce and ALEC
predators. His positivism was already known to be a farce when he took it up. Here is a primer that
explains why it is, and always will be, a farce.
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is
published by CounterPunch Books.
So it goes. I cannot for the life of me understand why, leaving aside the public health
aspects of the president's response, people cannot see what a political disaster he's
making for himself and the GOP. He doesn't have to act like the zombie apocalypse is upon us.
He only has to behave like Rudy Giuliani did as Mayor of New York City in the fall of 2001.
But then, as we know, Donald Trump saw the Twin Towers fall, and thought about himself:
I just watched that 9/11 clip. I'd never seen or heard it and I figured, oh boy, what
asinine, self-centered things did he say back then. That's what I've come to expect from
him. But -- I don't really see the problem. They asked him about his nearby tower, and his
observation that it was the second tallest downtown after the WTC is typical of him. But he
didn't dwell on that. And the rest of the interview was just fine, typical platitudes of
that day, in response to some typical stupid (and obsequious) questions from the reporters.
If he sounded like that more often over the last 3 years, I'd be much happier.
Despite his many faults, Trump was once a much better, more articulate communicator.
There's an old recording of a Larry King interview in which he sounds like an entirely
different person from what we see today.
That's my impression as well. I haven't seen this remarked on much, in all the virtual ink
spilled about Trump. Sometimes in old age, one's distinguishing traits and habits become
more pronounced (or as my mother says, one becomes "the same but more so"). Not sure if
that's the case with Trump. It could also be that his cognitive and verbal abilities have
declined, or that he hit on a winning formula and has stuck with it.
If nothing else, this election will give us a lot of opportunity to think about what old
men are like.
"... Nowhere, though, is the rusty, rickety nature of America's civic society more recently evident than in the hilariously, harrowingly inept response to the advent of the COVID-19 virus as a global contagion. Whether it is more or less dangerous and deadly than the media portrays is quite beside the point. The abject incapacity of any government, least of all the feds, to offer even simple, sensible guidance, much less mobilize national resources to examine, investigate and ameliorate the potential threat to human health and well-being is astonishing, even to a tired old cynic like me. At present, the most proactive step has been to pressure the Federal Reserve into goosing the stock market -- the sort of pagan expiation of dark spirits that you'd expect in a more primitive world, when a volcano blew or an earthquake hit. ..."
As much as I like Bernie Sanders and hope he prevails in the Democratic primary, I confess
that there's something gray and depressing about a crusty, seventy-something, New-Deal liberal representing the great electoral hope
of the American left. There are, of course, a number of engaging young progressives in office now, but the fame and near-celebrity
profiles of newcomers like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez belie the still fundamentally local power bases
of these congresswomen, none of whom has yet been tested even in a statewide election. Victories at the state and local levels have
been far outpaced by gains by so-called moderates and centrists, and even these barely dent the thousands of seats and offices lost
to radical conservatives during the desultory administration of Barack Obama.
In the campaign for the presidential nomination, and in the aftermath of the multiple "Super Tuesday" primary contests, the Democratic
race has become a two-man contest, pitting the insurrectionary Sanders against the increasingly incoherent Joe Biden. In Biden, Democrats
are presented with a former senator for America's onshore but off-shore-style tax haven, Delaware, and a man who was selected as
the most demographically inoffensive running mate for the then-seemingly-radical campaign of Barack Obama.
Until an eleventh-hour victory in South Carolina, the predominant narrative in the media was that Biden was cooked -- a spent
force whose residually strong national poll numbers reflected name recognition and reserves of nostalgia for the Obama years. Biden's
revival was buoyed by the support of the state's relatively conservative, older African American population, and then by his Super-Tuesday
success just a few days later. (It didn't hurt that the vagaries of election season allowed him to avoid another crackpot debate
performance or other testament to his rambling incomprehensibility in the interim.)
But that single victory and the synchronized withdrawals and endorsements by Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar created a new narrative.
Seemingly overnight, Biden had become a scrappy fighter with a never-say-die attitude, a Clintonian Comeback Kid.
This drove many older Democratic voters -- an inherently timorous group conditioned by decades of "The West Wing" and MSNBC to
believe they're consultants and strategists rather than citizens and constituents -- toward the more familiar, pedigreed candidate.
They simply did not care that Biden has been wrong, often aggressively and outspokenly so, on every significant issue for the last
forty years.
After blowing half a billion dollars on a vanity campaign that won him American Samoa, Michael Bloomberg promptly bowed out and
endorsed Biden as well, promising to dedicate his vast resources toward electing Joe.
Beyond the quixotic and indefatigable Tulsi Gabbard, the only candidate left standing was Elizabeth Warren -- also in her
70s and running on fumes since an ill-conceived and ill-fated pivot away from "Medicare for All." This ruined her relationship with
the socialist left and any chance of serving as a bridge between the activist wing of the party and its constituency of urban professionals,
if one could have existed to begin with. ( Editor's note: Warren has since dropped out. )
Looming is yet another septuagenarian, Donald Trump, whose ongoing mental decompensation remains the great unspeakable truth in
corporate media. Although frequently hostile to him, with the obvious exception of Fox News, mainstream outlets continue to edit
his transcripts "for clarity and concision," as the publishing saying goes, laundering the self-evident lunacy of his almost every
public utterance like a gaggle of Soviets turning the somnolent ravings of an agčd commissar into readable prose for the next day's
news.
I use the Soviet metaphor consciously. Long before I started dating and then married a scholar of Russian, I had a certain soft
spot for the country, alternately maligned as an eternal basket case and an implacably cunning enemy that had sacrificed something
like fifty times the number of Americans killed in every American war combined to defeat the Nazis. And now that I am shacked
up with a Russianist and have visited the place a couple of times, I've come to see it not as a shadow or opposite of our own vast,
weird nation but as a sibling of sorts.
The crass red-scare fantasies that characterize so many of the present narratives around election interference and the criminal
Trump-Russia demimonde are as infuriating as they are baroquely silly. And yet there is a certain late-Soviet pallor hanging over
America, even if on a material level our empire really does seem more robust than theirs ever was. (Once again, it bears mentioning
that we never lost fifty million people in a war.)
There is a sense, despite the apparent ideological contestations of our ongoing presidential elections, of a group of gerontocrats
battling to run what looks less and less like a traditional state than the palace apparatus of an ancient empire that has acquired
its imperium almost by accident. As the press critic and NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen
observed in the fall of last year, "There
is no White House. Not in the sense that journalists have always used that term. It's just Trump -- and people who work in the building.
That they are reading from the same page cannot be assumed. The words, 'the White House' are still in use, but they have no clear
referent."
The hollowed-out nature of the American state has been evident for some time and certainly predates Donald Trump, even if his
simultaneously feckless and malicious administration exacerbates the sense of social and economic precariousness. Our biggest city
can't build and maintain its transit system. Our bridges collapse. We can't marshal our resources to even pretend to do something
about climate change.
The few actual achievements of the Obama administration -- its rapprochements with Cuba and Iran -- collapsed almost immediately
on the whims of his successor while his cruelest policies -- the drone assassinations; the militarized border; the detentions --
metastasized and grew crueler.
Our municipal jails have become debtors' prisons as strapped municipalities turn to shaking down poor people and people of color
to manage shrinking tax bases. Meanwhile, our health care system is the worst in the developed world -- an impenetrable skein of
rent-seeking local monopolies that cost society trillions and bankrupt hundreds of thousands of individuals each year.
Nowhere, though, is the rusty, rickety nature of America's civic society more recently evident than in the hilariously, harrowingly
inept response to the advent of the COVID-19 virus as a global contagion. Whether it is more or less dangerous and deadly than the
media portrays is quite beside the point. The abject incapacity of any government, least of all the feds, to offer even simple, sensible
guidance, much less mobilize national resources to examine, investigate and ameliorate the potential threat to human health and well-being
is astonishing, even to a tired old cynic like me. At present, the most proactive step has been to pressure the Federal Reserve into
goosing the stock market -- the sort of pagan expiation of dark spirits that you'd expect in a more primitive world, when a volcano
blew or an earthquake hit.
Even elections seem beyond our capabilities at this point. In Texas, people waited for up to seven hours to cast votes on decrepit
machines, and we still do not have official final results from the Iowa caucuses -- a fact little mentioned now that the primary
season has moved on.
On the eve of the French Revolution, the Swiss-born theorist, journalist, and politician Jean-Paul Marat wrote, "No, liberty is
not made for us: we are too ignorant, too vain, too presumptuous, too cowardly, too vile, too corrupt, too attached to rest and to
pleasure, too much slaves to fortune to ever know the true price of liberty. We boast of being free! To show how much we have become
slaves, it is enough just to cast a glance on the capital and examine the morals of its inhabitants."
Donald Trump is in the White House, and his allies in Congress, smarting from his impeachment and failed Senate trial, will now
come out with allegations about the sketchy business dealings of one of his likely opponent's adult sons. Well. Here we are.
Jacob Bacharach is the author of the novels "The Doorposts of Your House and on Your Gates" and "The Bend of the World."
His most recent book is "A Cool Customer: Joan Didion's The Year of Magical Thinking."
A week ago, the candidacy of Joe Biden was at death's door.
On a taping of "The McLaughlin Group," this writer suggested it might be time to "call the
rectory" and have the monsignor come render last rites.
Today, Biden's candidacy is not only alive. He is first in votes, victories and delegates,
and is favored to win the nomination and, by most polls, to defeat Donald Trump in
November.
"The World Turned Upside Down" was a song the British army band is said to have played at
the surrender of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown. That title applies to what happened in the U.S.
political world in the five days from Feb. 29 to March 4.
Going into South Carolina on Feb. 29, Joe Biden had run a miserable and losing campaign.
Starting as the odds-on favorite for the nomination, he finished fourth in the Iowa
caucuses, fifth in New Hampshire and then was routed by Bernie Sanders in the Nevada caucuses.
His fundraising was anemic. His debate performances ranged from tolerable to terrible.
On the eve of South Carolina, his proclaimed "firewall," the media conceded he might win but
wrote him off as a probable fatality on Super Tuesday when 14 states went to the polls.
Then came South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn's endorsement of Biden, which solidified and
energized the African American vote in the Palmetto State and led to a Biden blowout in
Saturday's primary.
The nonstop free and favorable publicity Biden gained from the victory created a momentum
that Mike Bloomberg's billions could not buy. Over that weekend came the withdrawal of Mayor
Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar and endorsements by both of Biden as the party's best hope
against Donald Trump.
Came then Biden's sweep of 10 of the 14 states holding primaries on Super Tuesday. Wednesday
saw the withdrawal of Bloomberg, who endorsed Biden and pledged his vast fortune to help Joe
and the party defeat Trump in November.
Moreover, for Trump, as Claudius observed in "Hamlet," "When sorrows come, they come not
single spies but in battalions." For 10 days, the Dow Jones average has gyrated wildly, wiping
out trillions of dollars in wealth, while the coronavirus slowly claimed victims and dominated
the world's media. Predictions of a pandemic, a global economic downturn and a national
recession were everywhere.
All in all, a triumphal week for Biden, who racked up 11 state primary victories. Before
last Saturday, he had not won a single primary in three presidential campaigns.
But if earlier reports of the demise of Joe Biden were premature, so, too, are today's
confident predictions of a Biden sweep this November, marching over the political corpse of
Trump and bringing in a Democratic Senate and Democratic House. As Yogi Berra said, "It ain't
over till it's over."
Bernie Sanders' "Revolution" remains unreconciled to a Beltway-Biden restoration, against
which many of the Democratic candidates railed before dropping out, including Elizabeth Warren.
Sanders, for whom this is the last hurrah, must decide whether he wants to go down fighting for
his cause or stack arms and march into Biden's camp. If Sanders chooses to fight, he can, even
in near-certain defeat, be victorious in history if his "movement" one day captures the
national party as it has captured a plurality of the party's young.
If Sanders goes into the coming debates and forces Biden to defend his votes -- for George
Bush's war in Iraq and for NAFTA and WTO trade concessions to Communist China -- he may still
be crushed.
But Sanders is a true believer. And, for such as these, it is better to die on the hill you
have lived and fought on than to march into camp to be patted on the head by an establishment
that secretly detests you.
Then there is Biden's vulnerability. He may be hailed by a fickle media as a conquering hero
today. But after the cheering stops, Biden is going to be, for the next eight months, the same
candidate he has been for the last eight months. Here is a description of that candidate by
The New York Times the day after his Super Tuesday triumph:
"Any suggestion that Mr. Biden is now a risk-free option would appear to contradict the
available evidence. He is no safer with a microphone, no likelier to complete a thought
without exaggeration or bewildering detour.
"He has not, as a 77-year-old man proudly set in his ways, acquired new powers of
persuasion or management in the 72 hours since the first primary state victory of his three
presidential campaigns.
"Mr. Biden has blundered this chance before -- the establishment front-runner; the last,
best hope for moderates -- fumbling his initial 2020 advantages in a hail of disappointing
fund-raising, feeble campaign organization and staggering underperformance."
It ain't over till it's over.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
"... Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF. ..."
"... Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it, and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300 million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy. ..."
"... The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia. Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and much more . ..."
"... Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a "puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make nuclear war more possible are largely ignored. ..."
Another presidential election year is upon us, and the
intelligence agencies are hard at work stoking fears of Russian meddling. This time it looks
like the Russians do not only like the incumbent president but also favor who appears to be
the Democratic front-runner, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
On Thursday, The New York Timesran
a story titled , "Lawmakers Are Warned That Russia Is Meddling to Re-elect Trump." The
story says that on February 13 th US lawmakers from the House were briefed by
intelligence officials who warned them, "Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try
to get President Trump re-elected."
The story provides little detail into the briefing and gives no evidence to back up the
intelligence officials' claims. It mostly rehashes old claims from the 2016 election, such as
Russians are trying to "stir controversy" and "stoke division." The intelligence officials
also said the Russians are looking to interfere with the 2020 Democratic primaries.
It looks like other intelligence officials are already undermining the leaked briefing.
CNN ran a story on Sunday titled "US intelligence briefer appears to have overstated
assessment of 2020 Russian interference." The CNN article reads, "The US intelligence
community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election and has separately
assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work with. But the US does not have
evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at re-electing Trump, the officials
said."
According to The Times, President Trump was upset with acting Director of National
Intelligence Joseph Maguire for letting the briefing happen, and Republican lawmakers did not
agree with the conclusion since Trump has been "tough" on Russia. In his three years in
office, Trump certainly has been tough on Russia, and it is hard to believe that Putin would
work to reelect such a Russia hawk.
Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its
largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the
Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms
control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and
ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began
developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF.
The Trump Administration might let another nuclear arms treaty lapse. The New Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) limits the number of nuclear warheads that Russia and the
US can have deployed. The US does not want to re-sign the treaty and is using the excuse that
it wants to include China in the deal. China's nuclear arsenal is
estimated to be around 300 warheads , which is just one-fifth of the amount that Russia
and the US are allowed to have deployed under the New START. It makes no sense for China to
limit its deployment of nuclear warheads when its arsenal is nothing compared to the other
two superpowers. China appears to be a scapegoat for the US to blame if the treaty does not
get renewed. Without the New START, there will be nothing limiting the number of nukes the US
and Russia can deploy, making the world a much more dangerous place.
Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it,
and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300
million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also
calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2
pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish
policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy
gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy.
The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia.
Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop
presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and
much more .
Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a
"puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct
confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take
superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's
loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make
nuclear war more possible are largely ignored.
The leaked briefing harkens back to an intelligence assessment that came out in January
2017 during the last days of the Obama administration. The assessment concluded that Vladimir
Putin himself ordered the election interference to help Trump get elected. At first,
a falsehood
spread through the media that all 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with the conclusion.
But later testimony from Obama-era intelligence officials revealed the assessment was
prepared by hand-picked analysts from the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The assessment offered no
evidence for the claim and mostly focused on media coverage of the presidential candidates on
Russian state-funded media.
On Friday, The Washington Post piled on to the Russia hysteria and ran a story titled "Bernie Sanders briefed by
US officials that Russia is trying to help his campaign." The story says Sanders received a
briefing on Russian efforts to boost his campaign. The details are again scant and The
Post admits that "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken."
The few progressive journalists that have been right on Russiagate all along had the
foresight to see how accusations of Russian meddling would ultimately be used to hurt
Sanders' campaign. Unfortunately, Sanders did not have that same foresight and frequently
played into the Russiagate narrative.
Last week, during a Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, when criticized for his
supporters' behavior on social media, Sanders pointed the finger at Russia . "All of us remember
2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our
elections and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me,"
Sanders said.
In
comments after The Post story was published, Sanders said he was briefed on
Russian interference "about a month ago." Sanders raised the issue with the timing of the
story, having been published on the eve of the Nevada caucus. But the story did not slow down
Sanders' momentum in the polls, and he came out the clear victor of the Nevada caucus.
Sanders' victory seemed to rattle the Democratic establishment, and some wild accusations
were thrown around during coverage of the caucus.
Political analyst James Carville
appeared on MSNBC as Sanders took an early and substantial lead in Nevada. Carville said,
"Right now, it's about 1:15 Moscow time. This thing is going very well for Vladimir Putin. I
promise you. He's probably staying up watching this right now." What could be played off as a
joke was followed up with some serious accusations from Carville, "I don't think the Sanders
campaign in any way is collusion or collaboration. I think they don't like this story, but
the story is a fact, and the reason that the story is a fact is Putin is doing everything
that he can to help Trump, including trying to get Sanders the Democratic nomination."
This delusional attitude about the Russians rigging the Democratic primary is underpinned
by claims of meddling from the 2016 election. Central to
Robert Mueller's claim that Russia engaged in "multiple, systematic efforts to interfere
in our election" is the St. Petersburg based company, the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
The IRA is accused of running a troll farm that sought to interfere in the 2016 election
in favor of Trump over Hillary Clinton. Mueller failed to tie the IRA directly to the
Kremlin, and further research into their social media campaign shows most of the posts had
nothing to do with the election. A study on the
IRA by the firm New Knowledge found just "11 percent" of the IRA's content "was related
to the election."
Many believe the Russian government is responsible for hacking the DNC email server and
providing the emails to WikiLeaks. But there are many holes in Mueller's story to support
this claim. And WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange – who Mueller did not interview
–
has said the Russian government was not the source of the emails.
Regardless of who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, they show that DNC leadership had a
clear bias against Bernie Sanders back in 2016. The emails' contents were never disputed, and
Democratic voters had every right to see the corruption within the DNC. With the release of
the DNC emails, and later the Podesta emails, the American people were able to make a more
informed choice in the presidential election. This type of transparency provided by WikiLeaks
would be celebrated in a healthy democracy, not portrayed as the work of a foreign power.
Sanders would be wise to keep a watchful eye on how the DNC operates over the next few
months. The debacle that was the Iowa caucus shows the Democrats can "stoke division" and
"stir controversy" just fine on their own.
These claims of Russian meddling will continue throughout the election season. President
Trump's defense that he is "tough" on Russia is nothing to be proud of, but that is
inevitably where these accusations lead. Trump is encouraged to be more hawkish towards
Russia in an effort to quiet the claims of Putin's preference for him. And if Bernie Sanders
plays into this narrative now, can we believe that he will make any real foreign policy
change towards Russia if he gets the nomination and beats Trump?
Dave DeCamp is assistant editor at Antiwar.com and a freelance journalist based in
Brooklyn NY, focusing on US foreign policy and wars. He is on Twitter at @decampdave .
Without any proof, The New York Times and Washington Post run "Russia
helping Sanders" stories, and Sanders responds by bashing Russia, writes Joe Lauria.
W ith Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders spooking the Democratic establishment, The
Washington Post Friday reported damaging information from intelligence sources against
Sanders by saying that Russia is trying to help his campaign.
If the story is true and if intelligence agencies are truly committed to protecting U.S.
citizens, the Sanders campaign would have been quietly informed and shown evidence to back up
the claims.
Instead the story wound up on the front page of the Post , "according to people
familiar with the matter." Zero evidence was produced to back up the intelligence agencies'
assertion.
"It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken," the Post reported.
That would tell any traditional news editor that there was no story until it is known.
Instead major U.S. media are again playing the role of laundering totally unverified
"information" just because it comes from an intelligence source. Reporting such assertions
without proof amounts to an abdication of journalistic responsibility. It shows total trust in
U.S. intelligence despite decades of deception and skullduggery from these agencies.
Centrist Democratic Party leaders have expressed extreme unease with Sanders leading the
Democratic pack. Politicoreported
Friday that former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's entry into the race is explicitly to stop
Sanders from winning on the first ballot at the party convention.
A day after The New York Times
reported , also without evidence, that Russia is again trying to help Donald Trump win in
November, the Post reports Moscow is trying to help Sanders too, again without
substance. Both candidates whom the establishment loathes were smeared on successive days.
In a Tough Spot
The Times followed the Post report Friday by making it appear that Sanders
himself had chosen to make public the intelligence assessment about "Russian interference" in
his campaign.
But Sanders had known for a month about this assessment and only issued a statement after
the Post asked him for comment before publishing its uncorroborated story based on
anonymous sources.
Sanders was put in a difficult spot. If he said, "Show me the proof that Russia is trying to
help me," he ran the risk of being attacked for disbelieving (even disloyalty to) U.S.
intelligence, and, by default, defending the Kremlin.
So politician that he is, and one who is trying to win the White House, Sanders told the
Post :
"I don't care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear:
Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do. In 2016,
Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that
they are doing it again in 2020."
The Times quoted Sanders as calling Russian President Vladimir Putin an "autocratic
thug." The paper reported Sanders saying in a statement: "Let's be clear, the Russians want to
undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand
firmly against their efforts and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our
election."
Responding to a cacophony of criticism that Sanders' supporters are especially vicious
online, as opposed to the millions of other vicious people online, Sanders attempted to use
Russia as a scapegoat, the way the Clinton campaign did in 2016. He said: "Some of the ugly
stuff on the Internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real
supporters."
But no matter how strong Sander's denunciations of Russia, his opponents will now target him
as being a tool of the Kremlin.
Mission accomplished.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at[email protected]and
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
Let`s face it,even though Bernie is a moderate Social Democrat,at best.He`s the only one
capable of beating "the Orange"version of Hitler.But he sounds as if the DNC,big wigs,decide
to deny him the nomination;he`d go along with it.Just like before;when he even campaigned for
the"Crooked One(Hillary).I guess we`ll see.
Kim Dixon , February 24, 2020 at 04:31
The most-important element missed in this piece is this: Sanders is helping the DNC and
the MIC gin up fear of, and hatred for, the only other nuclear superpower on earth.
If you were around during the McCarthy years, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the '73
Arab/Israeli war, and all the other almost-Armageddon crises of Cold War One, you know that
nothing could be stupider and more-dangerous than that. The missiles still sit in their
silos, waiting for the next early-warning misunderstanding or proxy-war miscalculation to
send them flying.
Sanders lived through it all. He's supposed to be the furthest-Left pol in Congress. So
how can he possibly advocate for anything but detente and disarmament?
SteveK9 , February 24, 2020 at 20:18
I would really like to support Bernie, but statements like this make me shake my head.
It's more a reflection of America today I guess. Politicians believe to a man (or woman) that
they must put the hate on Putin and Russia or they have no chance. It doesn't matter that the
Russia garbage is 100% false. And, I don't mean they 'interfered' only a little there was
nothing, nothing at all. Even Trump has to go along with this propaganda. I don't know how
anyone can believe this idiotic (and incredibly dangerous, as you point out) rubbish at this
point. But you can't call your friends blanking morons.
J Gray , February 25, 2020 at 02:55
I think he successfully dodged a bullet but set himself up to offer comprehensive election
reform if he pulls out a victory .
or it is an early sign that he, the DNC & MIC are coming to terms. It doesn't have
that ring to it to me, like when Trump called for regime-change war in Venezuela &
defunding schools to build a space army. That was a clear on-the-record sell-out & got
him off the Impeachment hook the next day. Similar to when the Clinton signed the Telecom Act
to get off his.
They are still coming after Sanders too hard w/their McCarthiast attacks to feel like he
is siding with them. I think he has to do this because they are bundling his movement,
Venezuela and Russia into the new Red Scare.
"#JoeLauria's piece in #ConsortiumNews is excellent. He calmly sets out #Sanders'
political dilemma. The latest line from US intelligence agency stenographer media like
#NYTimes is that #Russians are helping both #Trump and Sanders because they simply want to
sow discord and cynicism about US democracy , they do not care who wins. #CaitlinJohnstone
neatly satirises this by writing a spoof article claiming that US intelligence agencies have
discovered #Bloomberg is being helped by Russians because he has two Russian
grandfathers.
It has reached the point , as Lauria shows, where any criticism of such US MSM nonsense
leaves the speaker open to the allegation that he is soft on/ naive about/complicit in
Russian election meddling. Without being a Trump supporter, one can understand Trump's rage
and contempt for what is going on .
Justin Glyn. Consortium News. Joe Lauria. Tony Kevin"
Tony Kevin , February 23, 2020 at 21:32
Sanders and Trump will survive this Deep State manipulation and attempted blackmail . They
will see off the Clintonistas and Deep State moles, and will go on to fight a tough but fair
election. Americans are sick of Russophobia.
jack , February 24, 2020 at 15:25
agreed – the Russiagate psyop is past its shelf life – BUT Deep State will
carry on – it's a global entity and they're into literally everything – no idea
how any known, normal governing structure can deal with it
Enough with the "Russia" BS already! It is clear to me the wealthy corporate Dems and the
MSM are behind all of the smear tactics against Bernie and anyone else who serves the
people
Enough with the "Russia" BS already! It is clear to me the wealthy corporate Dems and the
MSM are behind all of the smear tactics against Bernie and anyone else who serves the
people
Dfnslblty , February 23, 2020 at 09:07
Front page drama plus zero evidence began long ago with 'anonymous sources said "!
Complete lack of accountability on the part of the sources and on the part of the
reporters.
Thus we receive a "reality teevee " potus , and we are pleased to be hypnotised and
titillated.
A true revolution would demand CN-quality reportage and reject msm pablum.
JohnDoe , February 23, 2020 at 03:43
It's enough to look at the news on mainstream media to understand who's, as usual,
meddling in the elections. In the latest period for the first time I saw a lot of
enthusiastic comments and articles about Bernie Sanders. It's clear they are pushing him. But
why those who isolated him in during the primaries against Clinton are now supporting him?
It's obvious, that they want to get rid of Elizabeth Warren, first push ahead the weaker
candidates, then they'll switch their support towards another candidate, probably
Bloomberg.
delia ruhe , February 23, 2020 at 00:14
Well, thank you Joe Lauria! I am in trouble in several comment threads for suggesting that
the intel community is at it again, trying to ruin two campaigns by identifying the
candidates with Putin and the Kremlin. Now I can quote you. Excellent piece, as usual.
Deniz , February 22, 2020 at 22:44
Imagine Sanders and Trump, putting their differences aside and declaring war on the deep
state during a debate. They have the same enemies.
The same people who planted Steele's dirty dosier are going to try to steal Sanders
election from him. It wont be Trump and the Republicans who rigs the election against
Sanders.
SteveK9 , February 24, 2020 at 20:21
Trump actually seemed to want to help Bernie a bit (well, he keeps calling him 'Crazy
Bernie as well). He put out some tweet calling this latest rubbish, Hoax #7. But Bernie would
rather say something stupid, like 'I'm not a friend of Putin he is' talk about 5-year
olds.
Deniz , February 25, 2020 at 00:49
Its disappointing. Sanders heart seems to be in the right place, but when it comes time to
face the sinister forces that run the country for their own benefit, he will be absolutely
crushed.
This will never end.
No president will ever change anything.
The deep state tentacles will eventually kill us all.
I am going to go and enjoy what's left.
Marko , February 22, 2020 at 20:24
" But Sanders had known for a month about this assessment and only issued a statement
after the Post asked him for comment before publishing its uncorroborated story based on
anonymous sources Sanders was put in a difficult spot. If he said, "Show me the proof that
Russia is trying to help me," he ran the risk of being attacked for disbelieving (even
disloyalty to) U.S. intelligence, and, by default, defending the Kremlin. "
I suspect that Sanders was given a classified briefing a month ago , which he couldn't
disclose to the public. If so , and given that he didn't make this clear immediately after
being accused of withholding this information , he has only himself to blame for the
resulting "bad look".
JWalters , February 22, 2020 at 19:06
The corporate media has revealed itself to be a monopoly behind the scenes, working in
unison to trash Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Even though Gabbard is only at a few
percent in the polls, her message is potentially devastating to the war profiteers who own
America's Vichy MSM.
"Congressman Oscar Callaway lost his Congressional election for opposing US entry into WW
1. Before he left office, he demanded investigation into JP Morgan & Co for purchasing
control over America's leading 25 newspapers in order to propagandize US public opinion in
favor of his corporate and banking interests, including profits from US participation in the
war."
war * profiteerstory. * blogspot. * com/p/war-profiteers-and-israels-bank.html
Thankfully, there is still a free American press, of which Consortium News is a stellar
example.
elmerfudzie , February 22, 2020 at 13:25
The CIA and DIA (it has about a dozen agencies under it and is much larger than any other
Intel agency) are supposed to monitor threats to our national security, that originate
abroad. Aside from a few closed door sessions with a select group of congresspersons, our
Intel agencies have practically no real democratic oversight and remain, for all intents and
purposes, a parallel government(s) well hidden from public view. In particular how they are
financed and what their actual annual budgets really are. How these agencies every managed to
seep into any electioneering process what so ever, is beyond me, since they are all
intentionally very surreptitious- by design. We ask questions and these Intel agencies are
quick to tout the usual phrase; that subject area is secret and needs to be addressed in
closed session, blah, blah, blah. Of course "secrecy" translates into, we do what we want
when we want and use information any way we want because our parallel governments represent
the best example(s) of a perpetual motion machine that does not require outside monitoring.
The origins of these "parallel entities" can be traced to the Rockefeller brothers and their
associated international corporations. There's the rub folks. Our citizens at large will
never overtake for the purposes of real monitoring, this empire and elephant in the room,
directly. However we do have one avenue left and it requires a rank and file demand from the
people to their state representatives demanding two long standing issues, they remain
unresolved and until a solution is found, will permit dark powers to side step every level of
democratic governments-anywhere.
The first is true campaign finance reform and the second is assigning, or rather, removing
the status of person-hood to corporate entities. The Rockefeller's used their corporate power
and wealth to influence legislative, judicial and executive bodies. They cannot help but do
as the puppet master commands! Be it some form of, corporatism, fascism, feudalism, monarchy,
oligarchy, even bankster-ism or any other "ism We as citizens at large must make every effort
to again, obtain true campaign finance reform and remove the lobbying presence inside the
beltway. Today, the corporate entity has risen to a level that completely overtakes and
smothers any authentic democratic representation, of and by the people. Originally (circa the
early1800's) American corporations were permitted to exist and papers were drawn based on the
specific duties they were about to perform, this for the benefit of the local community for
example, building a bridge. Once the job was completed, the incorporation was either
liquidated or remanded over to the relevant governing body for the purposes of reevaluating
the necessity of re-certifying the original incorporation papers. Old man Rockefeller changed
the governance and oversight privilege by forcing and promulgating legislation(s) such as
limited liability clauses, strategies to oppose competition, tax evasion schemes and
(eventually) assigning person-hood to corporate entities, thus creating a parallel government
within the government. It all began in Delaware and until we clear our heads and assign names
to the actual problems, as I've itemized here, our citizenry will never experience the
freedom to fashion our destiny. Please visit TUC radio's two part expose' by Richard
Grossman. It will help CONSORTIUMNEWS readers to understand just what a monumental task is
ahead for all of us. Work for a fair and equitable future in America, demand campaign finance
reform and kick the hustling lobbyists out of our government. Voters being choked to death
with senseless debates and useless candidates.
Jeff Harrison , February 22, 2020 at 12:36
The real threats to our democracy are our unaccountable surveillance state and the craven
politicians in Washington, DC. And, no, Ben, we can't keep our republic because we don't have
a sufficient mass of critical thinkers to run it. If we did, this kind of BS, having been
shot full of holes once, wouldn't get any air.
Alan Ross , February 22, 2020 at 10:37
Sanders may win the nomination and the election but he cannot get a break from some
purists on the left. His reaction may have been quite astute. When Sanders says that we
should station troops on the borders of Russia or arm the Ukrainians, then you can say he
really is anti-Russian. I have not heard all that he has said, but what I have heard sounds
so much like hot air put out by a left politician trying to deal with the ages-old
establishment and right wing smear that he is a pawn of the commies, a fellow traveler, a
pinko, and now an agent of a foreign power, a Russian asset and so on. There is real
criticism of Sanders, but his statements about Putin and Russia do not add up to much.
Skip Scott , February 22, 2020 at 09:51
Anyone who is still under the influence of the MSM hypnosis of RussiaGate, led by Rachel
Madcow, needs to think long and hard about this latest propaganda campaign. The real message
here is unless you support corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B, you are a tool
of the "evil Rooskies". And the funny thing is, Sanders is "weak tea" when it comes to issues
of war and peace, and the feeding of the war machine at the government trough with no
limits.
The purpose of this BIG LIE of the "Intelligence" agencies is to make it impossible for
someone to be against the Forever War without being tarred as a "Foreign Agent", or at least
a "useful idiot", of the "EVIL ROOSKIES". To simply want peaceful coexistence on its own
merits is impossible.
Imagine if Sanders dared to mention that Putin enjoys substantial majority support inside
Russia, and seeks peaceful coexistence in a multi-polar world, instead of calling him an
"autocratic thug". Often for politicians, speaking the truth is a "bridge too far". I wonder
if Sanders (like Hillary) finds it necessary to hold "private" positions that differ from his
"public" positions? Or does he really believe his own BS?
I had not seen Mr Joe Lauria's article when I commented on Mr Ben Norton's story, but my
reply could fit here as well.
The idiot American public dismays me. To them, the "MSM news" and "celebrity gossip reports"
are equal and both to be wholeheartedly believed.
There is no point in trying to educate a resistant public in the differences between data and
gossip -- public doesn't care.
I weep for what we have lost -- a Constitution, a nation of free thinkers. My heart breaks
for the world's people, and what my country tries to do to them, with only a few resistant
other countries confronting and challenging America.
It is so difficult to know the truth of a situation and yet to know that almost no one
(statistically speaking) believes you.
Jim Hartz , February 23, 2020 at 12:04
A better distinction might be, concerning the intelligence of the American public, the one
Chomsky has used, rooted in Ancient Greek culture, that between KNOWLEDGE and OPINION.
Americans, of course, have OPINIONS about everything, but little KNOWLEDGE about much of
anything. And it seems their idea of FREEDOM is related to, bound up with, their having
OPINIONS about virtually EVERYTHING.
So much for our being a HIGHER life form.
We're in the process of destroying EVERYTHING, not just HIGHER LIFE FORMS [us], but all
flora and fauna, water and air on the planet–as I said, EVERYTHING. To paraphrase from
memory a citation by Perry Anderson from the work of heterodox Italian Marxist, Sebastiano
Timpanaro, "What we are witnessing is not the triumph of man over history, but the victory of
nature over man."
Tony , February 22, 2020 at 07:40
The Trump administration has pulled out of the INF missile treaty citing totally unproven
claims of Russian violations.
It also looks like allowing the START treaty on strategic nuclear missiles to lapse if we do
not stop it.
And so, in what sense would Putin want Trump to get re-elected?
Van Jones of CNN once described the original allegations of Russian meddling in US
elections as a 'great big nothing burger'.
Sounds right to me.
Sam F , February 22, 2020 at 07:24
When the secret agencies and mass media stop manipulating public opinion, despite their
oligarchy masters' ability to control election results anyway, we will know that they no
longer need deception to control the People. Simple force will do the job, with a few
marketing claims to assist in hiring goons to suppress any popular movement. Democracy is
completely lost, and the pretense of democracy will soon follow.
michael , February 22, 2020 at 07:03
Another foray into domestic politics by the CIA, with anonymous sources and no evidence
shown (as no evidence exists). Perhaps the CIA (which probably works for Putin, or Bloomberg,
or anyone who pays them best, but they are loyal to the US dollar only; and maybe heroin?) is
even now making up another Chris Steele/ Fusion GPS/ CrowdStrike dossier, getting that
Russian caterer to the Kremlin to pump out clickbait and sink both Trump and Sanders. Because
RUSSIANS!!! are "genetically driven" to interfere in American democracy. Next we'll have the
DNC (CIA) pushing Superpredator tropes such as "this enormous cohort of black and Latino
males" who "don't know how to behave in the workplace" and "don't have any prospects." With
this Clintonian (and Biden and Bloomberg) mindset, America will be increasing incarceration
once again. That $500,000 bribe the Clintons took from Putin in 2010 when Hillary was
Secretary of State probably plays a role.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Mark Esper have surprisingly noted that China,
not Russia, is America's #1 concern: "America's concerns about Beijing's commercial and
military expansion should be your concerns as well." Since Bill Clinton's Chinagate fiasco in
1996, Communist China, for a measly $million or so in illegal campaign donations, gained
permanent trade status, took millions of American jobs, and suddenly were allowed access to
advanced, even military technologies. This was the impetus for China's rise to be the
strongest nation in the world. There are no doubt statues of the Clintons all over China, and
soon to Hunter Biden, if his Chinese backed hedge funds do well. There are some rumors that
Bloomberg has transacted business with China, although doubtful he tried to build a hotel in
Beijing or Moscow, or the CIA would be all over it (for a cut)!
Realist , February 24, 2020 at 00:22
Esper is a dangerously deranged man who seems, at least to me, to be telegraphing his
intent, and certainly his desire, to get into a kinetic war with both Russia and China
(Washington already has most of the hybrid war tactics already fully operational), unless
English usage has changed so drastically that insults, overt threats and unrestrained bombast
are now part of calm, rational cordial diplomacy. I would not be surprised if neocon
mouthpieces like Esper are not secretly honing their rhetorical style to emulate the
exaggerated volume and enunciation of der ursprüngliche Führer.
Ma Laoshi , February 22, 2020 at 06:04
"So politician that he is" -- isn't this already on the slippery slope towards double
standards, that is, would say Hillary get a similar pass for making McCarthyite statements
like this? Isn't a dispassionate reading of the situation that Bernie is an inveterate
liar , and moreover specializing in the particular brand of lies that could get us all
into nuclear war? Whether it's character or merely age, haven't we seen enough to conclude
that Mr. Sanders would be much weaker still vis-a-vis the Deep State than Donald Trump turned
out to be?
For those without a dog in this fight, shouldn't it cause great merriment if the various
RussiaGaters devour each other? Mr. Sanders has seen for years that the "muh Putin" hoax will
be turned against him whenever needed. If he nonetheless persists, doesn't that show his
resignation that his role in this election circus is a very temporary one, like in '16? How
was that definition of insanity again?
If you want to fix America, then the Empire and Zionism are your enemies; so is the Dem
party that is inextricably wedded to these forces. Play along with them and–well what
can you expect.
aNanyMouse , February 22, 2020 at 13:29
Yeah, and Bernie sucked up to the Dem brass on the impeachment crap, even tho Tulsi had
the stones to at least abstain. How sad.
GMCasey , February 21, 2020 at 22:33
Dear DNC:
KNOCK IT OFF! The only person I am voting for President is the only one who is capable -- and
that is Bernie Sanders.
And really, with NATO breaking the agreement where they agreed to NOT go up to Russia's
border : it is getting very sad and embarrassing to be an American because the elected ones
make agreements and yet break so many. What with Turkey and Israel and Saudi Arabia trying to
disrupt the area, I am sure that Russia is too busy to bother disrupting America . Lately
America seems to disrupt itself for many ridiculous reasons. I am sorry that the gossip rags,
which used to be important newspapers have failed in supporting their First Amendment right
of Free speech . I just finished reading "ALL the Presidents Men. " What has happened to you,
Washington Post, because as a newspaper, you really used to be somebody. Please review your
past and become what you once were, a real genuine news source.
Sam F , February 23, 2020 at 09:18
Wikipedia: "In October 2013, the paper's longtime controlling family, the Graham family,
sold the newspaper to Nash Holdings, a holding company established by Jeff Bezos, for $250
million in cash."
Jim Hartz , February 23, 2020 at 12:37
One of the craziest ongoing media phenomena, prevalent in the Impeachment Hearings, is the
repeated claim that RUSSIA IS AT WAR WITH UKRAINE.
What kind of "Higher Life Form" enthusiastically EATS IT'S OWN SHIT?
Sam F , February 21, 2020 at 22:10
Mass media denouncing politicians based upon "information" from secret agencies are
propaganda operations, and should be sued for proof of their claims. But of course the
judiciary are tools of oligarchy as much as the mass media. No one has constitutional rights
in the US under our utterly corrupt judiciary, only paid party privileges.
Eddie S , February 21, 2020 at 21:55
Hmmm.. so those oh-so-clever Russkies (I mean they MUST-BE if they were able to outwit ALL
the US politicos -- who are immersed in the US political culture 24/7 as well as having
grown-up in this country and having billions of $ to spend -- in 2016 with a mere $100k of
Facebook ads) messed-up this time! They're supporting OPPOSING candidates, effectively
canceling-out their efforts ? Kinda strange, unless that whole 'Russia meddling' thing was a
vastly exaggerated distraction by a losing hawkish candidate and her party, further inflated
by a sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence
community??
There is NO "intel"; plenty of un-intel, shameless mendacity from these info=dictators
zionazi NYT and Wapoop drivel; hopefully the insouciant public is starting to see what a sham
these rats are. Hearst outdistanced.
Daniel , February 22, 2020 at 10:45
"Kinda strange, unless that whole 'Russia meddling' thing was a vastly exaggerated
distraction by a losing hawkish candidate and her party, further inflated by a
sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence
community??"
Exactly. Shame on Hillary Clinton and all who view the electorate with such disdain as to
have pushed this propaganda on us for the last three years, and continue to do so, obviously.
If either Hillary Clinton or the "sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic
military & intelligence community" had any integrity at all, they would have beaten Trump
handily in 2016, just as they condescendingly told us they would. They did not, though, and
have been outraged to have been exposed as the frauds they are ever since.
When your political party is nothing more than a marketing scheme designed to fool the
population, that population will turn on you. Imagine that. And no amount of Russia-gating
will save you. Shame on all who would continue this charade.
John Drake , February 21, 2020 at 21:33
Gosh I wish those so called intel people could make up their mind about whom the big bad
Ruskies are trying to help. One week its Trump, the next it is Sanders. Frankly on the face,
it sounds like bad intel to me.
But fortunately I am a regular reader of this site and Ray McGovern; and know it's all, to
put it politely , disinformation; or less politely a pile of diarrhea invented by Hillarybots
after a really really bad election day three years ago.
The only thing that disturbs me is the way Bernie buys into this Russiagate thing himself.
Maybe you all could send him a trove of articles debunking the whole mess, especially Ray and
Bill's forensics.
Fred Dean , February 23, 2020 at 03:52
When Durham starts indicting people and the story of the Deep State coup against the
President becomes common knowledge, Bernie's statements on Russiagate will be a liability.
Trump's people are digging up whatever videos they can of Bernie talking smack about
Trump/Russia. It is a crack in Bernie's armor and we can expect Trump to exploit. Bernie has
been such a toadie to the DNC. He cowers to the Democratic establishment because he fears
they will pull his credentials to run as a Democrat.
OlyaPola , February 23, 2020 at 08:08
"Gosh I wish those so called intel people could make up their mind about whom the big bad
Ruskies are trying to help."
Output is a function of framing and consequently the intelligence community/opponents are
helping others including the Russians who encourage such help by doing nothing.
KiwiAntz , February 21, 2020 at 21:26
What a shambolic mess of a Nation that America is! Nothing more than a Billionaire's
Banana Republic? A International laughingstock ruled by a Oligarchy, masquerading as a
Democracy? And if all else fails to get rid of Bernie Saunders by vote rigging or
gerrymandering or other nefarious acts of sabotage with Superdelegates stealing the
nominations then resurrect the bogus Russiagate Conspiracy, a ridiculous failed & faked
experiment to gaslight, spook & confuse the population again? Wouldn't it be delicious if
Russiagate was actually TRUE, it would be payback for the USA, a Nation that meddles in the
affairs & politics of every other Country on Earth, overthrowing & regime changing
everyone who doesn't "bend the knee" to America, the most corrupt & evil Nation on Earth
since Nazi Germany! I've never seen a more propagandised or mindf**ked People on Earth than
the American people! It must be soul destroying to live in this Country & have to put up
with this nonsense, day in, day out?
Ian , February 22, 2020 at 02:47
Yes, it is. Living with the infuriating unreality and militaristic worldview that is so
cultivated here takes a personal emotional and intellectual toll. No place is perfect, but
when I travel to Europe I feel a weight lifted.
Broompilot , February 22, 2020 at 03:50
Kiwi you may have a point.
ML , February 22, 2020 at 09:19
Yep. But for those of us with our critical thinking skills intact, we won't let it be soul
destroying, Kiwi. Still, the daily crapload of bs we are fed in the "legacy" press is
aggravating beyond the beyonds. Cheers, fellow Earthling.
Daniel , February 22, 2020 at 11:09
I hear you, KiwiAntz. It IS soul destroying to withstand this onslaught of disinformation
each and every day. There is a rhythm to it that is undeniable, too. One can almost predict
when the next propaganda hit will come, as here – after their latest would-be savior,
Mike Bloomberg, imploded on live TV, and with Bernie looking more and more inevitable.
Our reality in the US today is that we have to fight against our own media to approach
anything resembling a reasonable discussion about what is important to vast majorities (mean
tweets and fake memes aren't it) or to champion candidates who display even the slightest
integrity. But, of course, it is not 'our' media. It is 'theirs.' And they will continue to
abuse us with it until we reject it completely.
robert e williamson jr , February 23, 2020 at 20:31
I see things pretty clearly for what they are and the billionaire democrats are heading
for a train wreck and I hate to admit I cannot look away.
Trump is just another self serving U.S. president leaving a stain in America's underwear
adding to the humongous pile of America's dirty laundry.
When the demographics finally dictate it change will come and likely not before. On that
note I wold like to reach out here. Justin King, who goes as Beau on the net runs a site
called the Fifth Column News and does a ton of informative and educational videos on many
various topics. .
If you go to youtube, search and watch each of the videos I'm about to list here you stand
to learn quite a lot about how Americans got screwed by the two party system without really
realizing it. Plenty of blame to go around , no doubt though. You will also learn of the
changing demographics in American politics. Many of the poor, minorities and youth of the
country are coming into politics for they stand to lose everything if they don't change the
status quo.
Feb 11 2020 runs 6:21 minutes and seconds- Search terms, Beau Lets talk about the parties
switching and the party of trump
Feb 15 2020 runs 4:11 Search terms, Beau Lets talk about dancing left and dancing
right
Feb 20 2020 runs 10:44 Search terms, Beau Lets talk about misunderstanding Bernie's
supporters
This last video is a long video by Justin's standards. Most of his videos are under 7
minutes.
Much thanks to CN this site and the Fifth Column New site give me strength and bolster my
courage by allowing me to know that there are those of us who know what gong on and know
things must change.
NY Times is citing "people familiar with the situation." How the mighty have fallen. What
about Shadow, and the Iowa caucuses, and Buttigieg? That was real. This is absolute
horseshit.
> Apparent US Intel Meddling in US Election With 'Report' Russia is Aiding Sanders
It looks like the CIA is short of ideas on how to meddle in the elections. Trump had a
very similar briefing on January 6, 2017 -- with Brennan, Clapper, Rogers, and Comey -- on
Russia allegedly aiding his campaign. As well without any evidence.
Charlene Richards , February 22, 2020 at 14:47
Russia couldn't possibly do the damage to Sanders that the DNC and Democrat Establishment
elites are doing out in the open every day with the MSM as their prime propagandists.
As they say in wrestling, it's all "a work".
richard baker , February 22, 2020 at 10:55
Bart Hansen , February 22, 2020 at 18:27
Looking at the comments at the Post and Times, I'd say you are on target. Oh, for the Kool
Aid contract at those organs of misinformation and omission.
"... Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF. ..."
"... Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it, and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300 million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy. ..."
"... The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia. Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and much more . ..."
"... Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a "puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make nuclear war more possible are largely ignored. ..."
Another presidential election year is upon us, and the
intelligence agencies are hard at work stoking fears of Russian meddling. This time it looks
like the Russians do not only like the incumbent president but also favor who appears to be
the Democratic front-runner, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
On Thursday, The New York Timesran
a story titled , "Lawmakers Are Warned That Russia Is Meddling to Re-elect Trump." The
story says that on February 13 th US lawmakers from the House were briefed by
intelligence officials who warned them, "Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try
to get President Trump re-elected."
The story provides little detail into the briefing and gives no evidence to back up the
intelligence officials' claims. It mostly rehashes old claims from the 2016 election, such as
Russians are trying to "stir controversy" and "stoke division." The intelligence officials
also said the Russians are looking to interfere with the 2020 Democratic primaries.
It looks like other intelligence officials are already undermining the leaked briefing.
CNN ran a story on Sunday titled "US intelligence briefer appears to have overstated
assessment of 2020 Russian interference." The CNN article reads, "The US intelligence
community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election and has separately
assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work with. But the US does not have
evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at re-electing Trump, the officials
said."
According to The Times, President Trump was upset with acting Director of National
Intelligence Joseph Maguire for letting the briefing happen, and Republican lawmakers did not
agree with the conclusion since Trump has been "tough" on Russia. In his three years in
office, Trump certainly has been tough on Russia, and it is hard to believe that Putin would
work to reelect such a Russia hawk.
Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its
largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the
Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms
control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and
ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began
developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF.
The Trump Administration might let another nuclear arms treaty lapse. The New Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) limits the number of nuclear warheads that Russia and the
US can have deployed. The US does not want to re-sign the treaty and is using the excuse that
it wants to include China in the deal. China's nuclear arsenal is
estimated to be around 300 warheads , which is just one-fifth of the amount that Russia
and the US are allowed to have deployed under the New START. It makes no sense for China to
limit its deployment of nuclear warheads when its arsenal is nothing compared to the other
two superpowers. China appears to be a scapegoat for the US to blame if the treaty does not
get renewed. Without the New START, there will be nothing limiting the number of nukes the US
and Russia can deploy, making the world a much more dangerous place.
Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it,
and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300
million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also
calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2
pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish
policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy
gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy.
The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia.
Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop
presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and
much more .
Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a
"puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct
confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take
superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's
loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make
nuclear war more possible are largely ignored.
The leaked briefing harkens back to an intelligence assessment that came out in January
2017 during the last days of the Obama administration. The assessment concluded that Vladimir
Putin himself ordered the election interference to help Trump get elected. At first,
a falsehood
spread through the media that all 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with the conclusion.
But later testimony from Obama-era intelligence officials revealed the assessment was
prepared by hand-picked analysts from the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The assessment offered no
evidence for the claim and mostly focused on media coverage of the presidential candidates on
Russian state-funded media.
On Friday, The Washington Post piled on to the Russia hysteria and ran a story titled "Bernie Sanders briefed by
US officials that Russia is trying to help his campaign." The story says Sanders received a
briefing on Russian efforts to boost his campaign. The details are again scant and The
Post admits that "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken."
The few progressive journalists that have been right on Russiagate all along had the
foresight to see how accusations of Russian meddling would ultimately be used to hurt
Sanders' campaign. Unfortunately, Sanders did not have that same foresight and frequently
played into the Russiagate narrative.
Last week, during a Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, when criticized for his
supporters' behavior on social media, Sanders pointed the finger at Russia . "All of us remember
2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our
elections and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me,"
Sanders said.
In
comments after The Post story was published, Sanders said he was briefed on
Russian interference "about a month ago." Sanders raised the issue with the timing of the
story, having been published on the eve of the Nevada caucus. But the story did not slow down
Sanders' momentum in the polls, and he came out the clear victor of the Nevada caucus.
Sanders' victory seemed to rattle the Democratic establishment, and some wild accusations
were thrown around during coverage of the caucus.
Political analyst James Carville
appeared on MSNBC as Sanders took an early and substantial lead in Nevada. Carville said,
"Right now, it's about 1:15 Moscow time. This thing is going very well for Vladimir Putin. I
promise you. He's probably staying up watching this right now." What could be played off as a
joke was followed up with some serious accusations from Carville, "I don't think the Sanders
campaign in any way is collusion or collaboration. I think they don't like this story, but
the story is a fact, and the reason that the story is a fact is Putin is doing everything
that he can to help Trump, including trying to get Sanders the Democratic nomination."
This delusional attitude about the Russians rigging the Democratic primary is underpinned
by claims of meddling from the 2016 election. Central to
Robert Mueller's claim that Russia engaged in "multiple, systematic efforts to interfere
in our election" is the St. Petersburg based company, the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
The IRA is accused of running a troll farm that sought to interfere in the 2016 election
in favor of Trump over Hillary Clinton. Mueller failed to tie the IRA directly to the
Kremlin, and further research into their social media campaign shows most of the posts had
nothing to do with the election. A study on the
IRA by the firm New Knowledge found just "11 percent" of the IRA's content "was related
to the election."
Many believe the Russian government is responsible for hacking the DNC email server and
providing the emails to WikiLeaks. But there are many holes in Mueller's story to support
this claim. And WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange – who Mueller did not interview
–
has said the Russian government was not the source of the emails.
Regardless of who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, they show that DNC leadership had a
clear bias against Bernie Sanders back in 2016. The emails' contents were never disputed, and
Democratic voters had every right to see the corruption within the DNC. With the release of
the DNC emails, and later the Podesta emails, the American people were able to make a more
informed choice in the presidential election. This type of transparency provided by WikiLeaks
would be celebrated in a healthy democracy, not portrayed as the work of a foreign power.
Sanders would be wise to keep a watchful eye on how the DNC operates over the next few
months. The debacle that was the Iowa caucus shows the Democrats can "stoke division" and
"stir controversy" just fine on their own.
These claims of Russian meddling will continue throughout the election season. President
Trump's defense that he is "tough" on Russia is nothing to be proud of, but that is
inevitably where these accusations lead. Trump is encouraged to be more hawkish towards
Russia in an effort to quiet the claims of Putin's preference for him. And if Bernie Sanders
plays into this narrative now, can we believe that he will make any real foreign policy
change towards Russia if he gets the nomination and beats Trump?
Dave DeCamp is assistant editor at Antiwar.com and a freelance journalist based in
Brooklyn NY, focusing on US foreign policy and wars. He is on Twitter at @decampdave .
The real threats to our democracy are our unaccountable surveillance state and the craven
politicians in Washington, DC.
And, no, Ben, we can't keep our republic because we don't have a sufficient mass of
critical thinkers to run it. If we did, this kind of BS, having been shot full of holes once,
wouldn't get any air.
Ground Owl Eats Fox , February 22, 2020 at 21:49
I don't think the Democrats have been very coordinated, and they (the establishment in
general) is growing more desperate. They're acting less and less rationally.
My hunch is that Sanders is going to be assassinated. Even if a low chance per industry
(5% for MIC; 5% for Wall Street; 5% for Hillary Clinton, etc ) the sheer number of powerful
enemies and tens of trillions of dollars (and power) potentially at stake IMO makes it likely
that this'll happen, whether coordinated or not. I'm guessing before the convention, if his
lead is looking formidable.
He needs to pick a safety VP to make killing him less attractive, and also needs to wear a
vest, ride around in a Popemobile-style vehicle, and have trustworthy chemists and doctors to
check his food and umbrellas and everything else. And lots of documenters with cameras so if
they do kill him in a violent hit maybe they won't get away with it.
how on earth could any entity, foreign or domestic, create any outcome in our burlesque
electoral process that's worse than any other? the parties are two arguing heads on the
same rapacious beast. or in the case of the primaries, a multi-headed beast.
the political circus can be likened to condi rice's concept of "constructive chaos" in the
middle east. instead of nonfunctional endless war to render malleable a target for
exploitation, we have endless functionless nitpicking blather to render popular leadership
impossible.
"... It seems to me, though, that running on little more than people's fond memories of the Obama administration won't be enough in de-industrialized, opioid-ravaged Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (Bernie outperforms Biden in all three, according to current polls). Trump won there by a combined margin of 77,744 votes precisely because of voters who, after eight years of Obama, had nearly lost hope and were hungry for change. ..."
Supporters who were expecting a more radical agenda may feel betrayed, and that could play into the hands of the Democrats.
In its ridiculous dual
endorsement of Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, the New York Times Editorial
Board divided the Democratic field into those candidates who "view President Trump as an
aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible" and those who
"believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that
they must be replaced."
I've
already written about how arbitrarily the Board sorted candidates into one group or
another, but the dichotomy itself is useful. Recently, I've found that it helps to make a
parable of it.
Some Democratic candidates think Trump has flipped over the political table. They want to
set it back up, dab at the tablecloth, enforce better manners, reheat the entrées, and
put a second scoop of ice cream on the pie à la mode. Biden and Bloomberg are currently
the frontrunners in this category, but even the supposedly radical Elizabeth Warren, by virtue
of her moderating compromises and general palatability to the party elite, deserves (at least
in part) the label of table re-setter.
For others, though, Trump never actually flipped the table. Sure, he promised to, but as
soon as he sat down and dug into his well-done steak, something changed. Many of his signature
dishes never materialized. And although he continued to insist that the kitchen staff were
defiling the food, he seemed awfully chummy with the management. The management, for their
part, obligingly looked the other way while he belched, used the wrong knife, and generally
flouted the edicts of Emily Post. Those at the far end of the table where pickings were slim,
many of whom had played a part in elevating Trump to his lofty position, wondered what had gone
wrong. Was the table bolted invisibly to the floor? Or had Trump betrayed them? Meanwhile, the
food, rotten long before Trump had sat down, continued to attract flies.
Into this category, I would place Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, and perhaps Tulsi Gabbard, of
whom only Bernie remains standing.
Biden thinks he can still salvage dinner; Bernie wants to go full Gordon Ramsay.
To be clear, neither of these is exactly my position. My question is how Trump will respond
to the latter. Sure, Biden's guy's-guy persona might be enough to take back the Rust Belt and
push him over 270. It seems to me, though, that running on little more than people's fond
memories of the Obama administration won't be enough in de-industrialized, opioid-ravaged
Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (Bernie outperforms Biden in all three, according to
current polls). Trump won there by a
combined margin of 77,744 votes precisely because of voters who, after eight years of
Obama, had nearly lost hope and were hungry for change.
This feeling of being let down by Obama's messianic promises, what Sarah Palin eloquently
called his "hopey-changey thing," could cut both ways, though. Trump still hasn't built his
wall. Manufacturing jobs have not returned en masse; tariffs on China
have squeezed farmers and failed to produce the speedy victory he promised. The wars he
promised to end still rage, and we've gone to the brink with Iran. Yes, the economy is strong,
and conventional wisdom has it that the incumbent only loses if the economy tanks. But Bernie
makes a strong case that the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the economy are not the same
thing. Six out of 10 Americans feel they're
better off than they were three years ago, but I wonder whether the frustrated
Midwesterners who swung the election in 2016 have gotten what they wanted out of Trump. If not,
they might be willing to try something new . The
distance between left-populism and right-populism is, after all, far shorter than the distance
between the center-left and the center-right. If Obama let you down and Trump let you down, why
not vote Sanders? You've already switched parties once.
Trump shot to the top of the Republican primary polls because he had the energy of a
disruptor. The media showered l'enfant terrible with free advertising. Since the impeachment,
though, it seems like the press's white-hot Trump derangement has cooled at precisely the wrong
time. These days, it's Bernie drawing all the outrage, including accusations of Russian
stoogery and wild speculation about anarchic brokered conventions.
Slowly, a narrative is solidifying: if you're ready to say "the hell with it," vote
Sanders; if you want more of the same, vote Trump. This perception could prove fatal to the
incumbent.
Trump will give Bernie both barrels with "you're a communist" and "how are we supposed to
pay for that?" But those might actually work in Bernie's favor. On the campaign trail, Trump
proposed a number of fanciful policies, from punishing post-abortive women to deporting 12
million people to the possibility of nuking Europe, and all it got him was more free media. He
never explained how the hell he was going to get Mexico to pay for the wall, but nobody cared.
Trump was bold, brash, and unconcerned with breaking rules or offending people. Now Sanders,
less crass but equally brash, has usurped that brand positioning. This move could force Trump
into the role of a brake-pumping Deng Xiaoping, persecuting the authentic radicals while
hollowly insisting that he remains the true custodian of the populist revolution.
Badgering Bernie about his lavish Medicare-for-All plan and his lack of clarity about how
to fund it could induce sticker shock in the American electorate, but it could also solidify
voters' perception that Sanders is the dynamic visionary and Trump the static naysayer. Bernie
seems to actively cultivate this edgy persona. Why else would he call himself a "democratic
socialist" rather than a "social democrat," a term that more accurately describes his policies
and leaves out the scary S-word to boot?
On the debate stage, Bernie will almost certainly castigate Trump for exploiting the
anxieties of those coveted 77,744 and delivering on little of what he promised. If Trump
counters that he's been stymied by the Deep State, he loses again. His die-hard supporters will
buy it, but at least some voters at the end of their rope will think, "Well, if Trump couldn't
hit hard enough to shatter the ossified bureaucracy, maybe Sanders can. Or maybe he'll get it
rolling in the direction he wants, transforming that bureaucratic mass from an immovable object
into an unstoppable force."
I worry that our politics have entered a downward spiral. Hyperpartisan polarization has
ensured that everyone feels precarious all the time, and thanks to the ever-morphing values of
liquid modernity, moderate candidates can no longer run fast
enough to stay in place. If America is no longer great, it must be made great again by
whatever means necessary. If it was never great, it must be radically transformed. As checks,
balances, bureaucrats, and practicalities frustrate the sweeping aims of each successive
political messiah, they prepare the way for one even more extreme to follow. If this happens
enough times, the populists of whichever stripe, thwarted again and again, will finally turn
against the institutions of their own society. Enter Thomas Hobbes, stage right or left.
I recognize that, for all but the most milquetoast of centrists, the status quo has plenty
of problems. I even admit that my own sympathy to populism has grown since 2016. But the trend
I've described in American politics is enough to make me sympathize with C.S. Lewis, who
grew fed up with an electorate that demanded "such qualities as 'vision,' 'dynamism,' [and]
'creativity'" from candidates.
Lewis longed for a political leader "who will do a day's work for a day's pay, who will
refuse bribes, who will not make up his facts, and who has learned his job." He even
sardonically proposed founding "a Stagnation Party -- which at General
Elections would boast that during its term of office no event of the least importance had taken
place."
It's enough to make me miss Jeb Bush.
Grayson Quay is a freelance writer and M.A. at Georgetown University.
US is an oligarchic republic, like the good old Venetian Republic of old. As an outsider of
the US polity, I just get the popcorn and beer during US elections. While the PoTUS has not
that much power in the US (albeit a savvy executive, controlling all the federal agencies and
appointments in various places, and having the appeal of executive power, which is direct
raw), it can be crushing for the outside world. The droned people can attest to that. The
starved people due to sanctions can attest to that, the sick and un-treatable people due to
sanctions can attest to that power of the PoTUS.
Building the wall is itself a lie. It would be simple to reduce immigration by a lot. use
e-verify
The wall is an expensive distraction, that would have zero impact on immigration.
It allows Trump and other elite (who want the low wage workers) to pander. They can tell
their base they are being so, so harsh on immigrants, while doing nothing.
...Make America Great is a revolt of the poor and middle class who want their share of the
economy instead of giving it away to foreign countries and foreign immigrants. That revolt is
not going to go away. However if you are blindly living off the largess of our nation and its
big government social welfare programs then you have no connection to education, to
employment and from your point of view the government provides your living and the living for
your children so as long as you get your check it doesn't matter whether there is 1 person
living off that social safety net or 1 thousand or 1 million or 1 billion.
It was never Trump's revolution to deliver. We the people delivered the revolution in
bringing in DJT to expose and (hopefully) weaken the entrenched Establishment. The former has
been accomplished exceedingly well. And there is more work toward that goal to be done. I'm
more than impressed with the progress that we've made. Captains can be changed quickly but
this ship does not turn easily.
This is a site for GOP establishment types. They suppressed us as deplorables and lied to us
with false promises. So we gave them Trump. May the never Trumper Romney types rot in hell
won't be enough in de-industrialized, opioid-ravaged Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Wisconsin
Is this 'opioid epidemic' for real? I keep hearing about it. Or is it just like the Global
Warming Hoax and people are just exaggerating this 'epidemic', like the coronavirus
nonsense??
"... Nothing changed about Biden's sketchy past, e.g. war enabler, bigot and bank henchman, and his questionable competency to serve as president, but these politicians of great self-esteem are now instructing us to vote for a most flawed candidate. ..."
"... If Biden gets the nomination, it will be a pyrrhic victory. Trump will eat him alive. ..."
"... Biden is Obama 2.0 lite, and no one likes Obama anymore except for the Dem party faithful. We saw the Dems do this over and over again in Massachusetts with Martha Coakley. Hey, how about Coakley as Biden's running mate? ..."
The gang of would-be presidential candidates ran because each perceived that Biden was not the
best person to run for the office or to govern. Having all dropped out, including Bloomberg,
excepting Warren, as of today, they all have endorsed Biden, completely verifying our
essayist's hypothesis that meritocracy is dead in politics. Nothing changed about Biden's
sketchy past, e.g. war enabler, bigot and bank henchman, and his questionable competency to
serve as president, but these politicians of great self-esteem are now instructing us to vote
for a most flawed candidate.
If Biden gets the nomination, it will be a pyrrhic victory. Trump will eat him alive. Any of
us could write the script to defeat Biden. Biden is Obama 2.0 lite, and no one likes Obama
anymore except for the Dem party faithful. We saw the Dems do this over and over again in
Massachusetts with Martha Coakley. Hey, how about Coakley as Biden's running mate?
"... "We are just wondering why we should vote for someone who voted for a war, who enabled a war that killed thousands of our brothers and sisters, countless Iraqi citizens," the veteran said to a surprised-looking Biden. ..."
"... He continued, arguing that Biden had "enabled" the invasion of Iraq, noting that the former vice president had even awarded ex-president George W. Bush, who launched the war, a 'Liberty Medal' in 2018. Biden, the veteran insisted, must be held responsible for throwing his support behind the deadly foreign policy quagmire. ..."
"... Biden's support for the 2003 invasion has been repeatedly pointed out by his main rival, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who has argued that the former vice president will preserve the foreign policy status quo in Washington. ..."
In a video posted by Veterans Against the War, a man who identified himself as a former
member of the Air Force approached the former vice president and quizzed him about his dicey
foreign policy record.
"We are just wondering why we should vote for someone who voted for a war, who enabled a
war that killed thousands of our brothers and sisters, countless Iraqi citizens," the
veteran said to a surprised-looking Biden.
-- About Face: Veterans Against
the War (@VetsAboutFace) March 4,
2020
He continued, arguing that Biden had "enabled" the invasion of Iraq, noting that the
former vice president had even awarded ex-president George W. Bush, who launched the war, a
'Liberty Medal' in 2018. Biden, the veteran insisted, must be held responsible for throwing his
support behind the deadly foreign policy quagmire.
Their blood is on your hands as well. You are disqualified, sir. My friends are dead
because of your policies
Biden retorted by stating that his son, who served for one year in Iraq, was also dead -- an
odd argument to make, since Beau Biden died of brain cancer years after leaving the Middle
East.
"I'm not going after your son," the veteran responded. As Biden walked away, the
ex-Air Force member got in the last word.
[There is] no way he can be president Millions are dead in Iraq Trump is more anti-war
than Joe Biden
The crowd then began to chant "Joe, Joe, Joe!" to which one veteran filming the
altercation shouted back: "We actually fought in your damn wars you sent us to hurt
civilians."
Biden's support for the 2003 invasion has been repeatedly pointed out by his main rival,
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who has argued that the former vice president will preserve the
foreign policy status quo in Washington.
"... If you are holding out hope that Bernie can slay the dragon of the existing system at its belladonna roots, then be my guest. I see too many people spending their hope on Elizabeth Warren, which will only serve to suck power away from Bernie, who is the ONLY Democratic candidate movie that has the potential to actually INSPIRE voters, just as Trump does. Bernie deserves credit too for actually CHANGING the nature of the campaign conversation and who just MIGHT even begin to change it at the national level, assuming that time, tide and tyranny allow him four years safe passage to reach his pending retirement. ..."
"... In any case, after a year of endless media barrage, it is rather late now for the gods to intervene. All I would hope is that a few more of us can open our eyes to see past the silly "lesser of two evils" and "#votebluenomatterwho" memes, to the reality of how every one of these candidates serve as puppets to SOME specific mix of master control forces and thus make our choice in THAT more realistic light, rather than thinking that any of them offer "real" independent solutions or that any of their "heroic" feet are NOT already embedded knee, waist or neck-deep in the Big Muddy river of our dissolute illusions of Democracy. ..."
As people march off to the polls today to pick their
favorite political actor of the year, I hear precious few voices openly asking what seem to me
to be obvious questions, like WHO produced the movie that is their candidacy? Who directed it?
Who wrote the script? Who are the investors that will be expecting to see returns on their
investment, if their movie and their best actor should somehow win? And how far do the networks
of wealth, influence and control extend beyond those public faces inside the campaign? None of
these questions strike me as tangential; rather they are all essential.
Let's imagine for a moment that one of these actors can somehow out-thespian Trump once on
stage which is HIGHLY unlikely – even for folksy Bernie – UNLESS he can somehow win
himself 100% DNC buy-in and 24/7 mainstream "BLUE" media support. But assuming that he (or some
"brokered" candidate) wins, it will still be their production teams (along with their extended
networks) who will be making their presence felt on Day One of any new presidency. These are
the people who will be calling in the favors and calling the shots.
I recall how moved I was by Obama's 2008 election. I was buoyed with hope, because I did not
understand then what I understand now – that NO candidate can exist as an independent
entity, disconnected from the apparatus and networks that support and produce the narratives
that advance them and their agendas. I also recall the day that Obama entered the White House
and instantly handed the keys to the economy (and the recovery) back to Geithner, Summers and
Rubin – the same trio that had helped destroy it just a year earlier. And he did this at
the same moment he was filling his cabinet with the very people "suggested" in that famous
leaked letter from the CEO of Citibank. My hope departed in genie smoke at that moment, to be
followed by eight years of spineless smooth talk and wobbly action, except where the agendas of
Wall Street and pompous Empire were concerned.
Do you see how this works? The game is essentially rigged from the start by virtue of who is
allowed to enter the race, what can and what can't be said by them and by who the media is told
to shine their light on, and who to avoid. Candidates can, of course, say pretty much anything
they want (short of "Building 7, WTF!!" of course) in hopes it will spark a reaction that the
media can seize upon.
But just based on words, we know that NONE of these happy belief clowns will forcefully
oppose existing "Regime Change" plans for Venezuela, Bolivia and Syria. We know that NONE of
them will stand up to Israel – or to a Congress that is, almost to a person, in the
pocket of Israel. We know too that NONE of them will bring more than an angry flyswatter to the
battle with Wall Street or the corporations. We further know that NONE of them will do more
than make modest cuts to military spending or god forbid, call out the secret state's fiscally
unaccountable black budget operations, which by now reach into at least the 30 trillions.
Personally, I'm not FOR any candidate simply because I cannot UNSEE what it has taken me 12
years to get into focus; namely, how everyone of them are compromised by a SYSTEM that talks a
lot about FIXING what's broken, but which is simply INCAPABLE of delivering anything other than
what has been pre-ordained and decreed by the global order of oligarchs, which exists as the
"ghost in the machine" that ultimately controls every part of the political "STATE" – at
high, middle, low and especially at DEEP levels.
I will say in defense of Bernie that his production team early-on made the very unique
decision to crowd-source the campaign's costs. That was a PROFOUND decision, which has paid off
for him and which may well buy him a certain level of lubricated control over what is to come,
even though the significance of that decision is not well appreciated because the DNC and the
MSM simply refuse to discuss it in any depth.
Warren was TRYING to play the populist "people's campaign" game too, until last week when
she must have been startled awake by the "Ghost of Reagan's Past" and decided to take the money
and run as a Hillary proxy which (big surprise) was what she was all along anyway.
Let me just say this about Joe Biden. From his initial announcement, I never felt he was in
his right mind. He seems rather to be teetering on the edge of senility and fast on his way
into dementia. Also, the man has openly sold his soul so many times in his career that we
shouldn't at this point expect any unbought (or even lucid) thought to ever again escape his
remarkably loose lips. Joe might have run with the old skool Dems when he was a big deal on the
Delaware streets, but now, like Bloomberg and Romney, he's just another Republican in a pricey
blue suit.
I understand how people are feeling stressed, obsessed and desperate to get rid of Donald
Trump. It's just that until we take a collective step back and see things at the level from
which they actually operate and NOT at the level from which we are TOLD they operate, then we
will never be successful in turning our public discourse around or in beginning to identify and
eliminate the fascist and anti-human agendas that we associate with Trump, but which actually
lie behind the subservient to power policies and preferences of BOTH parties.
If you are holding out hope that Bernie can slay the dragon of the existing system at
its belladonna roots, then be my guest. I see too many people spending their hope on Elizabeth
Warren, which will only serve to suck power away from Bernie, who is the ONLY Democratic
candidate movie that has the potential to actually INSPIRE voters, just as Trump does. Bernie
deserves credit too for actually CHANGING the nature of the campaign conversation and who just
MIGHT even begin to change it at the national level, assuming that time, tide and tyranny allow
him four years safe passage to reach his pending retirement.
In any case, after a year of endless media barrage, it is rather late now for the gods
to intervene. All I would hope is that a few more of us can open our eyes to see past the silly
"lesser of two evils" and "#votebluenomatterwho" memes, to the reality of how every one of
these candidates serve as puppets to SOME specific mix of master control forces and thus make
our choice in THAT more realistic light, rather than thinking that any of them offer "real"
independent solutions or that any of their "heroic" feet are NOT already embedded knee, waist
or neck-deep in the Big Muddy river of our dissolute illusions of Democracy.
– Yet Another Useful Idiot.
Mark Petrakis is a long-time theater, event and media producer based in San Francisco. He first
broke molds with his Cobra Lounge vaudeville shows of the 90's, hosted by his alter-ego,
Spoonman. Concurrently, he took to tech when the scent was still utopian, building the first
official websites for Burning Man, the Residents and multiple other local arts groups of the
era. He worked as a consultant to a variety of corps and orgs, including 10 years with the
Institute for the Future. He is co-founder of both long-running Anon Salon monthly gatherings
and Sea of Dream NYE spectacles. Read other articles by Mark .
Former DNC chairman who gave Hillary Clinton debate questions in advance during the 2016
election, exclaimed on Fox News that Biden's victory was "the most impressive 72 hours
I've ever seen in U.S. politics," and told another analyst to "
go to hell " for suggesting that the Democratic establishment was once again working to
manipulate a nominee into frontrunner status.
The Democrats are in chaos and melting down on live TV.
Donna Brazile just told the @GOPChairwoman to "go to hell"
when asked about the chaos.
Update (1050ET): President Trump was quick to react to Bloomberg's exit:
Mini Mike Bloomberg just "quit" the race for President. I could have told him long ago that
he didn't have what it takes, and he would have saved himself a billion dollars, the real cost.
Now he will pour money into Sleepy Joe's campaign, hoping to save face. It won't work!
"... I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election interference. ..."
"... Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn. ..."
What you describe is probably why Russiagate spread so easily to so many people. Nothing
happened in previous elections? Everything you describe never happened as you point out. The
American electoral system was and is pristine and virginal.
Until the Russians came and destroyed American democracy through social media themes,
memes, and retweets.
The American electoral system was never brutally corrupted by rigged votes, voter
suppression on the scale of hundreds of thousands, deliberately miscounted votes, voter
fraud, etc. Americans never did to each other anything as bad as what the Russians did to
Americans.
Of course, for me never worked as I worked in primaries of a democratic machine dominated
city. I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for
Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election
interference.
Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that
reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional
mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn.
... Although it cannot be assumed that all her voters would have gravitated to Sanders,
certainly some would have, and with an extra ten points Bernie would have won some states he
lost. If she departs after coming in third in her home state, that will help Sanders going
forward.
Sanders performed well below the polling. Polls had him competitive in Virginia, where he
was crushed by Biden. Polls showed him winning Texas, whereas that turned into a close
race.
The ruling oligarchy of the US (which is an Oligarchical republic, let's say, like Venice in
the good old days) is always picking a fight only against socialist, or socialist lite
regimes - if there is a nationalistic hue, that is also bad: see the history of poor old
Latin America, Iran ('1953), Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Syria, etc,
whether they are secular or religious... The only thing that is sacrosanct is private
property in the hands of the few (remember eminent domain law: likely would never disposes an
oligarch).
We'll likely have a redux of the 30 years war in Europe (which was proportionally much
more devastating that the WWII) and which culminated with the Westphalian peace, which
insured that internal affairs of a state are its own. But this is what the UN Charter
reinforced after WWII, but that is not good for the US Oligarchy, and this is why they are
talking about a "rule based order" (their rule), instead of Internationally and legally
codified order as in the UN Charter. You see only Mr. Lavrov of Russia talking about this.
Even the legalistic Mr. Larison here at TAC doesn't go that far to bring the UN Charter to
the fore and hammer with it like Khrushchev hammered the desk at UN with his shoe.
Deep down, even the most righteous of the writers here at TAC are imbued with the American
exceptionalism and when talking about it are like cats vomiting their hair...
Two legs good (sovereignty for me is good), four legs bad (sovereignty for you is
bad)...
Every country and individual in each country must be able to borrow money from the American
oligarchy, and be forced, under threat of military or economic violence, to repay that money
in US dollars. Every country and individual must also be willing to sell their most precious
assets to the US oligarchy for those dollars.
Anything else is pure communism and the US military must be willing to expend American
lives to rid this planet of the scourge of communism.
"... Shokin alleges he was fired on March 29, 2016 specifically because his office refused to shut down a long-running corruption investigation into Burisma, one of Ukraine's larger natural gas companies. The firm hired Hunter Biden as a board member in spring 2014, shortly after Joe Biden was named by President Obama to oversee Ukraine-U.S. relations. Records gathered by the FBI show Hunter Biden's American firm was paid more than $3 million between 2014 and 2016. ..."
"... But evidence has emerged in recent weeks that the probe into Burisma, in fact, was heating up when Shokin was fired in spring 2016. The prosecutor's office had secured a ruling re-seizing assets of Burisma's owner in early February 2016, and the Latvian government acknowledges it sent a warning to Ukraine officials that same month flagging several Burisma transactions, including payments to Hunter Biden, as "suspicious." ..."
"... Documents recently released under the Freedom of Information Act also show Burisma's lawyers were pressuring the State Department in February 2016 to end the corruption allegations against the firm, even invoking Hunter Biden's name as the reason. ..."
A Ukrainian court has ordered
an investigation into whether Joe Biden violated any laws when he forced the March 2016 firing of
the country's chief prosecutor.
The ruling could revive scrutiny of Hunter Biden's lucrative relationship with an energy
firm in that corruption-plagued country just as the former vice president's campaign for the
Democratic presidential nomination is surging after a lackluster start.
Former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who has long alleged he was fired because he would not
stop investigating the Burisma Holdings firm that employed Hunter Biden, secured the ruling last
month. Ukrainian officials confirmed the State Bureau of Investigation has since complied and
initiated the probe.
The Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv ruled last month that Shokin's lawyers had
provided sufficient evidence to warrant a probe and "obliged the authorized officials of the State
Bureau of Investigation" to accept the ex-prosecutor's complaint and "start pre-trial investigation
of the reported data,"
according to an official English translation of the ruling provided
by Shokin's attorney.
The ruling does not mention Biden by name, but court filings by Shokin's lawyers that led to the
decision show that the former prosecutor had
alleged "the commission of a criminal offense
against him by Joseph Biden, a citizen of the United States of America, in Ukraine and abroad:
interference in the activities of a law enforcement officer."
Ukraine officials say the court-ordered investigation could include a review of
non-public documents and possibly even interviews.
The court order revives allegations that were at the center of President Trump's recent
impeachment and acquittal, and which have dogged
Joe
Biden since he boasted in a 2018 video interview
that he threatened to withhold $1 billion in
U.S.-backed loan guarantees if Ukraine's then-President Petro Poroshenko did not fire Shokin as the
country's chief prosecutor.
Shokin alleges he was fired on March 29, 2016 specifically because his office refused to shut
down a long-running corruption investigation into Burisma, one of Ukraine's larger natural gas
companies. The firm hired Hunter Biden as a board member in spring 2014, shortly after Joe Biden
was named by President Obama to oversee Ukraine-U.S. relations. Records gathered by the FBI show
Hunter Biden's American firm was paid more than $3 million between 2014 and 2016.
President Trump's private lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, asked the State Department and Ukraine
officials back in 2019 to investigate the Bidens, an act which gave rise to the impeachment
proceedings,
During impeachment testimony, multiple State Department officials said they believed the Bidens'
arrangement created the appearance of a conflict of interest and that the
department
even blocked a business deal
with Burisma at one point over concerns the company was corrupt.
Joe Biden and his defenders have denied any wrongdoing, saying the vice president sought
Shokin's firing because the prosecutor was ineffective in fighting corruption. His supporters have
also claimed that the Burisma investigation was dormant at the time Shokin was fired and therefore
not a high priority.
But evidence has emerged in recent weeks that the probe into Burisma, in fact, was heating up
when Shokin was fired in spring 2016. The prosecutor's office had secured a ruling re-seizing
assets of Burisma's owner in early February 2016, and the Latvian government acknowledges it sent a
warning to Ukraine officials that same month flagging several Burisma transactions, including
payments to Hunter Biden, as "suspicious."
Documents recently released under the Freedom of Information Act also
show Burisma's
lawyers were pressuring the State Department in February 2016 to end the corruption allegations
against the firm, even invoking Hunter Biden's name as the reason.
And Shokin himself says he was making plans to interview Hunter Biden, an act that likely would
have garnered major attention in the United States as Democrats were trying to defeat Donald Trump
in the 2016 presidential election.
Hunter Biden recently left Burisma's board and said he believes in retrospect it was bad
judgment to join the Ukraine company while his father oversaw U.S.-Ukraine relations. He also
acknowledged he likely got the job because of his last name.
Whatever Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigation does, the emergence of an investigation in
Ukraine focusing attention on the Biden's ethics comes at an unwelcome time for Joe Biden, whose
presidential campaign lagged for months but got a jolt over the weekend when he won convincingly in
South Carolina's primary.
Biden's momentum continued Monday on the eve of the critical Super Tuesday elections when rivals
Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg dropped from the 2020 Democratic presidential race and announced
plans to endorse the former vice president.
While the Ukraine probe just gets started, a separate investigation launched by
Republicans in the U.S. Senate has been growing for weeks as investigators seek documents on Hunter
Biden's finances, his overseas travels with the vice president and possible interviews with Ukraine
officials.
As a coincidence theorist, when I heard yesterday that Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, and
Tom Steyer were dropping out of the Democratic presidential primary -- all before today's big
primary election -- the message was brazen and open: the operators in and around the
establishment Democratic Party had made their move and the primary is now a charade.
Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Steyer spent a lot of time and effort in the campaign, and then
(coincidentally) dropped out before the very important Super Tuesday primary election!
Normally, you would continue pushing until the end of this big day and then make an
announcement, if you chose to do so.
To some extent, this is deja vu all over again from the 2008 Democratic primary between
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. After Obama was doing well, she refused to drop out. I read
that there was a meeting or conference call with Democratic Party people, and Hillary was told
how the cow ate the cabbage. She pulled back some with her campaign and at the convention any
delegates she had did not get in the way of Obama. A political deal was obviously involved and
revealed itself when she was appointed by Obama to be Secretary of State.
The disdain the political and economic oligarchy in this country has for the people outside
of it has crawled out from under a rock. In the 2016 Republican primary campaign, Donald Trump
kicked over the milk bucket, and when his campaign started to make headway, the political party
structure started to show its real face. Trump's loud accusation that the primary system was
rigged forced the Republican party operators into the open who then admitted on television that
the political parties were private organizations with their own rules. At a major Republican
Party meeting it was decided that they would not change their rules or bylaws before the
convention, and the decision was publicly announced. Paul Manafort, who had extensive
experience with the machinations involving delegates, successfully guided Trump through that
potentially treacherous process and got him the nomination. For his skill at the nominating
process (but not as a brilliant computer scientist allied with Russia), Manafort became the
target of retaliation by the federal government's prosecuting apparatus, through a "special
counsel" appointed to give cover to the old Soviet saying, "Show me the man, and I will show
you the crime". This time around the mask has slipped off of the Democratic Party and its
national committee (DNC). The debate rules were changed to allow Michael Bloomberg to
participate in the "debate" of last week Tuesday (25 February) when he did not qualify to be in
it. This favoritism was not given to Tulsi Gabbard or others. But at the debate Bloomberg
helpfully told us what is really happening [1]--
"Bloomberg: Let's just go on the record. They talk about 40 Democrats; 21 of those were
people that I spent $100 million dollars to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in
and put Nancy Pelosi in charge and gave the Congress the ability to control this
president...
(Cheering and Applause) Bloomberg: ... I bough [clearly starting to say "bought"], I, I got
them."
The CBS television network pathetically falsified their transcript of the debate by editing
out the word "bought" Bloomberg tried to pull back into his mouth, writing, "Bloomberg: ... I
-- I got them" [2].
I am ashamed to admit that this had not occurred to me. I just assumed that the Democratic
Inner Party members were going to anoint Senator Dead Vegetable Walking. Of course a
President Little Big-Money Man would serve the plutons and the kleptons much better and more
effectively.
Maybe they will decide that nominating Bloombooger is just too brazen and raw. Maybe they
will re-nominate Hillary Clinton to keep peace in the family, and let Bloombooger be her
running mate.
Either way, I suspect a lot of self-propelled supporters of various people will work very
hard to get their desired figures placed on ballots as no-party independents.
Bloomberg clearly is a cheerleader for the totalitarian Chinese communists. He's got a lot of
his wealth tied up in that relationship.
His billion dollar expenditure didn't buy the nomination. He's dropped out.
Wall St is thrilled. A Biden win in the general election means a return to the neoliberal
policies of Bush/Clinton/Obama. John Brennan and James Comey were cheering last night.
for us northerners that never heard the line "how the cow ate the cabbage.
"How the cow ate the cabbage" is a folk saying of the southern US, most often heard in
Texas and Arkansas, and probably dates back to at least the 1940s. It comes from the
punchline to a joke that would, in that period, have been considered at least slightly
"off-color." Here goes:
A circus had arrived in a small town, and one morning one of the elephants managed to
escape. The fugitive pachyderm made its way to the backyard garden of an elderly (and very
near-sighted) woman, where it began hungrily uprooting her cabbages with its trunk and eating
them. Alarmed by the apparition in her garden, the woman called the police, saying, "Sheriff,
there's a big cow in my garden pulling up my cabbages with its tail!" "What's the cow doing
with them?" he asked, to which the woman replied, "You wouldn't believe me if I told
you!"
For me, who experienced "geriatric" Politburo first hand, to see some 78 year old (by
November) senile and corrupt idiot to be praised as a future POTUS is down right surreal.
Brezhnev died at the age of 76 after experiences in his life (including severe concussion in
WW II) of which Joe Biden couldn't even conceive.
Yet, he was called many things but as many testify today who knew him personally, he died
being still in good mind, despite many age-related problems.
Same can be stated about gravely ill but young (only 70) Andropov who died from kidneys
but having sharp mind till the very end. I cannot say much about Chernenko, at his 74 when he
passed away he was simply very ill, stop gap, measure.
Joe Biden is a complete imbecile, pardon my French, and I am not sure he is competent to
be a post-master in some backwater town, let alone be nominated as a candidate, not to speak
of being POTUS.
It is absolutely bizarre what is going on. Yeah, I am sure young feisty 79 y.o. boy
Bernie, fresh from heart-attack, will show this damn Biden. As I say all the time, for all my
disdain for GOP, Democratic Party is clear and present danger to what's left of Republic.
This is what Democratic "nomination" process looks like.
I am surprised that Bloomberg announced right away today (Wednesday, the day after the
vote) that he is also suspending his campaign and not staying in the primary race, as his
goal surely was to get to a brokered convention. If he thought that he was going to win the
primary outright he was either getting bad advice, or he was not looking at data closely as
he says he likes to do. The Democratic National Convention is four months away, and it will
be interesting to see what happens with the new mix driven by the "establishment" Democratic
Party.
It is a very bad idea to elect somebody as President in a democracy who owns a significant
part of the media. Bloomberg News has had a long-standing editorial policy of not
investigating any of Michael Bloomberg's business dealings, or anything else he does.
"With Mike Bloomberg officially entering the 2020 Democratic presidential race, Bloomberg
News will refrain from investigating him and his Democratic rivals, according to a memo sent
to editorial and research staff obtained by CNBC.
'We will continue our tradition of not investigating Mike (and his family and foundation )
and we will extend the same policy to his rivals in the Democratic primaries. We cannot treat
Mike's democratic competitors differently from him,' Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait said
in the memo, which was confirmed by a spokesperson.
Mike Bloomberg is founder and 89% shareholder in Bloomberg LP, a financial software
company that owns Bloomberg News"
I believe that what happened is the voters decided they did not want 4 more years of Trump
and picked the person they thought could beat him. Buttigieg, whom I really liked, was too
gay for the average American, Warren was too female, Bernie was too much of a
socialist/communist. Amy, was just too Amy and Bloomberg was another New York billionaire,
didn't we already have one of those.
That left Biden, who reminds us of a kinder and gentler time and that is why I voted for
him.
As for the comments he is senile and an idiot, have any of you listened to Trump speak? He
is unable to put together a coherent sentence.
yeah no . . . I think Trump will win very very bigly.
My deepest hope at this point is that 50 separate bunches of Bitter Berners will get
Sanders's name on 50 separate State Ballots in time for the Election. That should allow us to
see just how much the Establishment Catfood Democrats will lose from having cast Sanders into
the outer darkness.
And as to the Catfood Convention itself, I hope they pick Clinton to be Candidate Dead
Vegetable Walking's running mate. She can run as being " the brains behind the empty
skull."
A Biden-Clinton ticket would sweep New York and California. It might also narrowly win
some of little bedroom-community states which are part of the Greater New York City
Metropolitan Area. Trump would get most of the rest of it. Including every last one of the
Brexit States.
"... I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election interference. ..."
"... Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn. ..."
What you describe is probably why Russiagate spread so easily to so many people. Nothing
happened in previous elections? Everything you describe never happened as you point out. The
American electoral system was and is pristine and virginal.
Until the Russians came and destroyed American democracy through social media themes,
memes, and retweets.
The American electoral system was never brutally corrupted by rigged votes, voter
suppression on the scale of hundreds of thousands, deliberately miscounted votes, voter
fraud, etc. Americans never did to each other anything as bad as what the Russians did to
Americans.
Of course, for me never worked as I worked in primaries of a democratic machine dominated
city. I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for
Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election
interference.
Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that
reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional
mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn.
Non-interventionists are not used to having a seat at the power table. Lacking any amount of
institutional influence, believers in the anti-war cause are used to spending careers tinkering
at the margins of the conversation, living from hand to mouth off of minimal fundraising. No
one ever got rich towing the line for "Big Peace."
This unfortunate situation has, over decades, left a cynicism for anything located in the
beltway of Washington D.C. That's where principles go to die, and good people go to sell out,
don't you know?
This characterization is far from unfounded. There is an endless list of grifters,
double-crossers, and Fausts who have sold their soul for a couple zeros added to their
paychecks. But should past betrayals define our attitudes to the possibilities of the
future?
In the past week, the Quincy Institute for
Responsible Statecraft held its first event since its inaugural launch in December. Named
after former secretary of state John Quincy Adams and founded through big money donations from
billionaires Charles Koch and George Soros (among others), the think tank was established, in
the words of Chairwoman Suzanne DiMaggio, "to bring about a fundamental reorientation in U.S.
foreign policy."
The event ,
titled "A New Vision for America in the World," was pilloried before it even occurred.
Criticism revolved around the speaker's list, which included individuals who had spent
years advocating, defending, and even participating in military adventurism overseas. This is
where a dose of context is important.
The event was pitched as a forum between the Quincy Institute and Foreign Policy ,
whose conception of its eponymous topic is decidedly status quo hegemony. Registration, the
speaker's list, and the day's schedule were available exclusively on Foreign Policy 's
website. Quincy was discernably the junior partner in the conversation.
Each side chose its champion. Foreign Policy originated the idea to host disgraced
former Major General David Petraeus, who commanded U.S. forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Since his conviction for sharing state secrets with his mistress as Director of the CIA,
Petraeus has spent years attempting to rehabilitate his image and
spread the gospel of counterinsurgency that failed American forces in the Middle East.
In opposition stood Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California. A self-described
"progressive capitalist," since his election in 2016 Khanna has made a name for himself as a
voice for military restraint in Washington. He's done more legwork to stop American support for
the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen than any other member of congress.
The event's original conception was to have a debate between Petraeus and Khanna on stage,
where the two could challenge each other directly. Petraeus refused to countenance this option,
a Quincy insider revealed to the Libertarian Institute. So instead each man sat down,
back-to-back, with their respective interlocutors; Petraeus with Foreign Policy
Editor-In-Chief Jonathan Tepperman, and Khanna with the Charles Koch Institute's Vice President
for Research and Policy Will Ruger.
Tepperman opened his segment with a joke that fell on deaf ears. "Our next guest will be
immediately recognizable to all of you, I'm sure, unless you've been living under a rock for
the last twenty years," he smiled. "That's 'under a rock,' not 'living in Iraq,' in which case
you would definitely recognize him." Try telling that one-liner to the Iraqi teenagers who have
gone their entire lives without clean drinking water, or the Iraqi men who continue to live
without arms or legs, or the Iraqi mothers who gave birth to babies with abominable birth
defects because of America's use of depleted uranium ammunition. Yes, I'm sure they'd
definitely recognize David Petraeus.
The proceeding twenty-four minutes of dialogue was the
same insipid pablum that Petraeus has used to justify his speaking fees for a decade. The
United States must remain stationed in Afghanistan to keep an Al-Qaeda sanctuary from being
reestablished, he argued. "There is some affinity they have for Eastern Afghanistan," the
former general said, even though the reasoning "was lost on me."
Would Petraeus be open to a reassessment of U.S. strategic interests; the kind of
retrenchment advocated by the Quincy Institute? "I think, to be perfectly honest, the debate
here -- should we be more restrained -- of course we should be more restrained," he answered
coyly. "Until we shouldn't."
When Congressman Khanna began his segment afterwards, he wasted no time in cutting Petraeus
down to size. "I thought the title of this conference is 'A New Vision for American Foreign
Policy,'" Khanna said, "and I was wondering when he was going to say something new that we
haven't heard for the last twenty years."
"If I understood General Petraeus, he's basically saying we need to have a permanent troop
presence around the world, in any place that's a failed state. I mean I thought we were a
republic. I thought that was totally counter to what our founder's envisioned," explained
Khanna.
While he displayed a depth of knowledge on U.S. conduct overseas far exceeding the average
representative, it was Khanna's conception of America's metaphysical place in the world that
stood out most prominently. When foreigners think of the United States, he hopes their first
thoughts are "our culture, our art, our technology, our writings [that] reflect those
values."
"I don't want the first thing when they think about the United States [to be] our military
or bombs," he said resolutely. This sentiment brought to mind that cataloger of American
localism, Bill Kauffman, who lambasted the "sham patriotism" of "the chickenhawk who loves
little of his country beyond its military might."
Ro Khanna holds to that older notion of America, of a republic on a human scale that focuses
on its own betterment, not the siren song of empire. "I think every member of congress should
read John Quincy Adams. He's more eloquent than all of us put together," he counseled.
Unfortunately, Petraeus had already departed out the side door before he could be infected
with anyone else's perspective. He had a better exit strategy from the conference than he ever
did in Iraq or Afghanistan.
So lopsided was the "exchange" that after Khanna concluded Tepperman felt the need to defend
his interviewee. "There was a big mismatch between Petraeus and Khanna. In the sense that, Ro
Khanna is a politician. David Petraeus is not a politician," he said, eliciting an eyeroll from
Ruger. The absurdity to claim that Petraeus, who earned the antagonism of his fellow commanders
by being one of the most outwardly political generals in modern American history, obliged
Tepperman to admit moments later that, "Petraeus is a better politician than most."
Outside the main attraction, the conference also included a discussion between two other
House members, and three theater-focused foreign policy panels. Each panel's membership was
split between people selected by Quincy and those selected by Foreign Policy, allowing a more
open exchange of ideas than usually seen in the beltway. The Quincy Institute's staff,
particularly Managing Director for Research and Policy Sarah Leah Whitson, ably articulated the
concepts of realism and drawing back from our seemingly endless wars.
Some purists will still complain that the Quincy Institute soiled itself by cohosting its
first conference with Foreign Policy , and for allowing the likes of Petraeus to speak.
But the fact is, Quincy created a space where a sitting congressman could publicly clown the
man who lost America's two twenty-first century invasions. It created a space where renowned
Pentagon reporter Mark Perry could rile the audience into a frenzy like a Rockstar performing a
set of his greatest hits. And it created a space where Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin
could be cheered by a crowd for interrogating a panelist
about his financial connections to Saudi Arabia.
This new, freer environment is something to be celebrated. The Quincy Institute for
Responsible Statecraft might have started the forum as the unofficial junior partner to
Foreign Policy , but it closed it by punching above its weight class.
Contrary to the depiction in Western media, the Syria war is not a civil war. This is because the initiators, financiers and
a large part of the anti-government fighters
come from abroad .
Nor is the Syria war a religious war, for Syria was and still is one of the most
secular countries in the region, and the Syrian army – like its direct opponents – is itself mainly composed of Sunnis.
But the Syria war is also not a pipeline war, as some critics suspected,
because the allegedly
competing gas pipeline projects
never
existed to begin with, as even the Syrian president
confirmed .
Instead, the Syria war is a war of conquest and regime change
, which developed into a geopolitical proxy war between NATO states on one side – especially the US, Great Britain and France – and
Russia, Iran, and China on the other side.
In fact, already since the 1940s the US has repeatedly
attempted to install a pro-Western government
in Syria, such as in 1949, 1956, 1957, after 1980 and after 2003, but without success so far. This makes Syria – since the fall of
Libya – the last Mediterranean country independent
of NATO.
Thus, in the course of the „Arab Spring" of 2011, NATO and its allies, especially Israel and the Gulf States,
decided to try again. To this end, politically and economically motivated protests in Syria were used and were quickly
escalated into an armed conflict.
NATO's original strategy of 2011 was based on the Afghanistan
war of the 1980s and aimed at conquering Syria mainly through positively portrayed Islamist militias (so-called „rebels").
This did not succeed, however, because the militias lacked an air force and anti-aircraft missiles.
Hence from 2013 onwards,
various poison gas
attacks were
staged in order to be able to deploy the NATO air force as part of a „humanitarian intervention" similar to the earlier wars
against Libya and Yugoslavia. But this did not succeed either, mainly because Russia and China blocked a UN mandate.
As of 2014, therefore, additional but negatively portrayed Islamist militias („terrorists") were covertly
established in Syria
and Iraq via NATO partners Turkey and Jordan, secretly
supplied
with weapons and vehicles
and indirectly
financed
by oil exports via the Turkish Ceyhan terminal.
ISIS: Supply and export routes through NATO partners Turkey and Jordan (ISW / Atlantic, 2015)
Media-effective
atrocity propaganda and mysterious „terrorist attacks" in Europe and the US then offered the opportunity to intervene in Syria
using the NATO air force even without a UN mandate – ostensibly to fight the „terrorists", but
in reality still to conquer Syria and topple
its government.
This plan failed again, however, as Russia also used the presence of the „terrorists" in autumn 2015 as a justification
for direct military
intervention and was now able to attack both the „terrorists" and parts of NATO's „rebels" while simultaneously securing
the Syrian airspace to a large extent.
By the end of 2016, the Syrian army thus succeeded in
recapturing the city of Aleppo.
From 2016 onwards, NATO therefore switched back to positively portrayed but now Kurdish-ledmilitias (the SDF) in order to still have unassailable
ground forces available and to conquer the Syrian territory held by the previously established „terrorists" before Syria and Russia
could do so themselves.
This led to a kind of
„race"
to conquer cities such as Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor in 2017 and to a temporary division of Syria along the Euphrates river into a (largely)
Syrian-controlled West and a Kurdish (or rather American) controlled East (see map below).
This move, however, brought NATO into
conflict
with its key member Turkey, because Turkey did not accept a Kurdish-controlled territory on its southern border. As a result, the
NATO alliance became increasingly divided from 2018 onwards.
Turkey now fought the Kurds in
northern Syria and at the same time supported the remaining Islamists in the north-western province of Idlib against the Syrian army,
while the Americans eventually
withdrew
to the eastern Syrian oil fields in order to retain a political bargaining chip.
While Turkey supported Islamists in northern Syria, Israel more or less covertly
supplied Islamists in southern Syria and at the same time fought Iranian and Lebanese (Hezbollah) units with air strikes, though
without lasting success: the militias in southern Syria had to surrender in 2018.
Ultimately, some NATO members
tried to use a confrontation between the Turkish and Syrian armies in the province of Idlib as a last option to escalate the
war. In addition to the situation in Idlib, the issues of the occupied territories in the north and east of Syria remain to be resolved,
too.
Russia, for its part, has tried to draw Turkey out of the NATO alliance and onto its own side as far as possible. Modern Turkey,
however, is pursuing a rather far-reaching geopolitical
strategy of its own, which is also increasingly clashing with Russian interests in the Middle East and Central Asia.
As part of this geopolitical strategy, Turkey in 2015 and 2020 even used the so-called
"weapon of mass migration" , which may serve to destabilize
both Syria (so-called strategic depopulation
) and Europe, as well as to extort financial, political or military support from the European Union.
Syria: The situation in February 2020
What role did the Western media play in this war?
The task of NATO-compliant media was to portray
the war against Syria as a „civil war", the Islamist „rebels" positively, the Islamist „terrorists" and the Syrian government negatively,
the alleged „poison gas attacks" credibly and the NATO intervention consequently as legitimate.
Since 2019, NATO-compliant media moreover had to conceal or discredit various leaks and whistleblowers that began to prove the
covert Western arms deliveries
to the Islamist „rebels" and „terrorists" as well as the staged
„poison gas attacks"
.
But if even the „terrorists" in Syria were demonstrably established and equipped by NATO states, what role then did the mysterious
„caliph of terror" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi play? He possibly played a similar role as his direct
predecessor , Omar al-Baghdadi – who was a
phantom .
Thanks to new communication technologies and on-site sources, the Syria war was also the first war about which
independent media could report almost in real-time and thus for
the first time significantly influenced the public perception of events – a potentially historic change.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
All images in this article are from SPR
Order Mark Taliano's Book "Voices from Syria"
directly from Global Research.
Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis
that refutes the mainstream media narratives on Syria.
The Democrat establishment came together and crushed Bernie Sanders, AGAIN! Even the fact
that Elizabeth Warren stayed in the race was devastating to Bernie and allowed Sleepy Joe to
unthinkably win Massachusetts. It was a perfect storm, with many good states remaining for
Joe!
20 minutes later, Trump tweeted that it was " So selfish for Elizabeth Warren to stay in the
race ," as she has "Zero chance of even coming close to winning, but hurts Bernie badly."
"So much for their wonderful liberal friendship. Will he ever speak to her again? She cost him
Massachusetts (and came in third), he shouldn't!"
So selfish for Elizabeth Warren to stay in the race. She has Zero chance of even coming
close to winning, but hurts Bernie badly. So much for their wonderful liberal friendship. Will
he ever speak to her again? She cost him Massachusetts (and came in third), he shouldn't!
Three hours later, Trump tweeted: " Wow! If Elizabeth Warren wasn't in the race, Bernie
Sanders would have EASILY won Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas , not to mention various other
states. Our modern day Pocahontas won't go down in history as a winner, but she may very well go
down as the all time great SPOILER! "
Wow! If Elizabeth Warren wasn't in the race, Bernie Sanders would have EASILY won
Massachusetts, Minnesota and Texas, not to mention various other states. Our modern day
Pocahontas won't go down in history as a winner, but she may very well go down as the all time
great SPOILER!
ernie Sanders is not George McGovern. And Donald Trump is not Richard Nixon when he ran for
reelection in 1972. Thus the oft-heard analogy explaining why Sanders couldn't beat Trump this
year -- that he is too liberal, just as McGovern was too liberal 48 years ago -- doesn't
hold.
McGovern didn't lose his presidential bid because he was too liberal. He lost because he ran
against an incumbent, Nixon, who had logged an exemplary record as president in his first term.
American voters don't discard presidents for the fun of it. They discard presidents when
presidents prove themselves to be too small for the job.
Thus it can be said that no Democrat, however liberal or centrist, was going to beat Nixon
in 1972.
The corollary is that when presidents lose the confidence of the American people -- as Jimmy
Carter did in the late 1970s, for example -- any opponent will suffice to expel him from
office. The pols and pundits of 1980, when Carter sought reelection against challenger Ronald
Reagan, considered the Californian to be just too conservative to be president. Hence, many of
them thought Carter would be the inevitable winner. Wrong again. Voters don't get hung up on
the views of challengers; they focus on the performances of incumbent presidents and parties.
That, primarily, is what drives presidential elections.
I explored this referendum thesis of presidential elections in my 2012 book, Where They
Stand , and again in the fall of 2016 in a piece for TAC magazine (later republished
on this website), which posited that "Trump actually can win, despite his gaffe-prone ways and
his poor standing in the polls." I based this not on anything said or done by Trump or by his
Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, but on Barack Obama's second-term record, which I
adjudged to have been a mild failure (after a first-term record that I considered a mild
success -- hence his 2012 reelection). The subhead on the TAC piece posed a thought that
was highly unconventional, even outlandish, at the time: "The keys that predict victory could
pose bad news for Clinton."
To understand the dynamics of this year's presidential election in terms of referendum
politics, we must first dispose of the McGovern analogy, which can be done only through a look
at Nixon's first-term record (leaving aside, of course, his second-term fiasco).
He inherited the presidency in January 1969 when the country was beset by multiple crises.
It was bogged down in a war widely considered unwinnable, with 540,000 troops in Vietnam and
large numbers of casualties every week. The economy was beginning to sputter under the weight
of Lyndon Johnson's "guns and butter" policies, with meager economic growth mixed with a rising
threat of inflation. Mass antiwar demonstrations on college campuses and in Washington, D.C.
raised questions about civic stability, rendered all the more urgent with race riots in
multiple cities that claimed dozens of lives.
Yet over the course of the next four years, Nixon reduced America's Vietnam troop commitment
to just 70,000 soldiers and brought the war very close to a negotiated end (realized shortly
after the 1972 election). With his famous "Silent Majority" speech and other actions, notably
his support for an all-volunteer army, he managed to calm the waters of protest. Through an
economic stimulus program, he boosted GDP growth in the election year to a robust 4 percent. He
stunned his country and the world with his bold overture to China, which transformed the
geopolitical dynamics of Asia. He also scored a major domestic triumph with the creation of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
In their 1990 book exploring the dynamics of referendum politics , The 13 Keys to the
Presidency , Alan J. Lichtman and Ken DeCell write that Nixon's early presidential
performance seemed too mediocre for any 1972 victory. But he managed to recoup brilliantly.
"The reality of 1971," they wrote, "was that Nixon's prospects for reelection looked bleak."
But then, they added, he pulled off "one of the most remarkable turnarounds in presidential
history," marked by an economic boom, the unexpected foreign policy triumph with communist
China, and his remarkable success in defusing the Vietnam controversy. The result was a
landslide reelection, with 60.7 percent of the popular vote and 570 electoral ballots to just
17 for McGovern.
Is it really realistic to suggest, based on any analysis of history, that Nixon could have
been defeated if only the Democrats had put up a more centrist opponent or if McGovern hadn't
positioned himself so far to the left? No, Nixon won on his record, and McGovern's liberalism
had little to do with it.
Thus will Donald Trump rise or fall this year on his record, not on who his opponent is.
Lichtman and DeCell, in their book (updated in later editions by Lichtman alone), posited an
analytical matrix designed to lay bare the essence of voters' presidential decision-making.
They identify 13 "keys," or fundamental analytical statements, that illuminate the political
standing of the incumbent president or incumbent party. They note that, since Abraham Lincoln's
1860 victory, when five or fewer of these statements disfavor the incumbent, the incumbent
wins. When six or more disfavor the incumbent, the result is defeat. This is all based on
complex "pattern recognition" algorithms designed to illuminate the politics of today by
discerning patterns of circumstance that guided the country's past political paths.
Some of the keys deal directly with questions of success and failure -- for example, whether
the economy has grown beyond that of the previous eight years, whether there is an election
year recession, whether the president has scored a major foreign policy success, whether he has
suffered a major foreign policy failure, whether he has scored a major domestic policy success,
whether he has been beset by scandal, whether civic unrest has reached a point of violence and
major disruption.
But others deal merely with circumstances surrounding the incumbent -- whether he must fight
for the nomination, whether there is a serious independent challenger in the general election,
whether the party in power has gained or lost seats since the last presidential election,
whether he or his opponent is a person of charisma or a military hero, whether the nominee of
the party in power is the incumbent.
Based on the answers four years ago, I concluded that no Democrat was likely to win the
presidency for the reason that Obama's second-term performance precluded it. Hence, I took
Trump seriously, not because of Trump himself but because of the referendum factors.
If we apply those same keys today to Trump's presidency and reelection bid, it appears they
could point either way, to victory or to defeat. Some remain indeterminate for now; others can
be answered only through subjective reasoning.
It would be a mistake to take the Lichtman-DeCell thesis, or any other such thesis, too
literally. The subjective nature of some of the questions suggest caution, as does the idea
that every aspect of past campaigns can be captured by algorithms that will hold indefinitely
into the future. But the outlines of the referendum reality can be discerned through some of
their questions.
As for Trump, has he been beset by scandal? Yes. Has his party lost standing in Congress
since his election? Yes. Has he scored a major foreign policy or military triumph? No. Has he
effected major changes in national policy? Probably not. Has his stark persona been a net
positive or net negative? Probably a negative. On the other hand, he has not been challenged
for the nomination, there is no independent candidacy of note, the economy is better than it
was in the immediate previous era, and there has been no social unrest of serious concern.
Whatever it all adds up to by November 3, Trump will rise or fall on his own record, as he
should. Even if Bernie Sanders gets the Democratic nomination, his impact on the outcome will
be secondary. And in that event, if Trump is adjudged by the voters to have been an
unsuccessful president, his successor will be the socialist from Vermont.
Robert W. Merry, journalist, author, and former publishing executive, is the author most
recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century (Simon &
Schuster).
Forget trying to game out the odds for his Democratic opponents---this is all about the
incumbent.
This is the only hope the Democrats have because they made the same mistake in 2020 that
they made in 2016. They drove away all the candidates who Americans might possibly elect by
fixating on one such candidate way too early. It scared off all the people of that ilk from
even trying. Then they let the left gain too much power in the party by not pushing back on
their ambassadors in the press. That created a dichotomy of unelectables. Moderates who
can't get elected but the establishment want, and progressives who can't get elected and
the establishment doesn't want. They even allowed the press to establish the fiction in
people's mind that Bernie Sanders was the choice of the people in 2016, when in fact Bernie
Sanders polled racially and ethnically like Buttigieg polls now and was soundly beaten by
Hillary Clinton. Both parties allow their respective press allies to establish the public
persona of the party. In reality their voters poll quite differently. Democrats are
generally not as progressive as their press or Republicans as conservative as theirs.
All the Democratic candidates are exceedingly weak. And they will not win unless the
"anyone but Trump" vote is large enough.
Bloomberg notes that Biden's upset victory spans multiple demographics - from blacks
in the Deep South, to whites in the Rust Belt, to rich suburbanites in Virginia and North
Carolina. Biden's biggest delegate win was in Texas, which handed him a whopping 228 delegates.
Still, Sanders won California and its 415 delegates
Notable quotes:
"... The outcome of the entire Democratic nomination process is that Biden will probably win the most the delegates outright and there will be no need for super delegates to steal the nomination from Bernie. ..."
Biden crushed it and will be the Democratic Party nominee. That's a done deal. He even won
Massachusetts. Bernie underperformed relative to his performance in 2016 in most states.
While Bernie supporters are crying foul, the bottom line is primary voters chose Biden
despite him not campaigning in any Super Tuesday states. Clearly a huge plurality of Blacks
and older voters decided they didn't want Bernie's policies of radical change and much
preferred the status quo. Team Obama won big. Obama is now the kingmaker of the Democratic
Party. Setting the stage for Michelle 2024.
Team Obama now don't have to steal the nomination as Biden will have won more delegates
and more states than Bernie. The Trump vs Biden general election will be closer than many
think and decided by close contests in a handful of mid-western states. Michigan and
Pennsylvania being critical battleground states.
Unless you know something we don't know, only about 55% of precincts are in from Texas and
it's less than 1.5% difference. Sanders will win California handily. Combined with Colorado,
Maine, Nevada and the delegates he will get from Iowa (even without the latter) he still has
the most delegates.
Your post is meaningless at this juncture, but thanks anyway.
P.S. Never seen you around the bar before. You new to town?
This is proof positive that the yankee system is beyond redemption. The propaganda coup of
other failed candidates coming out for the "winner" was enough to convince the ignorant plebs
that they should give him another chance. The documented corruption and incompetency which
had apparently eliminated him in the early going was not enough to counter the propaganda
wave and the fact he had been Obama's VP. Now that he is front-runner, the corruption stories
and mental incompetency will again come to the fore, and I think the real winner will end up
being Trump.
Posted by: exiled off mainstree | Mar 4 2020 6:41 utc |
131
The great shocker of Super Tuesday is that it looks likely that there will be no need to
cheat Sanders of the nomination. At this stage (the results of Super Tuesday results are not
all in) it appears to me that Biden has done much better than even the most favourable
prediction.
The outcome of the entire Democratic nomination process is that Biden will
probably win the most the delegates outright and there will be no need for super delegates to
steal the nomination from Bernie.
As a non-American my immediate take-away is:
Americans don't want Medicare4All - they want to continue to be health poor and
bankrupted if they get ill.
Americans don't want Socialism - they want to be financialised and fleeced.
Americans are okay with Peadophile-lite Presidential candidates.
After 4 change elections on the trot, American is moving back to status-quo
elections.
America want wars.
Trillions of dollars will continue to be printed for the benefit of the billionaires
(and trillionaires) and Banks while ordinary Americans will continue to be loaded up with
debt and that's just the way Americans want it.
Trump will have the biggest and bestest win ever.
Only a catastrophic financial collapse or major war defeat for the US may result in
change.
"People who casually tell you that Bernie is for the Empire--and not for the repair of
society-- are people trafficking in lies."
You seem rather confused. "The repair of society" means nothing but to repair and
strengthen the ecocidal-imperial system.
US society including all its institutions and ideas is based completely on
imperialism and ecocide. Within the visible framework of this society there is literally zero
constituency even for ideas let alone any political movement which goes against the
ecocidal-imperial grain in any meaningful way. Not Gabbard, let alone Sanders, proposes any
meaningful change.
Therefore "the repair of society" means trying to repair and thus strengthen the
ecocidal-imperial system, trying to extend its lifespan. The original New Dealers were quite
open that they were trying to save capitalism from itself, just as today Sanders represents
those who want to save the empire and economic society from themselves.
In the exact same way, those who call themselves Green New Dealers are always quite
explicit that they're not trying to save the Earth and end ecocide but to save the commercial
economy.
As for the 2020 fake election, we see how the imperatives of ecocide and empire are so
berserk by now that even your faction which wants to repair and therefore prolong these is
beyond their pale.
Meanwhile, if there are any real anti-imperialists who incongruously remain religious
adherents of electoralism, the 2020 circus surely must force them to choose - are you real or
fake.
I know what my money's on - no one who's real on any level would still have the slightest
truck with US electoralism. Electoralism as such is the real fundamentalist religion which
reigns supreme over literally every value which could possibly define one as truly political
in the first place.
Yep, pretty much a Biden clean sweep. The RCP polls were actually conservative regarding
Biden's performance.
Of the 14 states caucusing on Super Tuesday, Biden wins Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia - and is leading in Maine.
That's 10.
Bernie wins his home state Vermont plus Colorado and Utah and is leading in
California.
Biden beat his RCP number in 4 of 5 states; Sanders underperforms vs RCP polls in 4 of 5
states.
Biden RCP vs. actual California: 23 vs. 22.82 (76.44% reporting) Texas: 28 vs. 32.03 (84.70% reporting) North Carolina: 36.7 vs. 43.70 actual Virginia: 42 vs. 53.25 actual Maine: 24.5 vs. 34.04 (82.88% reporting)
Bernie RCP vs. actual California: 35 vs. 32.17 (76.44% reporting) Texas: 29.5 vs. 29.43 (84.70% reporting) North Carolina: 23.3 vs. 24.52 actual Virginia: 24.5 vs. 23.09 actual Maine: 38.5 vs. 32.96 (82.88% reporting)
It seems clear Warren is the big loser of the night: underperformed in all 5 RCP poll
states with that support apparently going to Biden.
Bernie won't end Super Tuesday with the most delegates - even with winning California.
Between PLEOs and the brokered convention - he's done.
Oh, and 538 (fivethirtyeight)/Nate Silver - loses again. He had Sanders leading in 9 of the
14. Oops.
Sanders winds up winning the smallest state (Vermont) with 16 delegates; the 3rd smallest
(Utah) with 29 delegates; Colorado with (67 total) and the largest - California (415) but
loses Arkansas (34), Alabama (52), Maine (24), Massachusetts (92), Minnesota (75), North
Carolina (110), Virginia (99), Oklahoma (37), Tennessee (64), Texas (228).
527 delegates in Bernie states vs. 815 in Biden states - and Biden did proportionately
better in those states that he won.
If the oligarchical Establishment that controls the DNC do manage to fairly or unfairly
install "Creepy/Sleepy Joe Biden" as presidential candidate, then their minions in Twitter,
Facebook, Google etc will be toiling overtime deleting, banning and shadow banning posts,
memes and videos of Biden's disturbing fondling of children and early dementia moments.
That's not to mention the increasing exposes of his corrupt dealings in Ukraine and China
that netted $Millions in kick backs to son Harper.
Gifting Trump another 4 years if the DNC and the Establishment Media don't let Bernie
campaign on level playing field.
A John
Pilger comment on the presidential clown show and a possible President Sanders:
Kennedys, Clintons, Obama and now Sanders. The American liberal show is back on the road.
Fine if you're a homegrown fan, but not fine for the rest of us to whom America's
liberalism means more war, more bullying. Will this change under Pres. Bernie? Beware
holding your breath.
For those who think Sanders might be any different, I wouldn't give up hope just yet.
Remember that Biden is a senile psychopath. There's a fair probability that Biden will say
something unpardonable, get caught groping someone, or outright die between now and the
convention.
"... US national politics is gang warfare. The Crips vs. the Bloods. Two criminal enterprises with roughly the same aims and tactics, fighting for turf. With minor differences of style. Trump upsets the leadership of the Bloods in 2016, but it turns out that, outrageous as he is, he is good for business, so all the Bloods but the wimps with a weak stomach fall in behind him. ..."
"... But let's just suppose that the old Crips are not quite as pathetic as they look. Let's imagine that they actually learned something in 2016. It was supposed to be easy for them in 2016, and they were surprised. So they have had four years to hone their election-stealing skills. And most of the traditional election stealing organizations in this country seem largely to hate Trump. ..."
"... So let's posit that the FBI & CIA, or whoever it is manages to prop up Biden, and succeed in stealing the election for him. Who would object to that? ..."
"... Not two gangs but one Deep State political mafia with two families running a protection racket (MIC), prostitution (media propaganda, psyops), drugs (industry incentives), and gambling (overseas adventurism) ..."
The setup: US national politics is gang warfare. The Crips vs. the Bloods. Two criminal
enterprises with roughly the same aims and tactics, fighting for turf. With minor differences
of style. Trump upsets the leadership of the Bloods in 2016, but it turns out that,
outrageous as he is, he is good for business, so all the Bloods but the wimps with a weak
stomach fall in behind him.
The Crips are bloated and in decline. A bunch of naïve, starry eyed nobodies mount a
campaign to take the Crips legit. The old Crips are irritated that they have to take time out
from grifting so as to squash the upstart pests.
That is where I see us today. But let's just suppose that the old Crips are not quite as
pathetic as they look. Let's imagine that they actually learned something in 2016. It was
supposed to be easy for them in 2016, and they were surprised. So they have had four years to
hone their election-stealing skills. And most of the traditional election stealing
organizations in this country seem largely to hate Trump.
So let's posit that the FBI & CIA, or whoever it is manages to prop up Biden, and
succeed in stealing the election for him. Who would object to that?
Yes, exactly – all the Trump die-hards, and 'tribal' gang bangers would object. It
could get really nasty.
And so far, I have not seen any evidence that any of the characters that would be willing
to play such a gambit have any inclination to give a shit for the consequences for us little
people.
Not two gangs but one Deep State political mafia with two families running a protection
racket (MIC), prostitution (media propaganda, psyops), drugs (industry incentives), and
gambling (overseas adventurism)...
The Tammany Society emerged as the center for Democratic-Republican Party politics in
the city in the early 19th century. After 1854, the Society expanded its political control
even further by earning the loyalty of the city's rapidly expanding immigrant community,
which functioned as its base of political capital. The business community appreciated its
readiness, at moderate cost, to cut through red tape and legislative mazes to facilitate
rapid economic growth... Tammany Hall also served as an engine for graft and political
corruption, perhaps most infamously under William M. "Boss" Tweed in the mid-19th
century....
[Tweed's biographer wrote:]
It's hard not to admire the skill behind Tweed's system ... The Tweed ring at its
height was an engineering marvel, strong and solid, strategically deployed to control key
power points: the courts, the legislature, the treasury and the ballot box. Its frauds
had a grandeur of scale and an elegance of structure: money-laundering, profit sharing
and organization.
trailertrash @6 --- Americans have been railroaded into endless squabbling about voting and
democracy instead of demanding good governance. How does choosing between two similarly
corrupt parties deliver good governance?
Voting in the lesser evil is still choosing evil.
What does it profit a nation to have voting every 4 years when excrement covers her
sidewalks? and vets suicide themselves daily? and soldiers get raped daily by fellow
soldiers?
Is there any other nation state that has 50 separate official elections, mostly run and paid
for by the public, just so a private club masquerading as a political party can select its
leader? To the rest of the world, this must look completely insane, but few people anywhere
even seem to notice how ridiculous it all looks.
No matter who comes away with the nomination, it has to be asked "was any of this process
legitimate?". We know from a plethora of examples that US elections are not fair. They border
on meaningless most of the time. The DNC's doubly so, having argued in court they have no duty
to be fair.
Any result, then, you could safely assume was contrived, for one reason or another.
If the Buttigieg-Klobuchar-Biden gambit works, we end up with Trump vs. Biden. And,
realistically, that means a second Trump term.
Biden is possibly senile and definitely creepy . Watching him shuffle and stutter
through a Presidential campaign would be almost cruel.
Politically, he has all of Hillary's weaknesses, being a big-time establishment type with a
pro-war record, without even the "I have a vagina" card to play.
He'll get massacred.
Is that the plan?
There's more than enough signs that Trump has abandoned all the policies that made him any
kind of threat to the political establishment. Four years on: no wars ended, no walls built, no
swamp drained. Just more of the same. He's an idiot who talked big and got co-opted. It
happens.
The Senate and other institutions might talk about Trump being a criminal or an idiot or a
"Nazi", but the reality is he's barely perceptibly different from any other POTUS this side of
JFK.
#TheResistance was a puppet show. A weak game played for toy money. When it really counts,
they're all in it together. Biden getting on the ticket would be a public admittance of that.
It would mean the DNC is effectively throwing the fight. Trump is a son of a bitch, but he's
their son of a bitch. And that's much better than even the idea of President
Bernie.
Does it really matter?
Empire of kaos will never move one inch to change the status quo.
The quaisi fascist state that most western /antlantacist nations have become it will make no
difference
Gianbattista Vico"Their will always be an elite class" Punto e basta.
Name me one politico that made any difference to we the sheeple in the modern era.
If someone were to mention FDR I will scream.
Aldo Moro got murdered by the deep state for only suggesting to make a pact with Berlinguer
the head of Il Partito Communista Italiano.
"... Clinton also lied to the country about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq and voted for that obviously illegal war. This after 8 years of her husband's genocidal sanctions killed a minimum of 500,000 innocent Iraqi children . ..."
"... What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous. Yet, he persisted and to this day attempts to help common Americans as much as he can. He does what he believes to be the right thing. His integrity and his record of fighting for working Americans are not the points of contention in this race. ..."
"... Today, however, Senator Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat who beats Trump in poll after poll . The only one. This is no small matter. Trump needs to be beaten in the tangled Electoral College, where a simple numerical victory isn't enough. ..."
"... Bernie is the best choice, but it is interesting that you brought up the genocidal sanctions on Iraq. Bernie supported those sanctions. He also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which reaffirmed US support for the sanctions even after 500,000 children had been killed. ..."
"... Well, the BBC is bigging up Joe Biden right now, yet another of its ridiculous pieces of propaganda utterly devoid of its duty to serve its license payors, who are the British people, not the neoconservative banking elite. ..."
"... How interesting, it's Obama who gave the "cue" for Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Beto, Rice, and the entire slippery gang to circle the wagons in support of the most reactionary warmongering candidate running. The same Obama who released drones every Tuesday morning killing brown and blacks throughout the Middle East and Africa– the majority of slaughtered were innocent women and children. ..."
"... The desperation of the national security state is reflected by The DNC's Shenanigans. The security state would rather promote a crooked, warmongering, lying, racist who barely can put together two logical thoughts then accept a candidate who represents a hopeful future for the next generation. ..."
"... The DNC's message is very clear– they're a "private party" and the working-class are NOT invited. ..."
"... But this by far is the most frightening thought, Biden, does not have all his marbles–it's obvious–we can only guess it's some type of dementia. So if Biden, slides through deploying a multitude of underhanded machinations and becomes the nominee, Trump, will make mincemeat of him during the debates. ..."
"... I'm not in the Orange Baboon's Fan Club, but I find it sad and a little bit pathetic the way people still invest their hopes and put their faith in figures like Bernie, Tulsi or Jezza. Bernie got shafted in 2016 and just saluted smartly and fell into line behind Crooked Hillary. When she lost, he started singing from the approved hymn sheet. The evil Putin stole the election for Kremlin Agent Trump. He has been parroting the same nonsense for the past 4 years. ..."
"... Jeez people get a clue. How many times do you need to fall for the "this candidate is so much better and will solve everything" ruse? Remember Obama? The exact same bullshit was going around back then. ..."
"... We have hope😁 . We have change😁 . We have hope and change you can believe in😁 . Well, yeah, we all know what happened during Obombers 8 years. The entire thing is nothing but Kabuki theatre. For all those still believing the United States is a democracy. ..."
"... 'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled in the public mind by more subtle means. A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern. But in a democratic political order, there is always the danger that independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root. ..."
"... Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns ..."
"... Every opportunity to push back Neo liberalism should be taken. ..."
"... Once again, Mark Twain sums up my feeling: "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it." ..."
"... Where's yours? That's impertinent. Our voting process was programmed, close to 100% by two guys, at one point not many years ago, with the same last name, the brothers Urosevich. The machine owners claim that, as it is their proprietary software, the public is excluded from the vote-counting. ..."
In 2016, Hillary Clinton deserved to lose, and she did. Her deception, her
cheating in
the primary elections , was well-documented, despicable, dishonest, untrustworthy. Her
money-laundering scheme
at DNC should have been prosecuted under campaign finance laws.
Her record of warmongering and gleefully gloating over death and destruction was also well established. On national TV she
bragged about the mutilation of Moammar Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died!"
Clinton also lied to the country about "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
in Iraq and voted for that obviously illegal war. This after 8 years of her husband's genocidal sanctions killed a minimum of
500,000 innocent Iraqi children .
This person was undeserving of anyone's support.
What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous. Yet, he persisted and to this day attempts to help common
Americans as much as he can. He does what he believes to be the right thing. His integrity and his record of fighting for working
Americans are not the points of contention in this race.
His opponents have instead opted for every nonsensical conspiracy theory and McCarthyite smear they can concoct, including the
most ridiculous of all: the
Putin theory , without a single shred of evidence to support it.
Today, however, Senator Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat who beats Trump in
poll after
poll . The
only one. This is no small matter. Trump needs to be beaten in the tangled Electoral College, where a simple numerical victory isn't
enough.
Bernie wins, and he has the best overall shot of changing the course of history, steering America away from plutocracy and fascism.
That crucial race is happening right now in the primaries . If Bernie Sanders doesn't secure 50% of all delegates, then DNC insiders
have already signaled that they will steal the nomination and give it to someone else -- who will lose to Trump. The real election
for the future of America is on Super Tuesday.
It's either Trump or Bernie. That's your choice. Your only choice.
Bernie is the best choice, but it is interesting that you brought up the genocidal sanctions on Iraq. Bernie supported those
sanctions. He also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which reaffirmed US support for the sanctions even after 500,000
children had been killed.
Bernie also voted for Clinton's 1999 bombing campaign on Kosovo.
All that said, yes, Bernie is the best option.
Rhys Jaggar ,
Well, the BBC is bigging up Joe Biden right now, yet another of its ridiculous pieces of propaganda utterly devoid of its duty
to serve its license payors, who are the British people, not the neoconservative banking elite.
When they spout bullshit that 20% of UK workers could miss work 'due to coronavirus', when we have had precisely 36 deaths
in a population of 65 million plus, you know that like climate change, they spout the 1% probability as the mainstream narrative
.
It just shows what folks are up against when media is so cravenly serving those who do not pay them.
Charlotte Russe ,
"If Bernie Sanders doesn't secure 50% of all delegates, then DNC insiders have already signaled that they will steal the
nomination and give it to someone else -- who will lose to Trump. The real election for the future of America is on Super Tuesday."
While Bernie spent more than three decades advocating for economic social justice Biden spent those same three decades
promoting social repression."
"The 1990s saw Biden take aim at civil liberties, authoring anti-terror bills that, among other things, "gutted the federal
writ of habeas corpus," as one legal scholar later reflected. It was this earlier legislation that led Biden to brag to anyone
listening that he was effectively the author of the Bush-era PATRIOT ACT, which, in his view, didn't go far enough. He inserted
a provision into the bill that allowed for the militarization of local law enforcement and again suggested deploying the military
within US borders."
How interesting, it's Obama who gave the "cue" for Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Beto, Rice, and the entire slippery gang to circle
the wagons in support of the most reactionary warmongering candidate running. The same Obama who released drones every Tuesday
morning killing brown and blacks throughout the Middle East and Africa– the majority of slaughtered were innocent women and children.
The desperation of the national security state is reflected by The DNC's Shenanigans. The security state would rather promote
a crooked, warmongering, lying, racist who barely can put together two logical thoughts then accept a candidate who represents
a hopeful future for the next generation.
The DNC's message is very clear– they're a "private party" and the working-class are NOT invited. In fact, they're
saying more than that–if uninvited workers and the marginalized dare to enter they'll be tossed out on their arse
In plain sight the mainstream media news is telling millions that NO one can stop the military/security/surveillance/corporate
state from their stranglehold over the corrupt political duopoly.
I say fight and don't give-up! Be prepared–organize a million people march and head to Milwaukee– the future of the next generation
is on the line.
But this by far is the most frightening thought, Biden, does not have all his marbles–it's obvious–we can only guess it's
some type of dementia. So if Biden, slides through deploying a multitude of underhanded machinations and becomes the nominee,
Trump, will make mincemeat of him during the debates.
But if Biden, makes it to the Oval Office he'll be "less" than a figurehead. Biden, will be as mentally acute as the early
bird diner in a Florida assisted living facility after a recent stroke. The national security state will seize control– handing
the "taxidermied Biden" a pen to idiotically sign off on their highly insidious agenda ..
Ken Kenn ,
Pretty straightforward for me ( I don't know about Bernie? ) but if the Super delegates and the DNC hierarchy decide to hand the
nomination over to Biden then Bernie should stand as an independent.
At least even in defeat a left marker would be placed on the US political table away from the Corporate owners and the shills
that hack for them in the media and elsewhere. At least ordinary US people would know that someone is on their side.
Corbyn in the UK was described as a ' Marxist' by the Tories and the unquestioning media. Despite all that ' Marxist ' Labour got 33% of the vote. People will vote for a ' socialist '
Charlotte Ruse ,
Unfortunately, Bernie won't abandon the Democratic Party. However, there's a ton of Bernie supporters who will vote Third Party
if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.
paul ,
I'm not in the Orange Baboon's Fan Club, but I find it sad and a little bit pathetic the way people still invest their hopes and
put their faith in figures like Bernie, Tulsi or Jezza. Bernie got shafted in 2016 and just saluted smartly and fell into line behind Crooked Hillary. When she lost, he started singing from the approved hymn sheet. The evil Putin stole the election for Kremlin Agent Trump.
He has been parroting the same nonsense for the past 4 years.
That's when he hasn't been shilling for regime change wars in Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and elsewhere against "communist
dictators."
Bernie will get shafted again shortly and fall into line behind Epstein's and Weinstein's best mate Bloomberg or Creepy Joe,
or Pocahontas, or whoever.
If by some miracle they can't quite rig it this time and Bernie gets the nomination, the DNC will just fail to support him,
and allow Trump to win. They would rather see Trump than Bernie in the White House.
Just like Starmer, Thornberry, Phillips and all the Blairite Backstabber Friends of Israel were more terrified of seeing Jezza
in Number Ten than any Tory.
Dr. Johnson said that getting remarried represented the triumph of hope over experience.
The same applies to people expecting any positive change from people like Bernie, Tulsi, or Jezza.
The system just doesn't allow it.
pete ,
Jeez people get a clue. How many times do you need to fall for the "this candidate is so much better and will solve everything"
ruse? Remember Obama? The exact same bullshit was going around back then.
We have hope😁 . We have change😁 . We have hope and change you can believe in😁 . Well, yeah, we all know what happened during
Obombers 8 years. The entire thing is nothing but Kabuki theatre. For all those still believing the United States is a democracy.
clickkid ,
"The real election for the future of America is on Super Tuesday."
Sorry Joe, but where have you been for the last 50 years" Elections are irrelevant. Events change the world – not elections. The only important aspect of an election is the turnout. If you vote in an election, then at some level you still believe in
the system.
Willem ,
Sometimes Chomsky can be useful
'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled in the public
mind by more subtle means. A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient
that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern. But in a democratic political order, there is always the danger that
independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root.
Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing
character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as
it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds,
thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom
reigns.'
If true, the question is, what are we not allowed to say? Or is Chomsky wrong, and are we allowed to say anything we like since TPTB know that words cannot, ever, change political action
as for that you need power and brutal force, which we do not have and which, btw Chomsky advocates to its readers not to try to
use against the nation state?
So maybe Chomsky is not so useful after all, or only useful for the status quo.
Chomsky's latest book, sold in book stores and at airports, where, apparantly, opinions of dissident writers whose opinions
go beyond the bounds of the consensus of elites, are sold in large amounts to marginalize those opinions out of society, is called
'Optimism over despair', a title stolen from Gramsci who said: 'pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.'
But every time I follow Chomsky's reasoning, I end in dead end roads of which it is quite hard to find your way out. So perhaps
I should change that title into 'nihilism over despair'. If you follow Chomsky's reasoning
clickkid ,
Your Chomsky Quote:
"'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. .. " Tell that to the Yellow Vests.
ajbsm ,
Despite the deep state stranglehold .on the whole world there seems to be a 'wind' blowing (ref Lenin) of more and more people
turning backs on the secret service candidates – not just in America. Power, money and bullying will carry on succeeding eventually
the edifice is blown away – this will probably happen, it will be ugly and what emerges might not even be better(!) But the current
controllers seem to have a sell by date.
Ken Kenn ,
I'm not convinced of the theory that the more poor/whipped/ spat upon people become the more likely they are to revolt.
A revolution can only come about when the Bourgeoisie can no longer continue to govern in the old way. In other words it becomes more than a want – more of a necessity of change to the ordinary person.
We have to remember that in general ( it's a bit of a guess but just to illustrate a point ) that a small majority of people
in any western nation are reasonably content – to an extent. They are not going to rock the boat that Kennedy tried to make the tide rise for or that Thatcher and her mates copied with
home owner ship and the right to get into serious debt. This depends on whether you had/have a boat in the first place. If not you've always been drowning in the slowly rising tide.
Sanders as I've said before is not Castro. He has many faults but in a highly parameterised p Neo liberal economic loving political and media world he is the best hope. Not great stuff on offer but a significant move away from the 1% and the 3% who work for them ( including Presidents and Prime
Misister ) so even that slight shift is plus for the most powerful country on planet earth.
I have in the past worked alongside various religious groups as an atheist as long as they were on the right( or should that
be left?) side on an issue.
Now is not the time for the American left to play the Prolier than though card.
Every opportunity to push back Neo liberalism should be taken.
wardropper ,
I'm not convinced of the theory that the more poor/whipped/ spat upon people become the more likely they are to revolt.
But didn't the Storming of the Bastille happen for that very reason?
I think people are waiting for just one spark to ignite their simmering fury – just one more straw to break the patient camel's
back. Understandably, the "elite" (which used to mean exalted above the general level) are in some trepidation about this, but,
like all bullies their addiction to the rush of power goes all the way to the bitter end – the bitter end being the point at which
their target stands up and gives them a black eye. It's almost comical how the bully then becomes the wailing victim himself,
and we have all seen often enough the successfully-resisted dictatorial figure of authority resorting to the claim that he is
now being bullied himself. But this is a situation of his own making, and our sympathy for him is limited by our memory of that
fact.
Ken Kenn ,
Where's the simmering fury in the West.
U.S. turnout is pathetically low. Even in the UK the turnout in the most important election since the First World War was 67%. I see the result of the " simmering fury " giving rise to the right not the left. Just that one phrase or paragraph of provocative words will spark the revolution?
... ... ...
wardropper ,
My point, which I thought I made clearly enough, was that the fury is simmering , and waiting for a catalyst. I also think
an important reason for turnout being low is simply that people don't respond well to being treated like idiots by an utterly
corrupt establishment. They just don't want to participate in the farce.
Once again, Mark Twain sums up my feeling: "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and, like you, I am quite happy to back Sanders as by far the best of a pretty rotten bunch.
Perhaps China is indeed leading in many respects right now, but becoming Chinese doesn't seem like a real option for most of us
at the moment . . . Incidentally I have been to China and I found the people there as interesting as people anywhere else, although
I particularly enjoyed the many things which are completely different from our western cultural roots.
Rhisiart Gwilym ,
Speaking of the Clintons' death toll, didn't Sanders too back all USAmerica's mass-murdering, armed-robbery aggressions against
helpless small countries in recent times? And anyway, why are we wasting time discussing the minutiae of the shadow-boxing in
this ridiculous circus of a pretend-democratic 'election'? Watching a coffin warp would be a more useful occupation.
I go with Dmitry Orlov's reckoning of the matter: It doesn't matter who becomes president of the US, since the rule of the
deep state continues unbroken, enacting its own policies, which ignore the wishes of the common citizens, and only follow the
requirements of the mostly hyper-rich gics (gangsters-in-charge) in the controlling positions of this spavined, failing empire.
(My paraphrase of Dmitry.)
USPresidents do what their deep-state handlers want; or they get impeached, or assassinated like the Kennedy brothers. And
they all know this. Bill Hick's famous joke about men in a smoke-filled room showing the newly-'elected' POTUS that piece of film
of Kennedy driving by the grassy knoll in Dealy Plaza, Dallas, is almost literally true. All POTUSes understand that perfectly
well before they even take office.
Voting for the policies you prefer, in a genuinely democratic republic, and actually getting them realised, will only happen
for USAmericans when they've risen up and taken genuine popular control of their state-machine; at last!
Meanwhile, of what interest is this ridiculous charade to us in Britain (on another continent entirely; we never see this degree
of attention given to Russian politics, though it has a much greater bearing on our future)? Our business here is to get Britain
out of it's current shameful status, as one of the most grovelling of all the Anglozionist empire's provinces. We have a traitorous-comprador
class of our own to turn out of power. Waste no time on the continuous three-ring distraction-circus in the US – where we in Britain
don't even have a vote.
wardropper ,
The upvotes here would seem to show what thinking people appreciate most.
Seeing through the advertising bezazz, the cheerleaders and the ownership of the media is obviously a top priority, and I suspect
a large percentage of people who don't even know about the OffG would agree.
John Ervin ,
Where's yours? That's impertinent. Our voting process was programmed, close to 100% by two guys, at one point not many years ago,
with the same last name, the brothers Urosevich. The machine owners claim that, as it is their proprietary software, the public is excluded from the vote-counting. And that
much still holds true. Game. Set. Match. Any questions?
Antonym ,
What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous.
US deep state ate him for breakfast in 2016: they would love him to become string puppet POTUS in 2020. Trump is more difficult to control so they hate him.
John Ervin ,
Just one more Conspiracy Realist, eh! When will we ever learn?
"The deep state ate him for breakfast in 2016 ." That gives some sense of the ease with which they pull strings, nicely put.
One variation on the theme of your metaphor: "They savored him as one might consume a cocktail olive at an exclusive or entitled
soirée."
It is painfully clear by any real connection of dots that he is simply one of their stalking horses for other game. And that Homeland game (still) doesn't know whether a horse has four, or six, legs.
*****
"Puppet Masters, or master puppets?"
Antonym ,
It is painfully clear that US Deep state hates Trump simply by looking at the Russiagate they cooked him up.
Fair dinkum ,
The US voters have surrounded themselves with a sewer, now they have to swim in it.
An alternative view that has been circulating for several years suggests that it was not a
hack at all, that it was a deliberate whistleblower-style
leak of information carried out by an as yet unknown party, possibly Rich, that may have
been provided to WikiLeaks for possible political reasons, i.e. to express disgust with the DNC
manipulation of the nominating process to damage Bernie Sanders and favor Hillary Clinton.
There are, of course, still other equally non-mainstream explanations for how the bundle of
information got from point A to point B, including that the intrusion into the DNC server was
carried out by the CIA which then made it look like it had been the Russians as
perpetrators. And then there is the hybrid point of view, which is essentially that the
Russians or a surrogate did indeed intrude into the DNC computers but it was all part of normal
intelligence agency probing and did not lead to anything. Meanwhile and independently, someone
else who had access to the server was downloading the information, which in some fashion made
its way from there to WikiLeaks.
Both the hack vs. leak viewpoints have marshaled considerable technical analysis in the
media to bolster their arguments, but the analysis suffers from the decidedly strange fact that
the FBI never even examined the DNC servers that may have been involved. The hack school of
thought has stressed that Russia had both the ability and motive to interfere in the election
by exposing the stolen material while the leakers have recently asserted that the sheer volume of
material downloaded indicates that something like a higher speed thumb drive was used,
meaning that it had to be done by someone with actual physical direct access to the DNC system.
Someone like Seth Rich.
... ... ...
Given all of that back story, it would be odd to find Trump making an offer that focuses
only on one issue and does not actually refute the broader claims of Russian interference,
which are based on a number of pieces of admittedly often dubious evidence, not just the
Clinton and Podesta emails.
Which brings the tale back to Seth Rich. If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the
information and was possibly killed for his treachery, it most materially impacts on the
Democratic Party as it reminds everyone of what the Clintons and their allies are capable
of.
It will also serve as a warning of what might be coming at the Democratic National
Convention in Milwaukee in July as the party establishment uses fair means or foul to stop
Bernie Sanders. How this will all play out is anyone's guess, but many of those who pause to
observe the process will be thinking of Seth Rich.
I don't ascribe to the idea that the intel agencies kill American citizens without a great
deal of thought, but in Rich's case, they probably felt like they had no choice. Think about
it: The DNC had already rigged the primary against Bernie, the Podesta emails had already
been sent to Wikileaks, and if Rich's cover was blown, then he would publicly identify
himself as the culprit (which would undermine the Russiagate narrative) which would split the
Democratic party in two leaving Hillary with no chance to win the election.
I can imagine Hillary and her intel connections looking for an alternative to whacking
Rich but eventually realizing that there was no other way to deflect responsibility for the
emails while paving the way for an election victory.
If Seth Rich went public, then Hillary would certainly lose.
I imagine this is what they were thinking when they decided there was really only one
option.
"I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story
– blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is
no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption." https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
@plantman It's more than Hillary losing. It would have been easy to connect the dots of
the entire plot to get Trump. Furthermore, it would have linked Obama and his cohorts in ways
that the country might have exploded. This was the beginning of a Coup De'tat that would have
shown the American political process is a complete joke.
To understand why the DNC mobsters and the Deep State hate him, watch this great 2016
interview where Assange calmly explains the massive corruption that patriotic FBI agents
refer to as the "Clinton Crime Family." This gang is so powerful that it ordered federal
agents to spy on the Trump political campaign, and indicted and imprisoned some participants
in an attempt to pressure President Trump to step down. It seems Trump still fears this gang,
otherwise he would order his attorney general to drop this bogus charge against Assange, then
pardon him forever and invite him to speak at White House press conferences.
Well, here was my own take on the controversy a couple of years ago, and I really haven't
seen anything to change my mind:
Well, DC is still a pretty dangerous city, but how many middle-class whites were
randomly murdered there that year while innocently walking the streets? I wouldn't be
surprised if Seth Rich was just about the only one.
Julian Assange has strongly implied that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails that
cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. So if Seth Rich died in a totally random street
killing not long afterward, isn't that just the most astonishing coincidence in all of
American history?
Consider that the leaks effectively nullified the investment of the $2 billion or so
that her donors had provided, and foreclosed the flood of good jobs and appointments to her
camp-followers, not to mention the oceans of future graft. Seems to me that's a pretty good
motive for murder.
Here's my own plausible speculation from a couple of months ago:
Incidentally, I'd guess that DC is a very easy place to arrange a killing, given that
until the heavy gentrification of the last dozen years or so, it was one of America's
street-murder capitals. It seems perfectly plausible that some junior DNC staffer was at
dinner somewhere, endlessly cursing Seth Rich for having betrayed his party and
endangered Hillary's election, when one of his friends said he knew somebody who'd be
willing to "take care of the problem" for a thousand bucks
Let's say a couple of hundred thousand middle-class whites lived in DC around then, and
Seth Rich was about the only one that year who died in a random street-killing, occurring not
long after the leak.
Wouldn't that seem like a pretty unlikely coincidence?
"If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the information and was possibly killed for
his treachery ."
Heroism is the proper term for what Seth Rich did. He saw the real treachery, against
Bernie Sanders and the democratic faithful who expect at least a modicum of integrity from
their Party leaders (even if that expectation is utterly fanciful, wishful thinking), and he
decided to act. He paid for it with his life. A young, noble life.
In every picture I've seen of him, he looks like a nice guy, a guy who cared. And now he's
dead. And the assholes at the DNC simply gave him a small plaque over a bike rack, as I
understand it.
Seth Rich: American Hero. A Truth-Teller who paid the ultimate price.
Great reporting, Phil. Another home run.
(And thanks to Ron for chiming in. Couldn't agree more. As a Truth-Teller extraordinaire,
please watch your back, Bro. And Phil, too. You both know what these murderous scum are
capable of.)
Because the {real} killers of JFK, MLK and RFK were never detained and jailed/hanged, why
would one expect a lesser known, more ordinary individual's murder [Seth] to be solved?
Seymour Hersh, in a taped phone conversation, claimed to have access to an FBI report on the
murder. According to Hersh, the report indicated tha FBI Cyber Unit examined Rich's computer
and found he had contacted Wikileaks with the intention of selling the emails.
Another reason Assange may not want to reveal it, if Seth Rich was a source for Wikileaks,
could be that Seth Rich didn't act alone, and revealing Seth's involvement would compromise
the other(s).
Or it could simply be that Wikileaks has promised to never reveal a source, even after
that source's death, as a promise to future potential sources, who may never want their
identities revealed, to avoid the thought of embarrassment or repercussions to their
associates or families.
Incidentally, they only started really going after Assange after the Vault 7 leaks of the
CIA's active bag of software tricks. I think, for Assange's sake, they should instead have
held on to that, and made it the payload of a dead man's switch.
I'm not sure how credible the source is but Ellen Ratner, the sister of Assange's former
lawyer and a journalist, told Ed Butowsky that Assange told her that it was Seth Rich. She
asked Butowsky to contact Rich's parents. She confirms the Assange meeting in an interview,
link below. Butowsky does not seem to be a credible source but Ratner does. If it was Seth
Rich then I have no doubt that his brother knows the details and the family does not want to
lose another son.
"According to Assange's lawyers, Rohrabacher offered a pardon from President Trump if Assange
were to provide information that would attribute the theft or hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails to someone other than the Russians."
Not to quibble on semantics but Rohrabacher met with Assange to ask if he would be willing
to reveal the source of the emails then Rohrabacher would contact Trump and try to make deal
for Assange's freedom. Rohrabacher clarified that he never talked to Trump or that he was
authorized by Trump to make any offer.
The MSM has been using the "amnesty if you say it was not the Russians" narrative to hint
at a coverup by Russian agent Trump. Normal for the biased MSM.
Giraldi's link "Assange did not take the offer" has nothing to do with Rohrabacher's
contact. It's just a general piece on Assange acting as a journalist should act.
I'm of the opinion Ron Unz seems to share, that Rich was not a particularly "big hitter" in
the DNC hierarchy and that his murder was more likely the result of a very nasty inter-party
squabble. I seem to recall a LOT of very nasty talk between the Jewish neocons in the Bush
era and the decent, traditional "small-government" style Republicans who greatly resented the
neocons' hijacking of the GOP for their demonic zionist agenda.
Common sense would suggest that the zionist types who have (obviously) hijacked the DNC
are at least as nasty and ruthless as the neocons who destroyed any decency or fair-play
within the GOP. It's not exactly hard to believe that these Murder, Inc. types (also lefties
of their era) wouldn't hesitate to whack someone like Rich for merely uttering a criticism of
Israel, for example.
Hell, Meyer Lansky ordered the hit-job on Bugsy Seigel for forgetting to bring bagels to a
sit-down ! There was a great web-site by a mobster of that era, long since taken down, who
described the story in detail. I forget the names .. but I'll see if I can't find a copy of
some of the pieces posted at least a decade ago .
It's not exactly hard to imagine some very nasty words being exchanged between the Rahm
Emmanuel types and decent Chicago citizens, for example, who genuinely cared for their city
and weren't afraid of The Big Jew and his mobster cronies . to their detriment I'm sure.
We're talking about organized crime, here, folks. The zionists make the so-called (mostly
fictitious) Sicilian Mafia look like newborn puppies. They wouldn't hesitate to whack a guy
like Rich for taking their favorite space in the bicycle rack.
My only trouble with the Seth Rich thing is, it seems a bit extreme, they seem quite callous
in murdering foreigners but US citizens in the US who are their staffers? If they really were
prepared to go out and kill in this way, they're be a lot more suspicious deaths.
What makes the case most compelling is the very quick investigation by police that looks
like they were told by somebody concerned about how the whole thing looked to close up the
case nice and quickly. That and the fact that he was shot in the back, which doesn't make
sense for an attempted robbery turned murder.
However, it may also be that as in so many cities in the US, murder clearance rates for
street shootings (Little forensic evidence, can only go by witness accounts or through poor
alibis from usual suspects and their associates. In this case there is also no connection
between Rich and any possible shooter with no witnesses.) are just so very low that DC police
don't bother and Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some
scrutiny.
But then maybe for the reasons above a place like DC is perfect to just murder somebody on
the street and that's why they were so brazen about it.
Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some scrutiny.
Well, upthread someone posted a recording of a Seymour Hersh phone call that confirmed
Seth Rich was the fellow who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks, thereby possibly swinging
the presidential election to Trump and overcoming $2 billion of Democratic campaign
advertising.
Shortly afterwards, he probably became about the only middle-class white in DC who died in
a "random street killing" that year. If you doubt this, see if you can find any other such
cases that year.
I think it is *extraordinarily* unlikely that these two elements are unconnected and
merely happened together by chance.
In a remarkable statement that has gone virtually unreported in the American media,
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination,
publicly denounced US intelligence agencies for interfering in the presidential contest and
attempting to sabotage the campaign of Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders.
In an opinion column published February 27 by the Hill , Gabbard attacked the
article published by the Washington Post on February 21, the eve of the Nevada
caucuses, which claimed that Russia was intervening in the US election to support Sanders. She
also criticized the decision of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York
City, to repeat the anti-Russia slander against Sanders during the February 25 Democratic
presidential debate in South Carolina.
Gabbard is a military officer in a National Guard medical unit who has been deployed to Iraq
and Kuwait and has continuing and close contact with the Pentagon. She is obviously familiar
with the machinations of the US military-intelligence apparatus and knows whereof she speaks.
Her harsh and uncompromising language is that much more significant.
She wrote:
Enough is enough. I am calling on all presidential candidates to stop playing these
dangerous political games and immediately condemn any interference in our elections by
out-of-control intelligence agencies. A "news article" published last week in the
Washington Post, which set off yet another manufactured media firestorm, alleges
that the goal of Russia is to trick people into criticizing establishment Democrats. This is
a laughably obvious ploy to stifle legitimate criticism and cast aspersions on Americans who
are rightly skeptical of the powerful forces exerting control over the primary election
process.
We are told the aim of Russia is to "sow division," but the aim of corporate media and
self-serving politicians pushing this narrative is clearly to sow division of their own -- by
generating baseless suspicion against the Sanders campaign. It's extremely disingenuous for
"journalists" and rival candidates to publicize a news article that merely asserts, without
presenting any evidence, that Russia is "helping" Bernie Sanders -- but provides no
information as to what that "help" allegedly consists of.
Gabbard continued:
If the CIA, FBI or any other intelligence agency is going to tell voters that "Russians"
are interfering in this election to help certain candidates -- or simply "sow discord" --
then it needs to immediately provide us with the details of what exactly it's alleging.
After pointing out that the Democratic Party establishment and the corporate media have had
little interest in measures to actually improve election security, such as requiring paper
ballots or some other form of permanent record of how people vote, Gabbard demanded:
The FBI, CIA or any other intelligence agency should immediately stop smearing
presidential candidates with innuendo and vague, evidence-free assertions. That is
antithetical to the role those agencies play in a free democracy. The American people cannot
have faith in our intelligence agencies if they are pushing an agenda to harm candidates they
dislike.
As socialists, we do not share Gabbard's belief that the intelligence agencies have a
positive role to play or that the American people need to have faith in them. As her military
career demonstrates, she is a supporter of American imperialism and of the capitalist state.
However, her opposition to the "dirty tricks" campaign against Sanders is entirely legitimate
and puts the spotlight on a deeply anti-democratic operation by the military-intelligence
apparatus.
Gabbard denounces this "new McCarthyism" and calls on her fellow candidate to rebuff the CIA
smears and "defend the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution." Not a single one of the
remaining candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination -- including Sanders himself --
has responded to her appeal.
Her statement concludes that the goal of the "mainstream corporate media and the
warmongering political establishment" was either to block Sanders from winning the nomination,
or, if he does become the nominee, to "force him to engage in inflammatory anti-Russia rhetoric
and perpetuate the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, which are existential threats to our
country and the world."
Despite Gabbard's appeal for the Democratic candidates not to be "manipulated and forced
into a corner by overreaching intelligence agencies," the Democratic Party establishment has
been working in lockstep with the intelligence agencies in the anti-Russia campaign against
Trump, which began even before election day in 2016, metastasized into the Mueller
investigation and then the effort to impeach Trump over his delay in the dispatch of military
aid to Ukraine for its war with Russian-backed separatist forces.
Her comments are a complete vindication of what the World Socialist Web Site has
written about the anti-Russia campaign and impeachment: these were efforts by the Democratic
Party, acting as the representative of the military-intelligence apparatus, to block the
emergence of genuine left-wing popular opposition to Trump, and to channel popular hostility to
this administration in a right-wing and pro-imperialist direction.
Gabbard herself was the only House Democrat to abstain on impeachment, although she did not
voice any principled grounds for her vote, such as opposition to the intelligence agencies. She
has based her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination largely on an appeal to
antiwar sentiment, particularly opposing US intervention in Syria. She has also said that if
elected, she would drop all charges against Julian Assange and pardon Edward Snowden.
These views led to a vicious attack by Hillary Clinton, the defeated Democratic presidential
candidate in 2016, who last October called Gabbard "a Russian asset," claiming that she was
being groomed by Russia to serve as a third-party candidate in 2020 who would take votes away
from the Democratic nominee and help re-elect President Trump. "She's the favorite of the
Russians," Clinton claimed.
Since Clinton's attack, the Democratic National Committee has excluded Gabbard from its
monthly debates, manipulating the eligibility requirements so that billionaire Michael
Bloomberg would qualify even for debates held in states where he was not on the ballot but
Gabbard was, such as Nevada and South Carolina.
No matter who comes away with the nomination, it has to be asked "was any of this process
legitimate?". We know from a plethora of examples that US elections are not fair. They border
on meaningless most of the time. The DNC's doubly so, having argued in court they have no duty
to be fair.
Any result, then, you could safely assume was contrived, for one reason or another.
If the Buttigieg-Klobuchar-Biden gambit works, we end up with Trump vs. Biden. And,
realistically, that means a second Trump term.
Biden is possibly senile and definitely creepy . Watching him shuffle and stutter
through a Presidential campaign would be almost cruel.
Politically, he has all of Hillary's weaknesses, being a big-time establishment type with a
pro-war record, without even the "I have a vagina" card to play.
He'll get massacred.
Is that the plan?
There's more than enough signs that Trump has abandoned all the policies that made him any
kind of threat to the political establishment. Four years on: no wars ended, no walls built, no
swamp drained. Just more of the same. He's an idiot who talked big and got co-opted. It
happens.
The Senate and other institutions might talk about Trump being a criminal or an idiot or a
"Nazi", but the reality is he's barely perceptibly different from any other POTUS this side of
JFK.
#TheResistance was a puppet show. A weak game played for toy money. When it really counts,
they're all in it together. Biden getting on the ticket would be a public admittance of that.
It would mean the DNC is effectively throwing the fight. Trump is a son of a bitch, but he's
their son of a bitch. And that's much better than even the idea of President
Bernie.
Does it really matter?
Empire of kaos will never move one inch to change the status quo.
The quaisi fascist state that most western /antlantacist nations have become it will make no
difference
Gianbattista Vico"Their will always be an elite class" Punto e basta.
Name me one politico that made any difference to we the sheeple in the modern era.
If someone were to mention FDR I will scream.
Aldo Moro got murdered by the deep state for only suggesting to make a pact with Berlinguer
the head of Il Partito Communista Italiano.
And Joe just got the kiss of death endorsement from none other than Debbie Wasserman
Schultz. That's 2 for 2, COMEY and Wasserman-Schultz ending in a predictable strikeout.
@30 goldhoarder
I sympathize but I don't think this is very useful. Really what has happened is power has
been consolidated in the hands of the few for a very long time. They killed JFK, RFK,
MLK, Malcolm X, probably just tried to kill Shokin as mentioned above... and many others
like Solemani, Arafat, Hussein, Gadaffi, etc. Politics is just a sideshow they put on to
justify their rule and give themselves legitimacy.
Progressive Jargon
Aphasia[ citation needed ] is a
fluent or receptive aphasia in which the person's speech is incomprehensible, but appears
to make sense to them. Speech is fluent and effortless with intact syntax and grammar , but the person has problems with the
selection of nouns . Either they
will replace the desired word with another that sounds or looks like the original one or has some
other connection or they will replace it with sounds . As such, people with jargon aphasia often use
neologisms , and may
perseverate if they try
to replace the words they cannot find with sounds. Substitutions commonly involve picking another
(actual) word starting with the same sound (e.g., clocktower - colander), picking another
semantically related to the first (e.g., letter - scroll), or picking one phonetically similar to
the intended one (e.g., lane - late).
I took a walk to my local precinct in Texas, this morning, and voted for Bernie Sanders. The
support thrown in for Biden by candidates Buttigieg and Klobuchar, as they withdrew from
their presidential race over the weekend, makes their runs for president look very
superficial and weak.
Today, Ryan Grim, D.C. bureau chief for The Intercept (interviewed on Democracy Now)
correctly observes that the more educated voters that supported those two dropout candidates,
were originally drawn to them after careful consideration that Biden was absolutely not up to
the task of beating Trump in the General Election. And when Buttigieg and Klobuchar now tell
them how wonderful Joe is, they are not so likely to be convinced.
I do feel more hopeful and am willing to believe as the reporter does, that the timing of
these Biden endorsements is politically inept and feeds into Bernie's momentum. We will
see.
The thing to watch today will be the vote stealing by the Democrat oligarchy. They are the
world champions at every sort of electoral malfeasance. Remember in 2016 how Bernie almost
won New York until Brooklyn, his hometown, was counted and more than 20,000 voters
disappeared? Then there was California where millions of votes went uncounted and Hillary was
called the winner.
The Democrats are not really a political party in the sense that europeans understand the
term, more like an agglomeration of electoral machines, controlled by politicians owned by
vested interests, making up the rules as they go along.
With both Biden and Warren desperate for anything that can be portrayed as momentum expect
the unexpected: repeats of the sort of nonsense we saw in Iowa and local precincts in which
110% of the electorate give unanimous support to the candidate most likely to take away their
social security and wave 'bye-bye' as they die untreated of diseases. Or malnutrition.
A
nd the cherry on top of the electoral sundae in today's primaries will be the near unanimity
with which the most glaring irregularities are ignored by the media, and anyone suggesting
that 2+2= anything as predictable as 4 will be called a conspiracy theorist, working for
Putin and the KGB.
"... Clinton also lied to the country about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq and voted for that obviously illegal war. This after 8 years of her husband's genocidal sanctions killed a minimum of 500,000 innocent Iraqi children . ..."
"... What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous. Yet, he persisted and to this day attempts to help common Americans as much as he can. He does what he believes to be the right thing. His integrity and his record of fighting for working Americans are not the points of contention in this race. ..."
"... Today, however, Senator Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat who beats Trump in poll after poll . The only one. This is no small matter. Trump needs to be beaten in the tangled Electoral College, where a simple numerical victory isn't enough. ..."
"... Bernie is the best choice, but it is interesting that you brought up the genocidal sanctions on Iraq. Bernie supported those sanctions. He also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which reaffirmed US support for the sanctions even after 500,000 children had been killed. ..."
"... Well, the BBC is bigging up Joe Biden right now, yet another of its ridiculous pieces of propaganda utterly devoid of its duty to serve its license payors, who are the British people, not the neoconservative banking elite. ..."
"... How interesting, it's Obama who gave the "cue" for Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Beto, Rice, and the entire slippery gang to circle the wagons in support of the most reactionary warmongering candidate running. The same Obama who released drones every Tuesday morning killing brown and blacks throughout the Middle East and Africa– the majority of slaughtered were innocent women and children. ..."
"... The desperation of the national security state is reflected by The DNC's Shenanigans. The security state would rather promote a crooked, warmongering, lying, racist who barely can put together two logical thoughts then accept a candidate who represents a hopeful future for the next generation. ..."
"... The DNC's message is very clear– they're a "private party" and the working-class are NOT invited. ..."
"... But this by far is the most frightening thought, Biden, does not have all his marbles–it's obvious–we can only guess it's some type of dementia. So if Biden, slides through deploying a multitude of underhanded machinations and becomes the nominee, Trump, will make mincemeat of him during the debates. ..."
"... I'm not in the Orange Baboon's Fan Club, but I find it sad and a little bit pathetic the way people still invest their hopes and put their faith in figures like Bernie, Tulsi or Jezza. Bernie got shafted in 2016 and just saluted smartly and fell into line behind Crooked Hillary. When she lost, he started singing from the approved hymn sheet. The evil Putin stole the election for Kremlin Agent Trump. He has been parroting the same nonsense for the past 4 years. ..."
"... Jeez people get a clue. How many times do you need to fall for the "this candidate is so much better and will solve everything" ruse? Remember Obama? The exact same bullshit was going around back then. ..."
"... We have hope😁 . We have change😁 . We have hope and change you can believe in😁 . Well, yeah, we all know what happened during Obombers 8 years. The entire thing is nothing but Kabuki theatre. For all those still believing the United States is a democracy. ..."
"... 'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled in the public mind by more subtle means. A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern. But in a democratic political order, there is always the danger that independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root. ..."
"... Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns ..."
"... Every opportunity to push back Neo liberalism should be taken. ..."
"... Once again, Mark Twain sums up my feeling: "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it." ..."
"... Where's yours? That's impertinent. Our voting process was programmed, close to 100% by two guys, at one point not many years ago, with the same last name, the brothers Urosevich. The machine owners claim that, as it is their proprietary software, the public is excluded from the vote-counting. ..."
In 2016, Hillary Clinton deserved to lose, and she did. Her deception, her
cheating in
the primary elections , was well-documented, despicable, dishonest, untrustworthy. Her
money-laundering scheme
at DNC should have been prosecuted under campaign finance laws.
Her record of warmongering and gleefully gloating over death and destruction was also well established. On national TV she
bragged about the mutilation of Moammar Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died!"
Clinton also lied to the country about "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
in Iraq and voted for that obviously illegal war. This after 8 years of her husband's genocidal sanctions killed a minimum of
500,000 innocent Iraqi children .
This person was undeserving of anyone's support.
What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous. Yet, he persisted and to this day attempts to help common
Americans as much as he can. He does what he believes to be the right thing. His integrity and his record of fighting for working
Americans are not the points of contention in this race.
His opponents have instead opted for every nonsensical conspiracy theory and McCarthyite smear they can concoct, including the
most ridiculous of all: the
Putin theory , without a single shred of evidence to support it.
Today, however, Senator Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat who beats Trump in
poll after
poll . The
only one. This is no small matter. Trump needs to be beaten in the tangled Electoral College, where a simple numerical victory isn't
enough.
Bernie wins, and he has the best overall shot of changing the course of history, steering America away from plutocracy and fascism.
That crucial race is happening right now in the primaries . If Bernie Sanders doesn't secure 50% of all delegates, then DNC insiders
have already signaled that they will steal the nomination and give it to someone else -- who will lose to Trump. The real election
for the future of America is on Super Tuesday.
It's either Trump or Bernie. That's your choice. Your only choice.
Bernie is the best choice, but it is interesting that you brought up the genocidal sanctions on Iraq. Bernie supported those
sanctions. He also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which reaffirmed US support for the sanctions even after 500,000
children had been killed.
Bernie also voted for Clinton's 1999 bombing campaign on Kosovo.
All that said, yes, Bernie is the best option.
Rhys Jaggar ,
Well, the BBC is bigging up Joe Biden right now, yet another of its ridiculous pieces of propaganda utterly devoid of its duty
to serve its license payors, who are the British people, not the neoconservative banking elite.
When they spout bullshit that 20% of UK workers could miss work 'due to coronavirus', when we have had precisely 36 deaths
in a population of 65 million plus, you know that like climate change, they spout the 1% probability as the mainstream narrative
.
It just shows what folks are up against when media is so cravenly serving those who do not pay them.
Charlotte Russe ,
"If Bernie Sanders doesn't secure 50% of all delegates, then DNC insiders have already signaled that they will steal the
nomination and give it to someone else -- who will lose to Trump. The real election for the future of America is on Super Tuesday."
While Bernie spent more than three decades advocating for economic social justice Biden spent those same three decades
promoting social repression."
"The 1990s saw Biden take aim at civil liberties, authoring anti-terror bills that, among other things, "gutted the federal
writ of habeas corpus," as one legal scholar later reflected. It was this earlier legislation that led Biden to brag to anyone
listening that he was effectively the author of the Bush-era PATRIOT ACT, which, in his view, didn't go far enough. He inserted
a provision into the bill that allowed for the militarization of local law enforcement and again suggested deploying the military
within US borders."
How interesting, it's Obama who gave the "cue" for Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Beto, Rice, and the entire slippery gang to circle
the wagons in support of the most reactionary warmongering candidate running. The same Obama who released drones every Tuesday
morning killing brown and blacks throughout the Middle East and Africa– the majority of slaughtered were innocent women and children.
The desperation of the national security state is reflected by The DNC's Shenanigans. The security state would rather promote
a crooked, warmongering, lying, racist who barely can put together two logical thoughts then accept a candidate who represents
a hopeful future for the next generation.
The DNC's message is very clear– they're a "private party" and the working-class are NOT invited. In fact, they're
saying more than that–if uninvited workers and the marginalized dare to enter they'll be tossed out on their arse
In plain sight the mainstream media news is telling millions that NO one can stop the military/security/surveillance/corporate
state from their stranglehold over the corrupt political duopoly.
I say fight and don't give-up! Be prepared–organize a million people march and head to Milwaukee– the future of the next generation
is on the line.
But this by far is the most frightening thought, Biden, does not have all his marbles–it's obvious–we can only guess it's
some type of dementia. So if Biden, slides through deploying a multitude of underhanded machinations and becomes the nominee,
Trump, will make mincemeat of him during the debates.
But if Biden, makes it to the Oval Office he'll be "less" than a figurehead. Biden, will be as mentally acute as the early
bird diner in a Florida assisted living facility after a recent stroke. The national security state will seize control– handing
the "taxidermied Biden" a pen to idiotically sign off on their highly insidious agenda ..
Ken Kenn ,
Pretty straightforward for me ( I don't know about Bernie? ) but if the Super delegates and the DNC hierarchy decide to hand the
nomination over to Biden then Bernie should stand as an independent.
At least even in defeat a left marker would be placed on the US political table away from the Corporate owners and the shills
that hack for them in the media and elsewhere. At least ordinary US people would know that someone is on their side.
Corbyn in the UK was described as a ' Marxist' by the Tories and the unquestioning media. Despite all that ' Marxist ' Labour got 33% of the vote. People will vote for a ' socialist '
Charlotte Ruse ,
Unfortunately, Bernie won't abandon the Democratic Party. However, there's a ton of Bernie supporters who will vote Third Party
if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.
paul ,
I'm not in the Orange Baboon's Fan Club, but I find it sad and a little bit pathetic the way people still invest their hopes and
put their faith in figures like Bernie, Tulsi or Jezza. Bernie got shafted in 2016 and just saluted smartly and fell into line behind Crooked Hillary. When she lost, he started singing from the approved hymn sheet. The evil Putin stole the election for Kremlin Agent Trump.
He has been parroting the same nonsense for the past 4 years.
That's when he hasn't been shilling for regime change wars in Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and elsewhere against "communist
dictators."
Bernie will get shafted again shortly and fall into line behind Epstein's and Weinstein's best mate Bloomberg or Creepy Joe,
or Pocahontas, or whoever.
If by some miracle they can't quite rig it this time and Bernie gets the nomination, the DNC will just fail to support him,
and allow Trump to win. They would rather see Trump than Bernie in the White House.
Just like Starmer, Thornberry, Phillips and all the Blairite Backstabber Friends of Israel were more terrified of seeing Jezza
in Number Ten than any Tory.
Dr. Johnson said that getting remarried represented the triumph of hope over experience.
The same applies to people expecting any positive change from people like Bernie, Tulsi, or Jezza.
The system just doesn't allow it.
pete ,
Jeez people get a clue. How many times do you need to fall for the "this candidate is so much better and will solve everything"
ruse? Remember Obama? The exact same bullshit was going around back then.
We have hope😁 . We have change😁 . We have hope and change you can believe in😁 . Well, yeah, we all know what happened during
Obombers 8 years. The entire thing is nothing but Kabuki theatre. For all those still believing the United States is a democracy.
clickkid ,
"The real election for the future of America is on Super Tuesday."
Sorry Joe, but where have you been for the last 50 years" Elections are irrelevant. Events change the world – not elections. The only important aspect of an election is the turnout. If you vote in an election, then at some level you still believe in
the system.
Willem ,
Sometimes Chomsky can be useful
'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled in the public
mind by more subtle means. A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient
that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern. But in a democratic political order, there is always the danger that
independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root.
Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing
character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as
it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds,
thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom
reigns.'
If true, the question is, what are we not allowed to say? Or is Chomsky wrong, and are we allowed to say anything we like since TPTB know that words cannot, ever, change political action
as for that you need power and brutal force, which we do not have and which, btw Chomsky advocates to its readers not to try to
use against the nation state?
So maybe Chomsky is not so useful after all, or only useful for the status quo.
Chomsky's latest book, sold in book stores and at airports, where, apparantly, opinions of dissident writers whose opinions
go beyond the bounds of the consensus of elites, are sold in large amounts to marginalize those opinions out of society, is called
'Optimism over despair', a title stolen from Gramsci who said: 'pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.'
But every time I follow Chomsky's reasoning, I end in dead end roads of which it is quite hard to find your way out. So perhaps
I should change that title into 'nihilism over despair'. If you follow Chomsky's reasoning
clickkid ,
Your Chomsky Quote:
"'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. .. " Tell that to the Yellow Vests.
ajbsm ,
Despite the deep state stranglehold .on the whole world there seems to be a 'wind' blowing (ref Lenin) of more and more people
turning backs on the secret service candidates – not just in America. Power, money and bullying will carry on succeeding eventually
the edifice is blown away – this will probably happen, it will be ugly and what emerges might not even be better(!) But the current
controllers seem to have a sell by date.
Ken Kenn ,
I'm not convinced of the theory that the more poor/whipped/ spat upon people become the more likely they are to revolt.
A revolution can only come about when the Bourgeoisie can no longer continue to govern in the old way. In other words it becomes more than a want – more of a necessity of change to the ordinary person.
We have to remember that in general ( it's a bit of a guess but just to illustrate a point ) that a small majority of people
in any western nation are reasonably content – to an extent. They are not going to rock the boat that Kennedy tried to make the tide rise for or that Thatcher and her mates copied with
home owner ship and the right to get into serious debt. This depends on whether you had/have a boat in the first place. If not you've always been drowning in the slowly rising tide.
Sanders as I've said before is not Castro. He has many faults but in a highly parameterised p Neo liberal economic loving political and media world he is the best hope. Not great stuff on offer but a significant move away from the 1% and the 3% who work for them ( including Presidents and Prime
Misister ) so even that slight shift is plus for the most powerful country on planet earth.
I have in the past worked alongside various religious groups as an atheist as long as they were on the right( or should that
be left?) side on an issue.
Now is not the time for the American left to play the Prolier than though card.
Every opportunity to push back Neo liberalism should be taken.
wardropper ,
I'm not convinced of the theory that the more poor/whipped/ spat upon people become the more likely they are to revolt.
But didn't the Storming of the Bastille happen for that very reason?
I think people are waiting for just one spark to ignite their simmering fury – just one more straw to break the patient camel's
back. Understandably, the "elite" (which used to mean exalted above the general level) are in some trepidation about this, but,
like all bullies their addiction to the rush of power goes all the way to the bitter end – the bitter end being the point at which
their target stands up and gives them a black eye. It's almost comical how the bully then becomes the wailing victim himself,
and we have all seen often enough the successfully-resisted dictatorial figure of authority resorting to the claim that he is
now being bullied himself. But this is a situation of his own making, and our sympathy for him is limited by our memory of that
fact.
Ken Kenn ,
Where's the simmering fury in the West.
U.S. turnout is pathetically low. Even in the UK the turnout in the most important election since the First World War was 67%. I see the result of the " simmering fury " giving rise to the right not the left. Just that one phrase or paragraph of provocative words will spark the revolution?
... ... ...
wardropper ,
My point, which I thought I made clearly enough, was that the fury is simmering , and waiting for a catalyst. I also think
an important reason for turnout being low is simply that people don't respond well to being treated like idiots by an utterly
corrupt establishment. They just don't want to participate in the farce.
Once again, Mark Twain sums up my feeling: "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and, like you, I am quite happy to back Sanders as by far the best of a pretty rotten bunch.
Perhaps China is indeed leading in many respects right now, but becoming Chinese doesn't seem like a real option for most of us
at the moment . . . Incidentally I have been to China and I found the people there as interesting as people anywhere else, although
I particularly enjoyed the many things which are completely different from our western cultural roots.
Rhisiart Gwilym ,
Speaking of the Clintons' death toll, didn't Sanders too back all USAmerica's mass-murdering, armed-robbery aggressions against
helpless small countries in recent times? And anyway, why are we wasting time discussing the minutiae of the shadow-boxing in
this ridiculous circus of a pretend-democratic 'election'? Watching a coffin warp would be a more useful occupation.
I go with Dmitry Orlov's reckoning of the matter: It doesn't matter who becomes president of the US, since the rule of the
deep state continues unbroken, enacting its own policies, which ignore the wishes of the common citizens, and only follow the
requirements of the mostly hyper-rich gics (gangsters-in-charge) in the controlling positions of this spavined, failing empire.
(My paraphrase of Dmitry.)
USPresidents do what their deep-state handlers want; or they get impeached, or assassinated like the Kennedy brothers. And
they all know this. Bill Hick's famous joke about men in a smoke-filled room showing the newly-'elected' POTUS that piece of film
of Kennedy driving by the grassy knoll in Dealy Plaza, Dallas, is almost literally true. All POTUSes understand that perfectly
well before they even take office.
Voting for the policies you prefer, in a genuinely democratic republic, and actually getting them realised, will only happen
for USAmericans when they've risen up and taken genuine popular control of their state-machine; at last!
Meanwhile, of what interest is this ridiculous charade to us in Britain (on another continent entirely; we never see this degree
of attention given to Russian politics, though it has a much greater bearing on our future)? Our business here is to get Britain
out of it's current shameful status, as one of the most grovelling of all the Anglozionist empire's provinces. We have a traitorous-comprador
class of our own to turn out of power. Waste no time on the continuous three-ring distraction-circus in the US – where we in Britain
don't even have a vote.
wardropper ,
The upvotes here would seem to show what thinking people appreciate most.
Seeing through the advertising bezazz, the cheerleaders and the ownership of the media is obviously a top priority, and I suspect
a large percentage of people who don't even know about the OffG would agree.
John Ervin ,
Where's yours? That's impertinent. Our voting process was programmed, close to 100% by two guys, at one point not many years ago,
with the same last name, the brothers Urosevich. The machine owners claim that, as it is their proprietary software, the public is excluded from the vote-counting. And that
much still holds true. Game. Set. Match. Any questions?
Antonym ,
What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous.
US deep state ate him for breakfast in 2016: they would love him to become string puppet POTUS in 2020. Trump is more difficult to control so they hate him.
John Ervin ,
Just one more Conspiracy Realist, eh! When will we ever learn?
"The deep state ate him for breakfast in 2016 ." That gives some sense of the ease with which they pull strings, nicely put.
One variation on the theme of your metaphor: "They savored him as one might consume a cocktail olive at an exclusive or entitled
soirée."
It is painfully clear by any real connection of dots that he is simply one of their stalking horses for other game. And that Homeland game (still) doesn't know whether a horse has four, or six, legs.
*****
"Puppet Masters, or master puppets?"
Antonym ,
It is painfully clear that US Deep state hates Trump simply by looking at the Russiagate they cooked him up.
Fair dinkum ,
The US voters have surrounded themselves with a sewer, now they have to swim in it.
Biden did well in SC due the endorsement of James Clyburn.
He has two days to keep the momentum for March 3. He is strapped for cash, unable to
advertise heavily in the delegate rich states for super Tuesday and corruption tales will
follow him until he follows Butti out the door.
Biden can't compete with Sanders who has campaign $$$ and his grassroots army and
volunteers. Watch for Sanders in CA and TX.
I read on twitter Biden asked Klobuchar to remain in the race until after Super Tuesday so
Bernie wouldn't get most of the delegates in her state, Minnesota.
So what's Warren's excuse to hang on?
Warren whose campaign is on life support thanks only to a mysterious SuperPac named
Persist , and who wins nothing is staying in to stick it to Bernie sucking away some
progressive % points, and to throw him under the bus together with her progressive policy
platform that she apprently cares less about than blunting Bernie.
An alternative view that has been circulating for several years suggests that it was not a
hack at all, that it was a deliberate whistleblower-style
leak of information carried out by an as yet unknown party, possibly Rich, that may have
been provided to WikiLeaks for possible political reasons, i.e. to express disgust with the DNC
manipulation of the nominating process to damage Bernie Sanders and favor Hillary Clinton.
There are, of course, still other equally non-mainstream explanations for how the bundle of
information got from point A to point B, including that the intrusion into the DNC server was
carried out by the CIA which then made it look like it had been the Russians as
perpetrators. And then there is the hybrid point of view, which is essentially that the
Russians or a surrogate did indeed intrude into the DNC computers but it was all part of normal
intelligence agency probing and did not lead to anything. Meanwhile and independently, someone
else who had access to the server was downloading the information, which in some fashion made
its way from there to WikiLeaks.
Both the hack vs. leak viewpoints have marshaled considerable technical analysis in the
media to bolster their arguments, but the analysis suffers from the decidedly strange fact that
the FBI never even examined the DNC servers that may have been involved. The hack school of
thought has stressed that Russia had both the ability and motive to interfere in the election
by exposing the stolen material while the leakers have recently asserted that the sheer volume of
material downloaded indicates that something like a higher speed thumb drive was used,
meaning that it had to be done by someone with actual physical direct access to the DNC system.
Someone like Seth Rich.
... ... ...
Given all of that back story, it would be odd to find Trump making an offer that focuses
only on one issue and does not actually refute the broader claims of Russian interference,
which are based on a number of pieces of admittedly often dubious evidence, not just the
Clinton and Podesta emails.
Which brings the tale back to Seth Rich. If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the
information and was possibly killed for his treachery, it most materially impacts on the
Democratic Party as it reminds everyone of what the Clintons and their allies are capable
of.
It will also serve as a warning of what might be coming at the Democratic National
Convention in Milwaukee in July as the party establishment uses fair means or foul to stop
Bernie Sanders. How this will all play out is anyone's guess, but many of those who pause to
observe the process will be thinking of Seth Rich.
I don't ascribe to the idea that the intel agencies kill American citizens without a great
deal of thought, but in Rich's case, they probably felt like they had no choice. Think about
it: The DNC had already rigged the primary against Bernie, the Podesta emails had already
been sent to Wikileaks, and if Rich's cover was blown, then he would publicly identify
himself as the culprit (which would undermine the Russiagate narrative) which would split the
Democratic party in two leaving Hillary with no chance to win the election.
I can imagine Hillary and her intel connections looking for an alternative to whacking
Rich but eventually realizing that there was no other way to deflect responsibility for the
emails while paving the way for an election victory.
If Seth Rich went public, then Hillary would certainly lose.
I imagine this is what they were thinking when they decided there was really only one
option.
"I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story
– blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is
no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption." https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
@plantman It's more than Hillary losing. It would have been easy to connect the dots of
the entire plot to get Trump. Furthermore, it would have linked Obama and his cohorts in ways
that the country might have exploded. This was the beginning of a Coup De'tat that would have
shown the American political process is a complete joke.
To understand why the DNC mobsters and the Deep State hate him, watch this great 2016
interview where Assange calmly explains the massive corruption that patriotic FBI agents
refer to as the "Clinton Crime Family." This gang is so powerful that it ordered federal
agents to spy on the Trump political campaign, and indicted and imprisoned some participants
in an attempt to pressure President Trump to step down. It seems Trump still fears this gang,
otherwise he would order his attorney general to drop this bogus charge against Assange, then
pardon him forever and invite him to speak at White House press conferences.
Well, here was my own take on the controversy a couple of years ago, and I really haven't
seen anything to change my mind:
Well, DC is still a pretty dangerous city, but how many middle-class whites were
randomly murdered there that year while innocently walking the streets? I wouldn't be
surprised if Seth Rich was just about the only one.
Julian Assange has strongly implied that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails that
cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. So if Seth Rich died in a totally random street
killing not long afterward, isn't that just the most astonishing coincidence in all of
American history?
Consider that the leaks effectively nullified the investment of the $2 billion or so
that her donors had provided, and foreclosed the flood of good jobs and appointments to her
camp-followers, not to mention the oceans of future graft. Seems to me that's a pretty good
motive for murder.
Here's my own plausible speculation from a couple of months ago:
Incidentally, I'd guess that DC is a very easy place to arrange a killing, given that
until the heavy gentrification of the last dozen years or so, it was one of America's
street-murder capitals. It seems perfectly plausible that some junior DNC staffer was at
dinner somewhere, endlessly cursing Seth Rich for having betrayed his party and
endangered Hillary's election, when one of his friends said he knew somebody who'd be
willing to "take care of the problem" for a thousand bucks
Let's say a couple of hundred thousand middle-class whites lived in DC around then, and
Seth Rich was about the only one that year who died in a random street-killing, occurring not
long after the leak.
Wouldn't that seem like a pretty unlikely coincidence?
"If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the information and was possibly killed for
his treachery ."
Heroism is the proper term for what Seth Rich did. He saw the real treachery, against
Bernie Sanders and the democratic faithful who expect at least a modicum of integrity from
their Party leaders (even if that expectation is utterly fanciful, wishful thinking), and he
decided to act. He paid for it with his life. A young, noble life.
In every picture I've seen of him, he looks like a nice guy, a guy who cared. And now he's
dead. And the assholes at the DNC simply gave him a small plaque over a bike rack, as I
understand it.
Seth Rich: American Hero. A Truth-Teller who paid the ultimate price.
Great reporting, Phil. Another home run.
(And thanks to Ron for chiming in. Couldn't agree more. As a Truth-Teller extraordinaire,
please watch your back, Bro. And Phil, too. You both know what these murderous scum are
capable of.)
Because the {real} killers of JFK, MLK and RFK were never detained and jailed/hanged, why
would one expect a lesser known, more ordinary individual's murder [Seth] to be solved?
Seymour Hersh, in a taped phone conversation, claimed to have access to an FBI report on the
murder. According to Hersh, the report indicated tha FBI Cyber Unit examined Rich's computer
and found he had contacted Wikileaks with the intention of selling the emails.
Another reason Assange may not want to reveal it, if Seth Rich was a source for Wikileaks,
could be that Seth Rich didn't act alone, and revealing Seth's involvement would compromise
the other(s).
Or it could simply be that Wikileaks has promised to never reveal a source, even after
that source's death, as a promise to future potential sources, who may never want their
identities revealed, to avoid the thought of embarrassment or repercussions to their
associates or families.
Incidentally, they only started really going after Assange after the Vault 7 leaks of the
CIA's active bag of software tricks. I think, for Assange's sake, they should instead have
held on to that, and made it the payload of a dead man's switch.
I'm not sure how credible the source is but Ellen Ratner, the sister of Assange's former
lawyer and a journalist, told Ed Butowsky that Assange told her that it was Seth Rich. She
asked Butowsky to contact Rich's parents. She confirms the Assange meeting in an interview,
link below. Butowsky does not seem to be a credible source but Ratner does. If it was Seth
Rich then I have no doubt that his brother knows the details and the family does not want to
lose another son.
"According to Assange's lawyers, Rohrabacher offered a pardon from President Trump if Assange
were to provide information that would attribute the theft or hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails to someone other than the Russians."
Not to quibble on semantics but Rohrabacher met with Assange to ask if he would be willing
to reveal the source of the emails then Rohrabacher would contact Trump and try to make deal
for Assange's freedom. Rohrabacher clarified that he never talked to Trump or that he was
authorized by Trump to make any offer.
The MSM has been using the "amnesty if you say it was not the Russians" narrative to hint
at a coverup by Russian agent Trump. Normal for the biased MSM.
Giraldi's link "Assange did not take the offer" has nothing to do with Rohrabacher's
contact. It's just a general piece on Assange acting as a journalist should act.
I'm of the opinion Ron Unz seems to share, that Rich was not a particularly "big hitter" in
the DNC hierarchy and that his murder was more likely the result of a very nasty inter-party
squabble. I seem to recall a LOT of very nasty talk between the Jewish neocons in the Bush
era and the decent, traditional "small-government" style Republicans who greatly resented the
neocons' hijacking of the GOP for their demonic zionist agenda.
Common sense would suggest that the zionist types who have (obviously) hijacked the DNC
are at least as nasty and ruthless as the neocons who destroyed any decency or fair-play
within the GOP. It's not exactly hard to believe that these Murder, Inc. types (also lefties
of their era) wouldn't hesitate to whack someone like Rich for merely uttering a criticism of
Israel, for example.
Hell, Meyer Lansky ordered the hit-job on Bugsy Seigel for forgetting to bring bagels to a
sit-down ! There was a great web-site by a mobster of that era, long since taken down, who
described the story in detail. I forget the names .. but I'll see if I can't find a copy of
some of the pieces posted at least a decade ago .
It's not exactly hard to imagine some very nasty words being exchanged between the Rahm
Emmanuel types and decent Chicago citizens, for example, who genuinely cared for their city
and weren't afraid of The Big Jew and his mobster cronies . to their detriment I'm sure.
We're talking about organized crime, here, folks. The zionists make the so-called (mostly
fictitious) Sicilian Mafia look like newborn puppies. They wouldn't hesitate to whack a guy
like Rich for taking their favorite space in the bicycle rack.
My only trouble with the Seth Rich thing is, it seems a bit extreme, they seem quite callous
in murdering foreigners but US citizens in the US who are their staffers? If they really were
prepared to go out and kill in this way, they're be a lot more suspicious deaths.
What makes the case most compelling is the very quick investigation by police that looks
like they were told by somebody concerned about how the whole thing looked to close up the
case nice and quickly. That and the fact that he was shot in the back, which doesn't make
sense for an attempted robbery turned murder.
However, it may also be that as in so many cities in the US, murder clearance rates for
street shootings (Little forensic evidence, can only go by witness accounts or through poor
alibis from usual suspects and their associates. In this case there is also no connection
between Rich and any possible shooter with no witnesses.) are just so very low that DC police
don't bother and Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some
scrutiny.
But then maybe for the reasons above a place like DC is perfect to just murder somebody on
the street and that's why they were so brazen about it.
Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some scrutiny.
Well, upthread someone posted a recording of a Seymour Hersh phone call that confirmed
Seth Rich was the fellow who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks, thereby possibly swinging
the presidential election to Trump and overcoming $2 billion of Democratic campaign
advertising.
Shortly afterwards, he probably became about the only middle-class white in DC who died in
a "random street killing" that year. If you doubt this, see if you can find any other such
cases that year.
I think it is *extraordinarily* unlikely that these two elements are unconnected and
merely happened together by chance.
.. GOP strategist and avid Never Trumper Rick Wilson said ... Obama needs to throw his
full weight behind Biden before Super Tuesday in a way that will shake up the race ... Obama
can transform this race in a hot second. ... It's now or never ... Biden beat Sanders like a
rented mule. The exit polls told the tale; it was a crushing defeat across almost every
demographic group ...
Gotta love these Republicans who have our best interests at heart.
Last week in Nevada it was Sanders who beat Biden like a rented mule, inflicting a crushing
defeat across almost every demographic group. But that was then, this is now, and a Republican
stratigist says "It's now or never" to defeat Sanders Trump.
Super Tuesday is ... Tuesday. Biden, as I noted yesterday, hasn't visited any Super Tuesday
state in a month, has almost no money, is not on the air, has little or no ground game. Early
voting is already in progress in several states. What can be done in one day to turn
things around?
Realistically, nothing. Yes, a big endorsement by Obama could have an impact, but how many
voters would even hear about it before voting? Biden will definitely get a bounce from his win
in SC, but how big will it be? How much did Sanders' win in Nevada help him in SC?
Team Biden believes having Klobuchar in the race through Super Tuesday is incredibly
helpful to them.
Why? It blocks Bernie Sanders in the Minnesota primary on Tuesday.
"If Amy gets out, that gives Minnesota to Bernie,"
...
Four years ago, Sanders crushed Hillary Clinton in Minnesota, winning 62% to 38% ...
The Biden campaign wants Warren to be in the race through Super Tuesday, when Massachusetts
voters weigh in.
Not to win. Not to hoard delegates for a convention fight. But just taking every opportunity
to slow Bernie down.
Finally, and I only saw one tweet about this and can't find any confirmation, that Bloomberg
hasn't made any ad buys beyond Super Tuesday. Anyone know anything about this?
Steyer has spent $200 million, got nothing for it, and has dropped out. I'm hoping that's
what we see for Bloomberg as well. Is Bloomberg trying to win? Or just to stop Bernie? Super
Tuesday will tell the tale.
@WoodsDweller -- Biden, Bloomberg, Warren, Klobuchar -- is stepping in to do his or
her part for the overall goal of stopping Bernie. They are 100% loyal to the Dem
establishment which is 100% loyal to the neocon, neoliberal, oligarchic, globalist Deep
State. They know the Dem establishment will reward them -- and you can practically smell the
certainty of that knowledge on Liz. She'll do and say whatever they ask of her.
with anything but a full on assault by the DNC, the media, and their respective
surrogates. What I didn't expect, especially from dubious "progressives" like Warren, was to
hear non-viable candidates openly talking about blunting Bernie's momentum with their only
goal being to collect delegates into the convention. Yes, most of us anticipated this was
going to turn into a contested convention by design, but I don't know how many of us believed
they'd tip their hand so blatantly and so soon into the process. Now that they have, it gives
Bernie time to prepare his own strategy for meeting their threat at the convention. Maybe
someone could refresh his memory on how effective the bus loads of people that GWB arranged
were in shaping the media narrative of "civil disruption vs. accurate counting" in Florida?
Taking a page out of that playbook, Bernie's people really need to start thinking about
organizing an army of supporters in strength that rivals his numbers at his rallys, and
descend onto Wisconsin. And maybe as an added bonus, conjure up the image of the 1968
convention Buttigieg seems to believe Bernie is so nostalgic about resurrecting. If the
Establishment is going to twart the will of the people, let the will of the people be
heard.
First, a wild methodological error. Bernie actually received more votes yesterday than in
2016. Perhaps only people who voted in 2016 were polled.
Second, everyone knows that Bernie is the person most likely to defeat Trump and Biden is
the worst possible candidate. Perhaps thousands of Trump supporters came out pretending to be
Democrats to vote for Biden. This has supposedly happened before.
Third, the quisling Democrats have given up all pretense of being honest and are blatantly
stealing the nomination from Bernie. This is the most likely.
.
In many ways, this race is now the same exact contest that was fought back in 2016. It has
come down to Joe Biden -- The Establishment choice -- despite his obvious Ukraine corruption,
family payoffs, obstruction of justice and abuse of office, etc. -- and despite Biden being
100% wrong on every issue from the Iraq War to NAFTA to the TPP to Syria (more Regime
Change) to Libya to saying China is not an economic threat , etc. -- and despite him
being a bumbling buffoon and gaffe machine who doesn't even know what State he is in, and
constantly mangles sentences, and arrogantly yells at or insults prospective voters -- and
despite him on multiple occasions caught sniffing the hair and fondling young girls in
public.
How is this different from Hillary Clinton .. just without the Cackle ?
Bernie Sanders, as in 2016, is the only other option now that has a multi-state Campaign
support structure. While Mike Bloomberg can buy million dollar Ads and saturate them
everywhere across TV and the Internet .. he has no real voter base, a phony message, and no
charisma.
So it is Sanders .vs. Biden , which is essentially a rematch between Sanders and
Clinton -- or -- essentially a rematch between Sanders and the DNC Establishment (who also
control the rules of the game).
My question is, who in earth would ever want to vote for the doddering and incoherent Joe
Biden under any circumstance? Clearly, Biden just represents the anti-Sanders vote here, and
The Establishment, with Bloomberg, Buttiburger, and Klobachar all failing, has closed ranks
to consolidate around the one dog-faced, pony soldier left standing in the race: Quid Pro
Joe.
Come on man! Get down and do some pushups Jack. I don't want your vote.
Polls and Votes and super delegates and Media narratives will all now be fixed around
Biden from this point on (if they weren't already). So expect a whole lot of Malarkey
upcoming, and this means that Sanders will have to win by big margins, and win a whole lot
more States than he did in 2016, in order to survive.
Trump closed the White House office of pandemic control simply because Obama started it.
That fact alone should tell you all you need to know about the competence of Trump and his merry band of bootlickers.
For nearly two months Trump did nothing while it spread.
All that crap about "America First", but after three years there's no wall, immigrants still pouring in, illegals, foreign
workers, and foreign students everywhere you look, and we're still dependent on foreign supply chains and manufacturing.
And we wonder how the disease got here and why we are economically vulnerable to it. Making matters worse, while he was doing
all those favors for Wall Street and foreign countries and spending trillions on the wars he was elected to end, he was also gutting
government departments and programs that do stuff for actual Americans, like protect them from plagues.
"The federal agency shunned the World Health Organization test guidelines used by other countries and set out to create a more
complicated test of its own"
I know we are in full information war against China and we already have senators drafting sanctions against them but if we
really wanted to treat this as a medical and not a political issue we would copy the Chinese test kits.
The CDC today deleted essential information on the outbreak's spread from their website.You conservatives are going to be blamed
for this. Try, just try telling a grieving parent or child that this is somehow the 'cost of freedom' or 'the Democrats are to
blame (Hillary is really at fault).
You did this to our country, don't count on people forgetting about it by November.
Biden did well in SC due the endorsement of James Clyburn.
He has two days to keep the momentum for March 3. He is strapped for cash, unable to
advertise heavily in the delegate rich states for super Tuesday and corruption tales will
follow him until he follows Butti out the door.
Biden can't compete with Sanders who has campaign $$$ and his grassroots army and
volunteers. Watch for Sanders in CA and TX.
The article is mostly junk. But it contains some important insights into the rise of Trympism (aka "national neoliberalism") --
nationalist oligarchy. Including the following " the governments that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not
actually pursuing policies that are economically populist."
The real threat to liberal democracy isn't authoritarianism -- it's nationalist oligarchy. Here's how American foreign policy should
change. The real threat to liberal democracy isn't authoritarianism -- it's nationalist oligarchy. Here's how American foreign policy
should change.
Notable quotes:
"... Fascism: A Warning ..."
"... Can it Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America ..."
"... the governments that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not actually pursuing policies that are economically populist. ..."
"... The better and more useful way to view these regimes -- and the threat to democracy emerging at home and abroad because of them -- is as nationalist oligarchies. Oligarchy means rule by a small number of rich people. In an oligarchy, wealthy elites seek to preserve and extend their wealth and power. In his definitive book titled Oligarchy ..."
"... Oligarchies remain in power through two strategies: first, using divide-and-conquer tactics to ensure that a majority doesn't coalesce, and second, by rigging the political system to make it harder for any emerging majority to overthrow them. ..."
"... Rigging the system is, in some ways, a more obvious tactic. It means changing the legal rules of the game or shaping the political marketplace to preserve power. Voting restrictions and suppression, gerrymandering, and manipulation of the media are examples. The common theme is that they insulate the minority in power from democracy; they prevent the population from kicking the rulers out through ordinary political means. ..."
"... Classical Greek Oligarchy ..."
"... Framing today's threat as nationalist oligarchy not only clarifies the challenge but also makes clear how democracy is different -- and what democracy requires. Democracy means more than elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and various constitutional norms. For democracy to persist, there must also be relative economic equality. If society is deeply unequal economically, the wealthy will dominate politics and transform democracy into an oligarchy. And there must be some degree of social solidarity because, as Lincoln put it, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." ..."
"... We see a number of disturbing signs the United States is breaking down along these dimensions. ..."
"... The view that money is speech under the First Amendment has unleashed wealthy individuals and corporations to spend as much as they want to influence politics. The "doom loop of oligarchy," as Ezra Klein has called it, is an obvious consequence: The wealthy use their money to influence politics and rig policy to increase their wealth, which in turn increases their capacity to influence politics. Meanwhile, we're increasingly divided into like-minded enclaves, and the result is an ever-more toxic degree of partisanship. ..."
"... The Counterinsurgent's Constitution: Law in the Age of Small Wars ..."
"... The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens our Republic ..."
Ever since the 2016 election, foreign policy commentators and practitioners have been engaged in a series of soul-searching exercises
to understand the great transformations taking place in the world -- and to articulate a framework appropriate to the challenges
of our time. Some have looked backwards, arguing that the liberal international order is collapsing, while others question whether
it ever existed. Another group seems to hope the current messiness is simply a blip and that foreign policy will return to normalcy
after it passes. Perhaps the most prominent group has identified today's great threat as the rise of authoritarianism, autocracy,
and illiberal democracy. They fear that constitutional democracy is receding as norms are broken and institutions are under siege.
Unfortunately, this approach misunderstands the nature of the current crisis. The challenge we face today is not one of authoritarianism,
as so many seem inclined to believe, but of nationalist oligarchy. This form of government feeds populism to the people, delivers
special privileges to the rich and well-connected, and rigs politics to sustain its regime.
... ... ..
Authoritarianism or What?
Across the political spectrum, commentators and scholars have identified -- and warned of -- the global rise of autocracies and
authoritarian governments. They cite Russia, Hungary, the Philippines, and Turkey, among others. Distinguished commentators are increasingly
worried. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright recently published a book called Fascism: A Warning . Cass Sunstein
gathered a variety of scholars for a collection titled, Can it Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America .
The authoritarian lens is familiar from the heroic narrative of democracy defeating autocracies in the twentieth century. But
as a framework for understanding today's central geopolitical challenges, it is far too narrow. This is mainly because those who
are worried about the rise of authoritarianism and the crisis of democracy are insufficiently focused on economics. Their emphasis
is almost exclusively political and constitutional -- free speech, voting rights, equal treatment for minorities, independent courts,
and the like. But politics and economics cannot be dissociated from each other, and neither are autonomous from social and cultural
factors. Statesmen and philosophers used to call this "political economy." Political economy looks at economic and political relationships
in concert, and it is attentive to how power is exercised. If authoritarianism is the future, there must be a story of its political
economy -- how it uses politics and economics to gain and hold power. Yet the rise-of-authoritarianism theorists have less to say
about these dynamics.
To be sure, many commentators have discussed populist movements throughout Europe and America, and there has been no shortage
of debate on the extent to which a generation of widening economic inequality has been a contributing factor in their rise. But whatever
the causes of popular discontent, the policy preferences of the people, and the bloviating rhetoric of leaders, the governments
that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not actually pursuing policies that are economically populist.
The better and more useful way to view these regimes -- and the threat to democracy emerging at home and abroad because of
them -- is as nationalist oligarchies. Oligarchy means rule by a small number of rich people. In an oligarchy, wealthy elites seek
to preserve and extend their wealth and power. In his definitive book titled Oligarchy , Jeffrey Winters calls it "wealth
defense." Elites engage in "property defense," protecting what they already have, and "income defense," preserving and extending
their ability to hoard more. Importantly, oligarchy as a governing strategy accounts for both politics and economics. Oligarchs use
economic power to gain and hold political power and, in turn, use politics to expand their economic power.
Those who worry about the rise of authoritarianism and fear the crisis of democracy are insufficiently focused on economics.
The trouble for oligarchs is that their regime involves rule by a small number of wealthy elites. In even a nominally
democratic society, and most countries around the world today are at least that, it should be possible for the much larger majority
to overthrow the oligarchy with either the ballot or the bullet. So how can oligarchy persist? This is where both nationalism and
authoritarianism come into play. Oligarchies remain in power through two strategies: first, using divide-and-conquer tactics
to ensure that a majority doesn't coalesce, and second, by rigging the political system to make it harder for any emerging majority
to overthrow them.
The divide-and-conquer strategy is an old one, and it works through a combination of coercion and co-optation. Nationalism --
whether statist, ethnic, religious, or racial -- serves both functions. It aligns a portion of ordinary people with the ruling oligarchy,
mobilizing them to support the regime and sacrifice for it. At the same time, it divides society, ensuring that the nationalism-inspired
will not join forces with everyone else to overthrow the oligarchs. We thus see fearmongering about minorities and immigrants, and
claims that the country belongs only to its "true" people, whom the leaders represent. Activating these emotional, cultural, and
political identities makes it harder for citizens in the country to unite across these divides and challenge the regime.
Rigging the system is, in some ways, a more obvious tactic. It means changing the legal rules of the game or shaping the political
marketplace to preserve power. Voting restrictions and suppression, gerrymandering, and manipulation of the media are examples. The
common theme is that they insulate the minority in power from democracy; they prevent the population from kicking the rulers out
through ordinary political means. Tactics like these are not new. They have existed, as Matthew Simonton shows in his book
Classical Greek Oligarchy , since at least the time of Pericles and Plato. The consequence, then as now, is that nationalist
oligarchies can continue to deliver economic policies to benefit the wealthy and well-connected.
It is worth noting that even the generation that waged war against fascism in Europe understood that the challenge to democracy
in their time was not just political, but economic and social as well. They believed that the rise of Nazism was tied to the concentration
of economic power in Germany, and that cartels and monopolies not only cooperated with and served the Nazi state, but helped its
rise and later sustained it. As New York Congressman Emanuel Celler, one of the authors of the Anti-Merger Act of 1950, said, quoting
a report filed by Secretary of War Kenneth Royall, "Germany under the Nazi set-up built up a great series of industrial monopolies
in steel, rubber, coal and other materials. The monopolies soon got control of Germany, brought Hitler to power, and forced virtually
the whole world into war." After World War II, Marshall Plan experts not only rebuilt Europe but also exported aggressive American
antitrust and competition laws to the continent because they believed political democracy was impossible without economic democracy.
Framing today's threat as nationalist oligarchy not only clarifies the challenge but also makes clear how democracy is different
-- and what democracy requires. Democracy means more than elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and various constitutional
norms. For democracy to persist, there must also be relative economic equality. If society is deeply unequal economically, the wealthy
will dominate politics and transform democracy into an oligarchy. And there must be some degree of social solidarity because, as
Lincoln put it, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
We see a number of disturbing signs the United States is breaking down along these dimensions. Electoral losers in places
like North Carolina seek to entrench their power rather than accept defeat. The view that money is speech under the First Amendment
has unleashed wealthy individuals and corporations to spend as much as they want to influence politics. The "doom loop of oligarchy,"
as Ezra Klein has called it, is an obvious consequence: The wealthy use their money to influence politics and rig policy to increase
their wealth, which in turn increases their capacity to influence politics. Meanwhile, we're increasingly divided into like-minded
enclaves, and the result is an ever-more toxic degree of partisanship.
Addressing our domestic economic and social crises is critical to defending democracy, and a grand strategy for America's future
must incorporate both domestic and foreign policy. But while many have recognized that reviving America's middle class and re-stitching
our social fabric are essential to saving democracy, less attention has been paid to how American foreign policy should be reformed
in order to defend democracy from the threat of nationalist oligarchy.
The Varieties of Nationalist Oligarchy
Just as there are many variations on liberal democracy -- the Swedish model, the French model, the American model -- there
are many varieties of nationalist oligarchy. The story is different in every country, but the elements of nationalist oligarchy
are trending all over the world.
... ... ...
... the European Union funds Hungary's oligarchy, as Orbán draws on EU money to fund about 60 percent of the state projects
that support "the new Fidesz-linked business elite." Nor do Orbán and his allies do much to hide the country's crony capitalist
model. András Lánczi, president of a Fidesz-affiliated think tank, has boldly stated that "if something is done in the national
interest, then it is not corruption." "The new capitalist ruling class," one Hungarian banker comments, "make their money from
the government."
The commentator Jan-Werner Müller captures Orbán's Hungary this way: "Power is secured through wide-ranging control of the
judiciary and the media; behind much talk of protecting hard-pressed families from multinational corporations, there is crony
capitalism, in which one has to be on the right side politically to get ahead economically."
Crony capitalism, coupled with resurgent nationalism and central government control, is also an issue in China. While some
commentators have emphasized "state capitalism" -- when government has a significant ownership stake in companies -- this phenomenon
is not to be confused with crony capitalism. Some countries with state capitalism, like Norway, are widely seen as extremely non-corrupt
and, indeed, are often held up as models of democracy. State capitalism itself is thus not necessarily a problem. Crony capitalism,
in contrast, is an "instrumental union between capitalists and politicians designed to allow the former to acquire wealth, legally
or otherwise, and the latter to seek and retain power." This is the key difference between state capitalism and oligarchy.
... ... ...
Ganesh Sitaraman is a professor of law
and Chancellor's faculty fellow at Vanderbilt Law School, and the author of The Counterinsurgent's Constitution: Law in the
Age of Small Wars and The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens our Republic
.
Yes, I agree completely (though I would have to study the materials more
carefully to fully understand it all). It is mentioned that one accomplishment of Trump was his
take-down of the Bush dynasty for the lies spun justifying the Iraq war. It was in S. Caroline
that Trump did this, in a debate of Republican candidates at the start of the election campaign
in 2016. I knew nothing about Trump at the time, having lived in Japan and Australia for many
years, never saw the Apprentice or even heard of him. So, when he started snipping at Jeb
saying that Jeb's brother George, led America in the biggest mistake in US history by starting
the war on Iraq, and the audience started booing, to which Trump replied, 'oh, those are just
paid for lobbyists – I don't need them as my campaign is self-funded', it was absolutely
astonishing and I could hardly believe my ears, or eyes. Yet, there it was on TV, one of the
first debates of the Republican party for their candidate. I then saw that Trump was, indeed,
something very different from what we had ever seen in American politics.
I was rapt when he defeated Hillary, and completely surprised as it was so unexpected. It
did give me faith in America again, to some degree. Here is the woman who orchestrated the
criminal destruction of Libya, and then laughed about the horrific murder of Gaddafi, who was
only trying to provide a decent society for Libyan citizens and deal with the madness of the
forces around him. What happened to him, and to Libya, was just so heartbreaking, and she
thought it was a big joke and tried to do the same in Syria. So, I was thrilled when she got
beaten.
Not that everything Trump has done since then has met with my approval, but he seems to
be winding down the wars as he promised and I don't mind listening to his speeches at the
rallies, which I sometimes do watch. I particularly like when he went to a farming area in
California and signed a bill enabling local farmers to access water, something they were unable
to do because of various regulations.
I never heard of any other presidents so hands-on with
their involvement with such things and I thought his speech in India, recently, was incredible.
I couldn't stand listening to Hillary for any more than a few minutes.
Even Obama never really
rang true to me. He would say things like 'change we can believe in', or 'hope for more hope',
vague platitudes like that that didn't really have many specifics. I can understand Clint
Eastwood's speech talking to the empty chair (representing Obama) at the Republican convention
in 2012, actually.
Obama seems like a media projection, or something. Hard to identify or see
him as an actual person.
sharon marlowe ,
"Not that everything Trump has done since then has met with my approval, but he seems to be
winding down the wars as he promised"
What is "winding down the wars"? Do mean that you stopped paying attention?
Dungroanin ,
Antzy the Bush's from Grandaddy Prescot to the CIA JFK killers and Pres George Senior to Pres
Dubya to all current scions are bestties with the most extreme form of islamists in hostory
the Wahhabists who enable the Saudis to control Saudi Arabia and it's wealth – they
have even been referred to as the most Likudist state outside of Israel by Nuttyyahoo!
So there.
paul ,
Likewise, there are more than a few crumbs of comfort to be drawn from the smearing and
destruction of Corbyn.
As in America, it forced the Deep State to step out from behind the curtain and take direct
control. The Zionist wire pullers had to step out into the spotlight and reveal the true
extent of their domination.
The endless treachery and backstabbing of the Blairites have shown the Labour Party to be a
lost cause, a dead end, a waste of time, effort and energy, and a waste of a man's rations,
making way for something more worthwhile. This is another positive development.
Sanders was shafted in 2016 by the corrupt DNC machine, and he is being shafted again.He will
probably be sidelined in favour of some third rate hack like Buttplug, or some other
synthetic, manufactured nonentity.
If he isn't, and by some miracle does secure the nomination, they will fail to support him
and just allow him to be defeated by Trump. It doesn't matter.
There are millions of decent people who have long been persuaded to play the game of
Lesser Evils. They will be as disenchanted as was Trump's Base by a transparently corrupt,
rigged system, and finally withdraw their support. This has to be seen as a positive
development.
"... The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower, and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump. ..."
"... The whole point of having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee, headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA. ..."
"... What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case, in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot. ..."
"... People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially; that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path. ..."
"... The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset. ..."
"... Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were, lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the world to see. This cannot be undone. ..."
First , the whistleblower was ruled out as a possible witness -- this was
essentially done behind the scenes, and in reality can be called a Deep State operation, though
one exposed to some extent by Rand Paul. This has nothing to do with protecting the
whistleblower or upholding the whistleblower statute, but instead with the fact that the
whistleblower was a CIA plant in the White House.
That the whistleblower works for the CIA is a matter of public record, not some conspiracy
theory. Furthermore, for some time before the impeachment proceedings began, the whistleblower
had been coordinating his efforts to undermine Trump with the head of the House Intelligence
Committee, who happens to be Adam Schiff. It is possible that the connections with Schiff go
even further or deeper. Obviously the Democrats do not want these things exposed.
... ... ...
In this regard, there was a very special moment on January 29, when Chief Justice John
Roberts refused to allow the reading of a question from Sen. Rand Paul that identified the
alleged whistleblower. Paul then held a press conference in which he read his question.
The question was directed at Adam Schiff, who claims not to have communicated with the
whistleblower, despite much evidence to the contrary. (Further details can be read at
here
.) A propos of what I was just saying, Paul is described in the Politico article as
"a longtime antagonist of Republican leaders." Excellent, good on you, Rand Paul.
Whether this was a case of unintended consequences or not, one could say that this episode
fed into the case against calling witnesses -- certainly the Democrats should not have been
allowed to call witnesses if the Republicans could not call the whistleblower. But clearly this
point is completely lost on those working in terms of the moving line of bullshit.
One would think that Democrats would be happy with a Republican Senator who antagonizes
leaders of his own party, but of course Rand Paul's effort only led to further "outrage" on the
part of Democratic leaders in the House and Senate.
The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower,
and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not
contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump.
However, you see, there is a complementary purpose at work here, too. The whole point of
having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee,
headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious
powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the
CIA.
The only way these machinations can be combatted is to pull the curtain back further -- but
the Republicans do not want this any more than the Democrats do, with a few possible exceptions
such as Rand Paul. (As the Politico article states, Paul was chastised publicly by McConnell
for submitting his question in the first place, and for criticizing Roberts in the press
conference.)
What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a
savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand
Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a
savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case,
in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is
probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot.
... ... ...
Now we are at a moment when "the Left" is recognizing the role that the CIA and the rest of
the "intelligence community" is played in the impeachment nonsense. This "Left" was already on
board for the "impeachment process" itself, perhaps at moments with caveats about "not leaving
everything up to the Democrats," "not just relying on the Democrats," but still accepting their
assigned role as cheerleaders and self-important internet commentators. (And, sure, maybe
that's all I am, too -- but the inability to distinguish form from content is one of the main
problems of the existing Left.)
Now, though, people on the Left are trying to get comfortable with, and trying to explain to
themselves how they can get comfortable with, the obvious role of the "intelligence community"
(with, in my view, the CIA in the leading role, but of course I'm not privy to the inner
workings of this scene) in the impeachment process and other efforts to take down Trump's
presidency.
People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the
impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my
mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially;
that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic
levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path.
They might think about the "help" that the CIA gave to the military in Bolivia to remove Evo
Morales from office. They might think about the picture of Donald Trump that they find
necessary to paint to justify what they are willing to swallow to remove him from office. They
might think about the fact that ordinary Democrats are fine with this role for the CIA, and
that Adam Schiff and others routinely offer the criticism/condemnation of Donald Trump that he
doesn't accept the findings of the CIA or the rest of the intelligence agencies at face
value.
The moment for the Left, what calls itself and thinks of itself as that, to break with this
lunacy has passed some time ago, but let us take this moment, of "accepting the help of the
CIA, because Trump," as truly marking a point of no return.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot
for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his
narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset.
paul ,
Trump, Sanders and Corbyn were all in their own way agents of creative destruction.
Trump tapped into the popular discontent of millions of Americans who realised that the
system no longer even pretended to work in their interests, and were not prepared to be
diverted down the Identity Politics Rabbit Hole.
The Deep State was outraged that he had disrupted their programme by stealing Clinton's seat
in the game of Musical Chairs. Being the most corrupt, dishonest and mendacious political
candidate in all US history (despite some pretty stiff opposition) was supposed to be
outweighed by her having a vagina. The Deplorables failed to sign up for the programme.
Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were,
lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to
the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from
behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid
criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the
world to see. This cannot be undone.
For all his pandering to Adelson and the Zionist Mafia, for all his Gives to Netanyahu, Trump
has failed to deliver on the Big Ticket Items. Syria was supposed to have been invaded by
now, with Hillary cackling demonically over Assad's death as she did over Gaddafi, and
rapidly moving on to the main event with Iran. They will not forgive him for this.
They realise they are under severe time pressure. It took them a century to gain their
stranglehold over America, and this is a wasting asset. America is in terminal decline, and
may soon be unable to fulfil its ordained role as dumb goy muscle serving Zionist interests.
And the parasite will find it difficult to find a replacement host.
George Mc ,
Haven't you just agreed with him here?
He thinks the left died in the 1960s, over a half century ago. It's pretty simple to
identify a leftist: anti-imperialist/ anti-capitalist. The Democrats are imperialists.
People who vote for the Democrats and Republicans are imperialists. This article is a
confused mess, that's my whole point;)
If the Democrats and Republicans (and those who vote for them) are imperialists (which they are) then the left are indeed
dead – at least as far as political representation goes.
Koba ,
He's sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan he staged several coups in Latin America and
wanted to take out the dprk and thier nukes and wants to bomb Iran! Winding down?!
sharon marlowe ,
First, an attempted assassination-by-drone on President Maduro of Venezuela happened. Then
Trump dropped the largest conventional bomb on Afghanistan, with a mile-wide radius. Then
Trump named Juan Guido as the new President of Venezuela in an overt coup. Then he bombed
Syria over a fake chemical weapons claim. He bombed it before even an investigation was
launched. Then the Trump regime orchestrated a military coup in Bolivia. Then he claimed that
he was pulling out of Syria, but instead sent U.S. troops to take over Syrian oil fields.
trump then assassinated Gen. Solemeni. Then he claimed that he will leave Iraq at the request
of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, and Trump rejected the
request. The Trump regime has tried orchestrating a coup in Iran, and a coup in Hong Kong. He
expelled Russian diplomats en masse for the Skripal incident in England, before an
investigation. He has sanctioned Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela. He has
bombed Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Those are the things I'm
aware of, but what else Trump has done in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America you
can research if you wish. And now, the claim of leaving Afghanistan is as ridiculous as when
he claimed to be leaving Syria and Iraq.
Dungroanin ,
Yeah yeah and 'he' gave Maduro 7 days to let their kid takeover in Venezuela! And built a
wall. And got rid of obamacare and started a nuke war with Rocketman and and and ...
sharon marlowe ,
There were at least nine people killed when Trump bombed Douma.
Only a psychopath would kill people because one of its spy drones was shot down. You don't
get points for considering killing people for it and then changing your mind.
People should get over Hillary and pay attention to what Trump has been doing. Why even
mention what Hillary would have done in Syria, then proceed to be an apologist for what Trump
has done around the world in just three years? Trump has been quite a prolific imperialist in
such a short time. A second term could well put him above Bush and Obama as the 21st
century's most horrible leaders on earth.
Dungroanin ,
...If you think that the potus is the omnipotent ruler of everything he certainly seems to be
having some problems with his minions in the CIA, NSA, FBI..State Dept etc.
Savorywill ,
Yes, what you say is right. However, he did warn both the Syrian and Russian military of the
attack in the first instance, so no casualties, and in the second attack, he announced that
the missiles had been launched before they hit the target, again resulting in no casualties.
When the US drone was shot down by an Iranian missile, he considered retaliation. But, when
advised of likely casualties, he called it off saying that human lives are more valuable than
the cost of the drone. Yes, he did authorize the assassination of the Iranian general, and
that was very bad. His claims that the general had organized the placement of roadside bombs
that had killed US soldiers rings rather hollow, considering those shouldn't have been in
Iraq in the first place.
I am definitely not stating that he is perfect and doesn't do objectionable things. And he
has authorized US forces to control the oil wells, which is against international law, but at
least US soldiers are not actively engaged in fighting the Syrian government, something
Hillary set in motion. However, the military does comprise a huge percentage of the US
economy and there have to be reasons, and enemies, to justify its existence, so his situation
as president must be very difficult, not a job I would want, that is for sure.
The potus is best described (by Assad actually) as a CEO of a board of directors appointed
by the shareholders who collectively determine their OWN interests.
Your gaslighting ain't succeeding round here – Regime! So desperate, so so sad
🤣
The article is mostly junk. But it contains some important insights into the rise of Trympism (aka "national neoliberalism") --
nationalist oligarchy. Including the following " the governments that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not
actually pursuing policies that are economically populist."
The real threat to liberal democracy isn't authoritarianism -- it's nationalist oligarchy. Here's how American foreign policy should
change. The real threat to liberal democracy isn't authoritarianism -- it's nationalist oligarchy. Here's how American foreign policy
should change.
Notable quotes:
"... Fascism: A Warning ..."
"... Can it Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America ..."
"... the governments that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not actually pursuing policies that are economically populist. ..."
"... The better and more useful way to view these regimes -- and the threat to democracy emerging at home and abroad because of them -- is as nationalist oligarchies. Oligarchy means rule by a small number of rich people. In an oligarchy, wealthy elites seek to preserve and extend their wealth and power. In his definitive book titled Oligarchy ..."
"... Oligarchies remain in power through two strategies: first, using divide-and-conquer tactics to ensure that a majority doesn't coalesce, and second, by rigging the political system to make it harder for any emerging majority to overthrow them. ..."
"... Rigging the system is, in some ways, a more obvious tactic. It means changing the legal rules of the game or shaping the political marketplace to preserve power. Voting restrictions and suppression, gerrymandering, and manipulation of the media are examples. The common theme is that they insulate the minority in power from democracy; they prevent the population from kicking the rulers out through ordinary political means. ..."
"... Classical Greek Oligarchy ..."
"... Framing today's threat as nationalist oligarchy not only clarifies the challenge but also makes clear how democracy is different -- and what democracy requires. Democracy means more than elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and various constitutional norms. For democracy to persist, there must also be relative economic equality. If society is deeply unequal economically, the wealthy will dominate politics and transform democracy into an oligarchy. And there must be some degree of social solidarity because, as Lincoln put it, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." ..."
"... We see a number of disturbing signs the United States is breaking down along these dimensions. ..."
"... The view that money is speech under the First Amendment has unleashed wealthy individuals and corporations to spend as much as they want to influence politics. The "doom loop of oligarchy," as Ezra Klein has called it, is an obvious consequence: The wealthy use their money to influence politics and rig policy to increase their wealth, which in turn increases their capacity to influence politics. Meanwhile, we're increasingly divided into like-minded enclaves, and the result is an ever-more toxic degree of partisanship. ..."
"... The Counterinsurgent's Constitution: Law in the Age of Small Wars ..."
"... The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens our Republic ..."
Ever since the 2016 election, foreign policy commentators and practitioners have been engaged in a series of soul-searching exercises
to understand the great transformations taking place in the world -- and to articulate a framework appropriate to the challenges
of our time. Some have looked backwards, arguing that the liberal international order is collapsing, while others question whether
it ever existed. Another group seems to hope the current messiness is simply a blip and that foreign policy will return to normalcy
after it passes. Perhaps the most prominent group has identified today's great threat as the rise of authoritarianism, autocracy,
and illiberal democracy. They fear that constitutional democracy is receding as norms are broken and institutions are under siege.
Unfortunately, this approach misunderstands the nature of the current crisis. The challenge we face today is not one of authoritarianism,
as so many seem inclined to believe, but of nationalist oligarchy. This form of government feeds populism to the people, delivers
special privileges to the rich and well-connected, and rigs politics to sustain its regime.
... ... ..
Authoritarianism or What?
Across the political spectrum, commentators and scholars have identified -- and warned of -- the global rise of autocracies and
authoritarian governments. They cite Russia, Hungary, the Philippines, and Turkey, among others. Distinguished commentators are increasingly
worried. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright recently published a book called Fascism: A Warning . Cass Sunstein
gathered a variety of scholars for a collection titled, Can it Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America .
The authoritarian lens is familiar from the heroic narrative of democracy defeating autocracies in the twentieth century. But
as a framework for understanding today's central geopolitical challenges, it is far too narrow. This is mainly because those who
are worried about the rise of authoritarianism and the crisis of democracy are insufficiently focused on economics. Their emphasis
is almost exclusively political and constitutional -- free speech, voting rights, equal treatment for minorities, independent courts,
and the like. But politics and economics cannot be dissociated from each other, and neither are autonomous from social and cultural
factors. Statesmen and philosophers used to call this "political economy." Political economy looks at economic and political relationships
in concert, and it is attentive to how power is exercised. If authoritarianism is the future, there must be a story of its political
economy -- how it uses politics and economics to gain and hold power. Yet the rise-of-authoritarianism theorists have less to say
about these dynamics.
To be sure, many commentators have discussed populist movements throughout Europe and America, and there has been no shortage
of debate on the extent to which a generation of widening economic inequality has been a contributing factor in their rise. But whatever
the causes of popular discontent, the policy preferences of the people, and the bloviating rhetoric of leaders, the governments
that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not actually pursuing policies that are economically populist.
The better and more useful way to view these regimes -- and the threat to democracy emerging at home and abroad because of
them -- is as nationalist oligarchies. Oligarchy means rule by a small number of rich people. In an oligarchy, wealthy elites seek
to preserve and extend their wealth and power. In his definitive book titled Oligarchy , Jeffrey Winters calls it "wealth
defense." Elites engage in "property defense," protecting what they already have, and "income defense," preserving and extending
their ability to hoard more. Importantly, oligarchy as a governing strategy accounts for both politics and economics. Oligarchs use
economic power to gain and hold political power and, in turn, use politics to expand their economic power.
Those who worry about the rise of authoritarianism and fear the crisis of democracy are insufficiently focused on economics.
The trouble for oligarchs is that their regime involves rule by a small number of wealthy elites. In even a nominally
democratic society, and most countries around the world today are at least that, it should be possible for the much larger majority
to overthrow the oligarchy with either the ballot or the bullet. So how can oligarchy persist? This is where both nationalism and
authoritarianism come into play. Oligarchies remain in power through two strategies: first, using divide-and-conquer tactics
to ensure that a majority doesn't coalesce, and second, by rigging the political system to make it harder for any emerging majority
to overthrow them.
The divide-and-conquer strategy is an old one, and it works through a combination of coercion and co-optation. Nationalism --
whether statist, ethnic, religious, or racial -- serves both functions. It aligns a portion of ordinary people with the ruling oligarchy,
mobilizing them to support the regime and sacrifice for it. At the same time, it divides society, ensuring that the nationalism-inspired
will not join forces with everyone else to overthrow the oligarchs. We thus see fearmongering about minorities and immigrants, and
claims that the country belongs only to its "true" people, whom the leaders represent. Activating these emotional, cultural, and
political identities makes it harder for citizens in the country to unite across these divides and challenge the regime.
Rigging the system is, in some ways, a more obvious tactic. It means changing the legal rules of the game or shaping the political
marketplace to preserve power. Voting restrictions and suppression, gerrymandering, and manipulation of the media are examples. The
common theme is that they insulate the minority in power from democracy; they prevent the population from kicking the rulers out
through ordinary political means. Tactics like these are not new. They have existed, as Matthew Simonton shows in his book
Classical Greek Oligarchy , since at least the time of Pericles and Plato. The consequence, then as now, is that nationalist
oligarchies can continue to deliver economic policies to benefit the wealthy and well-connected.
It is worth noting that even the generation that waged war against fascism in Europe understood that the challenge to democracy
in their time was not just political, but economic and social as well. They believed that the rise of Nazism was tied to the concentration
of economic power in Germany, and that cartels and monopolies not only cooperated with and served the Nazi state, but helped its
rise and later sustained it. As New York Congressman Emanuel Celler, one of the authors of the Anti-Merger Act of 1950, said, quoting
a report filed by Secretary of War Kenneth Royall, "Germany under the Nazi set-up built up a great series of industrial monopolies
in steel, rubber, coal and other materials. The monopolies soon got control of Germany, brought Hitler to power, and forced virtually
the whole world into war." After World War II, Marshall Plan experts not only rebuilt Europe but also exported aggressive American
antitrust and competition laws to the continent because they believed political democracy was impossible without economic democracy.
Framing today's threat as nationalist oligarchy not only clarifies the challenge but also makes clear how democracy is different
-- and what democracy requires. Democracy means more than elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and various constitutional
norms. For democracy to persist, there must also be relative economic equality. If society is deeply unequal economically, the wealthy
will dominate politics and transform democracy into an oligarchy. And there must be some degree of social solidarity because, as
Lincoln put it, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
We see a number of disturbing signs the United States is breaking down along these dimensions. Electoral losers in places
like North Carolina seek to entrench their power rather than accept defeat. The view that money is speech under the First Amendment
has unleashed wealthy individuals and corporations to spend as much as they want to influence politics. The "doom loop of oligarchy,"
as Ezra Klein has called it, is an obvious consequence: The wealthy use their money to influence politics and rig policy to increase
their wealth, which in turn increases their capacity to influence politics. Meanwhile, we're increasingly divided into like-minded
enclaves, and the result is an ever-more toxic degree of partisanship.
Addressing our domestic economic and social crises is critical to defending democracy, and a grand strategy for America's future
must incorporate both domestic and foreign policy. But while many have recognized that reviving America's middle class and re-stitching
our social fabric are essential to saving democracy, less attention has been paid to how American foreign policy should be reformed
in order to defend democracy from the threat of nationalist oligarchy.
The Varieties of Nationalist Oligarchy
Just as there are many variations on liberal democracy -- the Swedish model, the French model, the American model -- there
are many varieties of nationalist oligarchy. The story is different in every country, but the elements of nationalist oligarchy
are trending all over the world.
... ... ...
... the European Union funds Hungary's oligarchy, as Orbán draws on EU money to fund about 60 percent of the state projects
that support "the new Fidesz-linked business elite." Nor do Orbán and his allies do much to hide the country's crony capitalist
model. András Lánczi, president of a Fidesz-affiliated think tank, has boldly stated that "if something is done in the national
interest, then it is not corruption." "The new capitalist ruling class," one Hungarian banker comments, "make their money from
the government."
The commentator Jan-Werner Müller captures Orbán's Hungary this way: "Power is secured through wide-ranging control of the
judiciary and the media; behind much talk of protecting hard-pressed families from multinational corporations, there is crony
capitalism, in which one has to be on the right side politically to get ahead economically."
Crony capitalism, coupled with resurgent nationalism and central government control, is also an issue in China. While some
commentators have emphasized "state capitalism" -- when government has a significant ownership stake in companies -- this phenomenon
is not to be confused with crony capitalism. Some countries with state capitalism, like Norway, are widely seen as extremely non-corrupt
and, indeed, are often held up as models of democracy. State capitalism itself is thus not necessarily a problem. Crony capitalism,
in contrast, is an "instrumental union between capitalists and politicians designed to allow the former to acquire wealth, legally
or otherwise, and the latter to seek and retain power." This is the key difference between state capitalism and oligarchy.
... ... ...
Ganesh Sitaraman is a professor of law
and Chancellor's faculty fellow at Vanderbilt Law School, and the author of The Counterinsurgent's Constitution: Law in the
Age of Small Wars and The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens our Republic
.
'You're a bunch of dopes and babies': Inside Trump's stunning tirade against generals
There is no more sacred room for military officers than 2E924 of the Pentagon, a windowless and secure vault where the Joint Chiefs
of Staff meet regularly to wrestle with classified matters. Its more common name is "the Tank." The Tank resembles a small corporate
boardroom, with a gleaming golden oak table, leather swivel armchairs and other mid-century stylings. Inside its walls, flag officers
observe a reverence and decorum for the wrenching decisions that have been made there.
Hanging prominently on one of the walls is The Peacemakers, a painting that depicts an 1865 Civil War strategy session with President
Abraham Lincoln and his three service chiefs -- Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant, Major General William Tecumseh Sherman, and
Rear Admiral David Dixon Porter. One hundred fifty-two years after Lincoln hatched plans to preserve the Union, President Trump's
advisers staged an intervention inside the Tank to try to preserve the world order.
By that point, six months into his administration, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Director of the National Economic Council
Gary Cohn, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had grown alarmed by gaping holes in Trump's knowledge of history, especially the
key alliances forged following World War II. Trump had dismissed allies as worthless, cozied up to authoritarian regimes in Russia
and elsewhere, and advocated withdrawing troops from strategic outposts and active theaters alike.
Trump organized his unorthodox worldview under the simplistic banner of "America First," but Mattis, Tillerson, and Cohn feared
his proposals were rash, barely considered, and a danger to America's superpower standing. They also felt that many of Trump's impulsive
ideas stemmed from his lack of familiarity with U.S. history and, even, where countries were located. To have a useful discussion
with him, the trio agreed, they had to create a basic knowledge, a shared language.
So on July 20, 2017, Mattis invited Trump to the Tank for what he, Tillerson, and Cohn had carefully organized as a tailored tutorial.
What happened inside the Tank that day crystallized the commander in chief's berating, derisive and dismissive manner, foreshadowing
decisions such as the one earlier this month that brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. The Tank meeting was a
turning point in Trump's presidency. Rather than getting him to appreciate America's traditional role and alliances, Trump began
to tune out and eventually push away the experts who believed their duty was to protect the country by restraining his more dangerous
impulses.
The episode has been documented numerous times, but subsequent reporting reveals a more complete picture of the moment and the
chilling effect Trump's comments and hostility had on the nation's military and national security leadership.
Just before 10 a.m. on a scorching summer Thursday, Trump arrived at the Pentagon. He stepped out of his motorcade, walked along
a corridor with portraits honoring former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, and stepped inside the Tank. The uniformed officers greeted
their commander in chief. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joseph F. Dunford Jr. sat in the seat of honor midway down the table,
because this was his room, and Trump sat at the head of the table facing a projection screen. Mattis and the newly confirmed deputy
defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, sat to the president's left, with Vice President Pence and Tillerson to his right. Down the
table sat the leaders of the military branches, along with Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. White House chief strategist
Stephen K. Bannon was in the outer ring of chairs with other staff, taking his seat just behind Mattis and directly in Trump's line
of sight.
Mattis, Cohn, and Tillerson and their aides decided to use maps, graphics, and charts to tutor the president, figuring they would
help keep him from getting bored. Mattis opened with a slide show punctuated by lots of dollar signs. Mattis devised a strategy to
use terms the impatient president, schooled in real estate, would appreciate to impress upon him the value of U.S. investments abroad.
He sought to explain why U.S. troops were deployed in so many regions and why America's safety hinged on a complex web of trade deals,
alliances, and bases across the globe.
An opening line flashed on the screen, setting the tone: "The post-war international rules-based order is the greatest gift of
the greatest generation." Mattis then gave a 20-minute briefing on the power of the NATO alliance to stabilize Europe and keep the
United States safe. Bannon thought to himself, "Not good. Trump is not going to like that one bit." The internationalist language
Mattis was using was a trigger for Trump.
"Oh, baby, this is going to be f---ing wild," Bannon thought. "If you stood up and threatened to shoot [Trump], he couldn't say
'postwar rules-based international order.' It's just not the way he thinks."
For the next 90 minutes, Mattis, Tillerson, and Cohn took turns trying to emphasize their points, pointing to their charts and
diagrams. They showed where U.S. personnel were positioned, at military bases, CIA stations, and embassies, and how U.S. deployments
fended off the threats of terror cells, nuclear blasts, and destabilizing enemies in places including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the
Korea Peninsula, and Syria. Cohn spoke for about 20 minutes about the value of free trade with America's allies, emphasizing how
he saw each trade agreement working together as part of an overall structure to solidify U.S. economic and national security.
Trump appeared peeved by the schoolhouse vibe but also allergic to the dynamic of his advisers talking at him. His ricocheting
attention span led him to repeatedly interrupt the lesson. He heard an adviser say a word or phrase and then seized on that to interject
with his take. For instance, the word "base" prompted him to launch in to say how "crazy" and "stupid" it was to pay for bases in
some countries.
Trump's first complaint was to repeat what he had vented about to his national security adviser months earlier: South Korea should
pay for a $10 billion missile defense system that the United States built for it. The system was designed to shoot down any short-
and medium-range ballistic missiles from North Korea to protect South Korea and American troops stationed there. But Trump argued
that the South Koreans should pay for it, proposing that the administration pull U.S. troops out of the region or bill the South
Koreans for their protection.
"We should charge them rent," Trump said of South Korea. "We should make them pay for our soldiers. We should make money off of
everything."
Trump proceeded to explain that NATO, too, was worthless. U.S. generals were letting the allied member countries get away with
murder, he said, and they owed the United States a lot of money after not living up to their promise of paying their dues.
"They're in arrears," Trump said, reverting to the language of real estate. He lifted both his arms at his sides in frustration.
Then he scolded top officials for the untold millions of dollars he believed they had let slip through their fingers by allowing
allies to avoid their obligations.
"We are owed money you haven't been collecting!" Trump told them. "You would totally go bankrupt if you had to run your own business."
(Penguin Press)
Mattis wasn't trying to convince the president of anything, only to explain and provide facts. Now things were devolving quickly.
The general tried to calmly explain to the president that he was not quite right. The NATO allies didn't owe the United States back
rent, he said. The truth was more complicated. NATO had a nonbinding goal that members should pay at least 2 percent of their gross
domestic product on their defenses. Only five of the countries currently met that goal, but it wasn't as if they were shorting the
United States on the bill.
More broadly, Mattis argued, the NATO alliance was not serving only to protect western Europe. It protected America, too. "This
is what keeps us safe," Mattis said. Cohn tried to explain to Trump that he needed to see the value of the trade deals. "These are
commitments that help keep us safe," Cohn said.
Bannon interjected. "Stop, stop, stop," he said. "All you guys talk about all these great things, they're all our partners, I
want you to name me now one country and one company that's going to have his back."
Trump then repeated a threat he'd made countless times before. He wanted out of the Iran nuclear deal that President Obama had
struck in 2015, which called for Iran to reduce its uranium stockpile and cut its nuclear program.
"It's the worst deal in history!" Trump declared.
"Well, actually . . .," Tillerson interjected.
"I don't want to hear it," Trump said, cutting off the secretary of state before he could explain some of the benefits of the
agreement. "They're cheating. They're building. We're getting out of it. I keep telling you, I keep giving you time, and you keep
delaying me. I want out of it."
Before they could debate the Iran deal, Trump erupted to revive another frequent complaint: the war in Afghanistan, which was
now America's longest war. He demanded an explanation for why the United States hadn't won in Afghanistan yet, now 16 years after
the nation began fighting there in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Trump unleashed his disdain, calling Afghanistan a "loser
war." That phrase hung in the air and disgusted not only the military leaders at the table but also the men and women in uniform
sitting along the back wall behind their principals. They all were sworn to obey their commander in chief's commands, and here he
was calling the war they had been fighting a loser war.
"You're all losers," Trump said. "You don't know how to win anymore."
Trump questioned why the United States couldn't get some oil as payment for the troops stationed in the Persian Gulf. "We spent
$7 trillion; they're ripping us off," Trump boomed. "Where is the f---ing oil?"
Trump seemed to be speaking up for the voters who elected him, and several attendees thought they heard Bannon in Trump's words.
Bannon had been trying to persuade Trump to withdraw forces by telling him, "The American people are saying we can't spend a trillion
dollars a year on this. We just can't. It's going to bankrupt us."
"And not just that, the deplorables don't want their kids in the South China Sea at the 38th parallel or in Syria, in Afghanistan,
in perpetuity," Bannon would add, invoking Hillary Clinton's infamous "basket of deplorables" reference to Trump supporters.
Trump mused about removing General John Nicholson, the U.S. commander in charge of troops in Afghanistan. "I don't think he knows
how to win," the president said, impugning Nicholson, who was not present at the meeting.
Dunford tried to come to Nicholson's defense, but the mild-mannered general struggled to convey his points to the irascible president.
"Mr. President, that's just not . . .," Dunford started. "We've been under different orders."
Dunford sought to explain that he hadn't been charged with annihilating the enemy in Afghanistan but was instead following a strategy
started by the Obama administration to gradually reduce the military presence in the country in hopes of training locals to maintain
a stable government so that eventually the United States could pull out. Trump shot back in more plain language.
"I want to win," he said. "We don't win any wars anymore . . . We spend $7 trillion, everybody else got the oil and we're not
winning anymore."
Trump by now was in one of his rages. He was so angry that he wasn't taking many breaths. All morning, he had been coarse and
cavalier, but the next several things he bellowed went beyond that description. They stunned nearly everyone in the room, and some
vowed that they would never repeat them. Indeed, they have not been reported until now.
"I wouldn't go to war with you people," Trump told the assembled brass.
Addressing the room, the commander in chief barked, "You're a bunch of dopes and babies."
For a president known for verbiage he euphemistically called "locker room talk," this was the gravest insult he could have delivered
to these people, in this sacred space. The flag officers in the room were shocked. Some staff began looking down at their papers,
rearranging folders, almost wishing themselves out of the room. A few considered walking out. They tried not to reveal their revulsion
on their faces, but questions raced through their minds. "How does the commander in chief say that?" one thought. "What would our
worst adversaries think if they knew he said this?"
This was a president who had been labeled a "draft dodger" for avoiding service in the Vietnam War under questionable circumstances.
Trump was a young man born of privilege and in seemingly perfect health: six feet two inches with a muscular build and a flawless
medical record. He played several sports, including football. Then, in 1968 at age 22, he obtained a diagnosis of bone spurs in his
heels that exempted him from military service just as the United States was drafting men his age to fulfill massive troop deployments
to Vietnam.
Tillerson in particular was stunned by Trump's diatribe and began visibly seething. For too many minutes, others in the room noticed,
he had been staring straight, dumbfounded, at Mattis, who was speechless, his head bowed down toward the table. Tillerson thought
to himself, "Gosh darn it, Jim, say something. Why aren't you saying something?"
But, as he would later tell close aides, Tillerson realized in that moment that Mattis was genetically a Marine, unable to talk
back to his commander in chief, no matter what nonsense came out of his mouth.
The more perplexing silence was from Pence, a leader who should have been able to stand up to Trump. Instead, one attendee thought,
"He's sitting there frozen like a statue. Why doesn't he stop the president?" Another recalled the vice president was "a wax museum
guy." From the start of the meeting, Pence looked as if he wanted to escape and put an end to the president's torrent. Surely, he
disagreed with Trump's characterization of military leaders as "dopes and babies," considering his son, Michael, was a Marine first
lieutenant then training for his naval aviator wings. But some surmised Pence feared getting crosswise with Trump. "A total deer
in the headlights," recalled a third attendee.
Others at the table noticed Trump's stream of venom had taken an emotional toll. So many people in that room had gone to war and
risked their lives for their country, and now they were being dressed down by a president who had not. They felt sick to their stomachs.
Tillerson told others he thought he saw a woman in the room silently crying. He was furious and decided he couldn't stand it another
minute. His voice broke into Trump's tirade, this one about trying to make money off U.S. troops.
"No, that's just wrong," the secretary of state said. "Mr. President, you're totally wrong. None of that is true."
Tillerson's father and uncle had both been combat veterans, and he was deeply proud of their service.
"The men and women who put on a uniform don't do it to become soldiers of fortune," Tillerson said. "That's not why they put on
a uniform and go out and die . . . They do it to protect our freedom."
There was silence in the Tank. Several military officers in the room were grateful to the secretary of state for defending them
when no one else would. The meeting soon ended and Trump walked out, saying goodbye to a group of servicemen lining the corridor
as he made his way to his motorcade waiting outside. Mattis, Tillerson, and Cohn were deflated. Standing in the hall with a small
cluster of people he trusted, Tillerson finally let down his guard.
"He's a f---ing moron," the secretary of state said of the president.
The plan by Mattis, Tillerson, and Cohn to train the president to appreciate the internationalist view had clearly backfired.
"We were starting to get out on the wrong path, and we really needed to have a course correction and needed to educate, to teach,
to help him understand the reason and basis for a lot of these things," said one senior official involved in the planning. "We needed
to change how he thinks about this, to course correct. Everybody was on board, 100 percent agreed with that sentiment. [But] they
were dismayed and in shock when not only did it not have the intended effect, but he dug in his heels and pushed it even further
on the spectrum, further solidifying his views."
A few days later, Pence's national security adviser, Andrea Thompson, a retired Army colonel who had served in Afghanistan and
Iraq, reached out to thank Tillerson for speaking up on behalf of the military and the public servants who had been in the Tank.
By September 2017, she would leave the White House and join Tillerson at Foggy Bottom as undersecretary of state for arms control
and international security affairs.
The Tank meeting had so thoroughly shocked the conscience of military leaders that they tried to keep it a secret. At the Aspen
Security Forum two days later, longtime NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell asked Dunford how Trump had interacted during the
Tank meeting. The Joint Chiefs chairman misleadingly described the meeting, skipping over the fireworks.
"He asked a lot of hard questions, and the one thing he does is question some fundamental assumptions that we make as military
leaders -- and he will come in and question those," Dunford told Mitchell on July 22. "It's a pretty energetic and an interactive
dialogue."
One victim of the Tank meeting was Trump's relationship with Tillerson, which forever after was strained. The secretary of state
came to see it as the beginning of the end. It would only worsen when news that Tillerson had called Trump a "moron" was
first reported in October 2017 by NBC News.
"... It is especially galling to see how the Hollywood Community has embraced the era of red-baiting Joseph McCarthy as the new standard for what is acceptable. There was a time that a few brave souls in Hollywood (I am thinking Lucille Ball, Kirk Douglas and Gregory Peck), spoke out against the blacklisting of actors, writers and directors for their past political ties to the Soviet Union. ..."
"... This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America. It was a period of time fed by fear and ignorance. While it is true that there were Americans who identified as Communists and embraced the politics of the Soviet Union, we scared ourselves into believing that communist subversion was everywhere and that America was teetering on the brink of being submerged in a red tide. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm. Clinton exemplifies the terrifying norm of the political and cultural elite in this country. Accusing political opponents of being controlled by foreign enemies, real or imagined, is an old political tactic. Makes me wonder what Edward R. Murrow or Dalton Trumbo would say if we could bring them back from the dead. ..."
"... "Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm." ..."
"... Ms. President is the closest facsimile to Lady Macbeth that American politics has been able to produce. She'd have murdered her own husband if she had thought succession would have fallen to her. As it was, the only thing that kept him alive was that she needed him for the run she had in mind for herself. The debris that this woman has left in her wake boggles the mind. That she came within a whisker of the job where she would perhaps have left the country in that debris field is a sobering thought to think about what American presidential politics has become in the 21st c. Alas, what passes for her failure and the Country's good fortune, her loved ones in the Arts are still not over. And so they are left commiserating and caterwauling over the Donald this, and the Donald that, while all this good material and their celebrity goes down the tube. Good riddance to them both. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on Drain the Swamp in 2016. The Swamp attempted to take him down with the Russia Collusion hoax that included Spygate and the Mueller special counsel investigation. ..."
In the wake of the latest Hollywood buffoonery displayed at the Oscars, I think it is time for the American public to denounce
in the strongest possible terms the rampant hypocrisy of sanctimonious cretins who make their living pretending to be someone other
than themselves. Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix and Barbara Streisand pop to mind as representative examples. All three are eager to
lecture the American public on the need for equality and non-discrimination. Yet, not one of the recipients of the
Oscar
gift bags worth $225,000 spoke out against that extraordinary excess nor demanded that the money spent purchasing these "gifts"
be used to benefit the poor and the homeless. Nope, take the money and run.
It is especially galling to see how the Hollywood Community has embraced the era of red-baiting Joseph McCarthy as the new
standard for what is acceptable. There was a time that a few brave souls in Hollywood (I am thinking Lucille Ball, Kirk Douglas and
Gregory Peck), spoke out against the blacklisting of actors, writers and directors for their past political ties to the Soviet Union.
Now I have lived long enough to see the so-called liberals in Hollywood rail against Donald Trump and his supporters as "agents
of Russia." Many in Hollywood, who weep crocodile tears over the abuses of the Hollywood Blacklist, are now doing the same damn thing
without a hint of irony.
If you are a film buff (and I consider myself one) you should be familiar with these great movies that remind the viewer of the
horrors visited upon actors, writers and directors during the Hollywood Blacklist:
The Front -- a 1976 comedy-drama film set against the Hollywood blacklist in the 1950s. It was written by Walter Bernstein,
directed by Martin Ritt, and stars Woody Allen and Zero Mostel.
Good Night, and Good Luck -- a 2005 historical drama film directed by George Clooney, tells the story of Edward R.
Murrow fighting back against the hysterical red-baiting of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Trumbo -- a 2015 American biographical drama film directed by Jay Roach that follows the life of Hollywood screenwriter
Dalton Trumbo, who was blacklisted but continued to write award winning movies in alias (e.g. Spartacus).
This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America. It was a period of time fed by fear and ignorance. While it is true that
there were Americans who identified as Communists and embraced the politics of the Soviet Union, we scared ourselves into believing
that communist subversion was everywhere and that America was teetering on the brink of being submerged in a red tide.
Thirty years ago I reflected on this era and wondered how such mass hysteria could happen. Now I know. We have lived with the
same kind of madness since Donald Trump was tagged as a Russian agent in the summer of 2016. And the irony is extraordinary. The
very same Hollywood elite that heaped opprobrium on Director Elia Kazan for naming names in Hollywood in front of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee, are now leading the charge in labeling anyone who dares speak out against the failed coup as "stooges" of the
Kremlin or Putin.
Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a
deviation from the norm. Clinton exemplifies the terrifying norm of the political and cultural elite in this country. Accusing political
opponents of being controlled by foreign enemies, real or imagined, is an old political tactic. Makes me wonder what Edward R. Murrow
or Dalton Trumbo would say if we could bring them back from the dead.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a vast understatement. You never could have convinced me 4 years ago that virtually all of my liberal
friends would have completely lost touch with reality due to their visceral hatred of one man.
It no longer matters if you agree with people on social policy, entitlements, student loans, homelessness, drug addiction or
even wealth distribution.
If you do not share their irrational hatred of Trump, you're going to be lambasted, shunned and treated like a pariah.
Hillary Clinton has become the poster child for the corruption that has captured and paralyzed our political parties and government
institutions. Why is she above prosecution? Is the corruption complete? Can we look to any individual or group to restore our
Republic? Wake me when the prosecutions begin.
"Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not
a deviation from the norm."
Ms. President is the closest facsimile to Lady Macbeth that American politics has been able to produce. She'd have murdered
her own husband if she had thought succession would have fallen to her. As it was, the only thing that kept him alive was that
she needed him for the run she had in mind for herself. The debris that this woman has left in her wake boggles the mind. That
she came within a whisker of the job where she would perhaps have left the country in that debris field is a sobering thought
to think about what American presidential politics has become in the 21st c. Alas, what passes for her failure and the Country's
good fortune, her loved ones in the Arts are still not over. And so they are left commiserating and caterwauling over the Donald
this, and the Donald that, while all this good material and their celebrity goes down the tube. Good riddance to them both.
I agree that HUAC's conduct was excessive but you really ought to show the other side of the coin as well.
Communism was genuinely awful. To this day we don't know how many people died, murdered by their own governments, in Soviet
Russia and Communist China.
The U. S. government was infiltrated at the very pinnacle of government (as in presidential advisors) by Soviet agents.
We know this from Kremlin documents.
We now know (based on Kremlin documents) that the American Communist Party was run by knowing Soviet agents and was funded
by the Soviet Union.
The motion picture industry had been heavily infiltrated by Communists including some actual Soviet agents (while Reagan
was head of SAG he rooted them out).
We resolved those issues the wrong way but they desperately needed to be resolved.
This is self-righteous baby boomer nonsense. It was a brief and slightly uncomfortable time for a handful of people in Hollywood,
after which the subversion of American culture and institutions chugged along merrily along to the present day.
But this episode has been re-purposed and often reduced to caricature as part of a long ideological project aimed at convincing
generations of otherwise intelligent white people that their past is a shameful parade of villains.
Kirk Douglas bravely defied the blacklist by giving Dalton Trumbo credit on Spartacus under his real name, effectively breaking
the blacklist.
I saw part of the Academy Awards and all I heard over and over again were the words race and gender, no female directors nominated.
On a side note, this being Black History month, teevee is usually filled with the appropriate programing. But because it is
the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Aushwitz the Jews are stealing the Blacks thunder by hogging the programming. When the
oppressed collide.
Just how big is the carbon footprint on a $225,000 swag bag? So nice to see Hollywood integrity in action. I wonder what the Bernie
Tax will be on them in 2021?
Chills run down my spine that you start your list with 'The Front'.
Woody Allen's 'The Front', a 'film noir' about the beast and about courage in trying to slay it, is an absolute masterpiece,
its end is unmeasurably spectacular and encouraging, and... somehow the movie never got the acclaim it deserves, and lives as
one of those quiet orphans.
But it is highly actual, and that is why you must have come to place it first.
Trump campaigned on Drain the Swamp in 2016. The Swamp attempted to take him down with the Russia Collusion hoax that included
Spygate and the Mueller special counsel investigation.
Rep. Devin Nunes uncovered many of the shenanigans while he investigated the claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
He implored Trump to use his prerogative as POTUS to declassify many documents and communications. Trump instead took the advice
of Rod Rosenstein acting as AG who initiated the Mueller investigation and did not declassify. He then passed the buck to AG Barr,
who has yet to declassify.
The question that needs to be asked in light of this: Is Trump a conman who has duped the electorate with Drain the Swamp as
he has not used his exclusive powers of classification to present to the voter all the documents and communications about the
actions of law enforcement and intelligence agencies relating to claims about Russian influence operations during the 2016 election?
Blue Peacock, the question that needs to be asked is do you blow your wad all at once on one play. Or do you drip, drip, drip
it out strategically. I suggest the latter in this endless game of gotcha politics. Yes, Trump is a con man. That is how he made
his billions - selling sizzle. One quality that does translate well into the political arena. No one is surprised - his life has
been on the front pages for decades.
The only newly revealed quality that I find remarkable is his remarkable staying power - the most welcome quality of all. It
takes ego maniacs to play this game. Surprised anyone still thinks politics is an avocation for normal people. It isn't. And we
the people are the ones that demand this to be the case.
I left the american sh*thole a long time ago and my choice never felt better. I look forward to seeing 50% of americans trying
to slaughter the other 50% over socialism. Here we're doing just fine with socialist medecine, and social programs for just about
everyting. The Commons are still viable where common sense resides... Oligarchs love cartels, socialism and piratization: it's
all about privatizing the gains and socializing the losses to the hoi polloi.
I wonder if Hollywood knows how small some of the audiences in actual movie theaters are now. It's always surprising to me that
I am sitting in almost empty theaters now when I decide I want actual movie theater popcorn and so will pay to watch a movie that
I have read about and heard about from friends who have already seen the movie. I don't attend unless I've heard good things from
my friends about the movie.
I am constantly surprised that some people even consider watching the Oscars now. I feel the same about professional sports.
You would be surprised at how good high school plays are and how good high school bands, orchestras, choirs are. The tickets
are cheap, and a person actually gets to greet the performers.
I feel the same about my local university (my Alma Mater). It's Performing Arts departments are excellent. As a student long
ago, my student pass allowed me to attend wonderful performances.
The Glory Days of Hollywood are no more. The actors and directors need to be humbled by having to go to towns across the country
to see how sparse the audience in a movie theater is now. It's not at all as I remember as a child when there were long lines
at the ticket window.
"... Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes ..."
"There is a kind of character in thy life, That to the observer doth thy history, fully unfold."
– William Shakespeare
Once again we find ourselves in a situation of crisis, where the entire world holds its breath all at once and can only wait to
see whether this volatile black cloud floating amongst us will breakout into a thunderstorm of nuclear war or harmlessly pass us
by. The majority in the world seem to have the impre
WATCH: DC Police unleash on 'Black House autonomous
zone' protesters, fulfilling Trump's vow to use 'serious force'
FILE PHOTO December 01, 2017 Gen. Michael Flynn, former national
security adviser to US President Donald Trump, leaves Federal Court in Washington, DC © AFP /
Brendan Smialowski
Follow RT on
Trump 'strongly considering' Michael Flynn pardon,
points at FBI 'conveniently losing' his records
Share 
Copy
Print Related Articles
We are Better off Empowering Nations, Rather than Bombing them To create peace and
stability in other nations, we must elevate their people to ... by Daniel Khashabi
The Opportunity Cost of Endless War is Missing From the Democratic Debates Foreign policy
has been largely absent in the Democratic presidential debates . ... by Eli Clifton We're
starting to end endless war in Afghanistan, now let's do Iraq An attack this week on an
Iraqi base that killed two U.S. service members, and t... by Sarah Leah Whitson More from
Stephen Wertheim Endless War January 7, 2020 Trump Has No
Strategy in the Middle East, Only Vengeance Hawks hated the Iran nuclear deal because they
feared not that it would fail to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, but that it would succeed
-- and thereby deprive the United States of a rationale to dominate the region and discipline
its foe. by Stephen Wertheim 
